investigation of prediction techniques for acid mine...
TRANSCRIPT
INVESTIGATION OFPREDICTION TECHNIQUES FOR
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
MEND Project 1.16.la
November 1989
INVESTIGATION OF
PREDICTION TECHNIQUES FOR
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Final Reportby
COASTECH RESEARCH INC.
80 Niobe StreetWest Vancouver, B.C. V7J 2C9
Work on the project was conducted under the auspices of theCanada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology,
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada.
DSS File No.DSS Contract Serial No.CANMET Scientific Authority:
30SQ.23440-7-917823440-7-9178/01SQMr. G.M. Ritcey
November 1989
INVESTIGATION OFPREDICTION TECHNIQUES FOR
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
COASTECH RESEARCH INC80 Niobe Street
North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 2C9
Coastech ResearchPrincipal Investigator
PresidentCoastech Research
G.W. Poling /University of vBritish ColumbiaProject Consultant
COASTECH
TABLE OF CONYJXNTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
SUMMARY V
RÉSUMÉ vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Terms of Reference 11.2 Background 11.3 Scope of Project 2
2.0 EVALUATION OF AMD PREDICTION TECHNIQUES : 3METHODOLOGY .
2.1 Prediction Procedures 32.2 Participating Laboratories 92.3 Samples and Sample Preparation 102.4 Sample and Test Product Analyses 102.5 Head Assays and Mineralogy : Results 132.6 Field Data 1s
3.0 EVALUATION OF AMD PREDICTION TECHNIQUES :RESULTS
3.13.23.3
3.43.53.63.73.83.93.103.11
B.C. Research Initial TestAcid - Base AccountingAlkaline Production Potential :Sulphur RatioHydrogen Peroxide TestNet Acid ProductionB.C. Research Confirmation TestModified Confirmation TestHumidity Cell TestsShake Flask TestSoxhlet Extraction TestsCarbonate Pressure Analysis
i
Paae
iii
iv
16
1620
262831333s37394144
COASTECH
4.0 FIELD DATA
5.0 COMPARISON OF PREDICTION TECHNIQUES 48
5.1 Static Methods 485.2 Kinetic Methods 515.3 Overall Comparison 53
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX 1 :
APPENDIX 2 :
APPENDIX 3 :
APPENDIX 4 :
APPENDIX 5 :
APPENDIX 6 :
APPENDIX 7 :
APPENDIX 8 :
APPENDIX 9 :
APPENDIX 10 :
APPENDIX 11 :
APPENDIX 12 :
Sulphur species and ICP analysesfor tailing and waste rock samples
Mineralogical report on tailing andwaste rock samples
B.C. Research Initial Test data
Acid-Base Accounting data
Alkaline Production Potential data
Hydrogen Peroxide Test data
Net Acid Production Test data
Humidity Cell Test data
Shake Flask Test data
Soxhlet Extraction Test data
Carbonate Pressure Analysis report
Questionnaire sent to, and field datafrom, participating mining companies
ii
Paae
46
55
59
COASTECH
LIST OF TABLES
1. Tailing and waste rock samples received at Coastech forAMD prediction tests
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Screen analysis of tailing and waste rock samples
Sulphur analyses for tailing and waste rock samples
B.C. Research Initial Test results
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Acid-Base Account test : standard procedure
Acid-Base Accounting : comparison of neutralizationpotential (NP) and Net NP obtained by different methods
Alkaline Production Potential results
Estimation of pyrite contents by Hydrogen Peroxide Test
Net Acid Production Test results
B.C. Research Confirmation Test results
Coastech Biological Oxidation Test results
Humidity Cell Tests : final cycle leachate analyses
Shake Flask Tests : final leachate analyses
Soxhlet Extraction Test results (tailing)
Soxhlet Extraction Tests results (waste rock)
Carbonate Pressure Analysis : summary of results
Summary of field behaviours of tailing and wastesamples selected for AMD prediction tests
rock
18. Summary of the results of static prediction procedures
19. Summary of the results of kinetic prediction procedures
20. Comparison of AMD prediction procedures
iii
1 COASTECH
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
6 .
B.C. Researchsamples
B.C. Researchsamples
LIST OF FIGURES
Initial Test. Acid
Initial Test. Acid titration : waste rock 1
Acid-Base Account titrationsand WAT
: tailing samples
Acid-Base Account titrationsand WMT
l tailing samples EST KLT NBT.
Acid-Base Account titrations : waste rock samples
Example of reaction curves(ESWR)
for Hydrogen Peroxide Test
iV
titration : t a i l i n g
ELT HST
COASTECH
SUMMARY
A laboratory test program has been carried out to evaluateand compare methods to predict the formation of acid minedrainage (AMD) in mine wastes, to evaluate the reliability ofthe methods in predicting actual field behaviour at minesites,and to recommend prediction methods most suitable forlaboratory and field use. Methods evaluated included statictests and kinetic tests. The following documented predictionprocedures were studied:
B.C. Research Initial TestAcid Base AccountingAlkaline Production Potential : Sulphur Ratio TestHydrogen Peroxide Test for Pyrite EstimationB.C Research Confirmation TestHumidity Cell TestShake Flask Weathering TestSoxhlet Extraction TestManometric Carbonate Pressure Analysis
In addition, three other tests, modified from the originalprocedure or developed during the study were evaluated :
Modified Acid Base AccountingNet Acid Production TestModified Biological Confirmation Test
Evaluation of the above tests was carried out byperforming each procedure on each of eight tailing samples andfour waste rock samples from Canadian mines. This reportpresents all of the data produced in the evaluations andprovides discussion on each method and its performance relativeto the other tests of similar procedure and objective.
From the results of the study it is concluded thatconfident prediction of acid mine drainage is not likely to beachieved in a single test. Static tests are recommended for usefor initial screening of samples, followed by some form ofkinetic weathering test to confirm the initial prediction andto provide drainage quality and kinetic data. Several staticand kinetic tests were shown to provide credible prediction offield AMD behaviour. Choice of method can be made on the basisof the comparison of simplicity, time required, equipment
V
COASTECH
required, cost, ease of interpretation and correlation with thefield data. Results indicate that the mode of waste depositionin the field can also affect the choice of test used. Sometests were shown to be unrealistic in their methodology. Inother cases, data obtained was believed to be unreliable ordifficult to interpret.
Changes to established procedures have been suggested andrecommended to facilitate performance and interpretation ofcertain existing test methods, and/or to improve the accuracyof AMD prediction. In addition, recommendations have been madefor further research, development, and evaluation of existingand new methods to provide more reliable procedures andequipment for confident AMD prediction in the future.
vi
COASTECH
Un programme d'essais a ete execute en laboratoire afind'évaluer et de comparer les methodes de prevision du drainageminier acide (DMA) dans les dechets miniers, d'évaluer lafiabilite des methodes de prevision de l'effet reel sur leterrain, dans des sites miniers, et de recommander les methodesde prevision les plus pertinentes pour des applications enlaboratoire et sur le terrain. Les methodes évalueescomprennent les essais statigues et cinétigues. L'étude a Portésur les mdthodes suivantes de prevision, lesquelles methodesétaient etayees de documents :
Essai initial de B.C. ResearchDetermination des acides-basesEssai d'établisement du ratio Soufre:Potentiel de
production alcalineEssai au peroxyde d'hydrogène afin de determiner la
presence de pyriteEssai de confirmation de B.C. ResearchEssai de cellules humidesEssai de désagrégation par agitation dans un
recipientEssai d'extraction à l'aide d'un appareil SoxhletAnalyse de la pression manometrigue des carbonates
De plus, trois autres essais modifies par rapport a la methodeoriginale ou élaborée au tours de l'étude ont été évalués,notamment :
La determination modifiee des acides-basesL'essai de production nette d'acidesL'essai modifie de confirmation biologigue
L'évaluation des assais susmentionnes a été faite parl'application de chaque methode a chacun des huit echantillonsde stériles et des guatre echantillons de dechets de rocheprovenant de mines canadiennes. Ce rapport presente toutes lesdonnes obtenues des evaluations et examine chaque methode etson efficacite en regard des autres essais de methodessemblables et d'objectifs similaires.
Les resultats de l'etude permettent de conclure gu'iln'est guere probable p'obtenir d'un seul essai des previsionsfiables du drainage minier acide. 11 est recommandd d'effecteurdes essais statiques pour faire une premiere sklection des
vii
COASTECH
enchantillons puis de realiser une certaine forme d'essaicinetigue de déségrégation afin de confirmer les premieresprevisions et de produire des donndes gualitatives etcinetigues sur le drainage. L'expérience a montre gue plusieursessais cinetigues et statigues permettaient d'obtenir desprevision crédibles du comportement du DMA sur le terrain. Lamethode a utiliser peut être choisie par comparaison de lasimplicité, des délais necessaires, de l'équipment exigé, descoûts a supporter, de la facilité d'interprétation et de lacorrelation avec les donnees obtenues sur le terrain. Lesresultats montrent gue la methode d'élimation des dechets surle terrain peut egalement influer sur le choix de la methode deprevision. Certains essais se sont révéles irréalistes guant àleur méthodologie. Dans d'autres cas, on était d'avis gue lesdonnées obtenues n'etaient pas fiables ou qu'elles posaient desdifficulté d'interprétation.
Des changements aux procédures établies ont été proposé oùrecommandés afin d'améliorer l'efficacité de certaines méthodesexistantes d'essais, de faciliter l'interprétation des donnéeset d'améliorer la précision des prévisions du DMA ou les deux.De plus, des recommendations ont été formulées en vue depoursuivre la researche, le developpement et l'évaluation desméthodes existantes ou nouvelles afin de fournir des méthodeset de l'équipement plus fiables pennettant de faire desprévisions sûres du DMA au tours des années a venir.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report wishassistance, advice and support of Keith
to acknowledge the IFerguson, Environment
Canada, and Gordon Ritcey, CANMET, throughout the conceptionand performance of the study. We also wish to thank FrankCarrucio for useful discussions during the study, and thoselaboratories that participated in the work. Thanks are also dueto Shelley Jaffe, Environmental Technician, Coastech Research,for her excellent technical support in carrying out many of thetest procedures. Finally, the financial support of Energy,Mines and Resources, Canada, through Supply and Services,Canada, is also gratefully acknowledged.
ix II
COASTECH I
INVESTIGATION OF PREDICTION TECHNIQUESFOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
Coastech Research Inc, North Vancouver, B.C., has beenawarded a contract by the Supply and Services Canada to carryout an investigation to evaluate and compare the laboratorymethods used to predict acid mine drainage. This report hasbeen completed in accordance with the terms of DSS ContractSerial No. 23440-7-9178/01-SQ.
1.2 Background
The disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes canhave a significant environmental impact. Acidity and associatedheavy metal contamination in run-off and seepage water fromwaste rock and tailings containing the sulphide minerals pyriteand/or pyrrhotite is a common problem to mining operationsthroughout the world. Millions of dollars are spent annually inCanada alone for acid mine drainage (AMD) remediation. As yet,there are no means to provide certainty for the long termeffectiveness in the reduction of contaminant levels so thatmines can be safely abandoned after production ceases.Considerable research is ongoing nationally and internationallyto find techniques to prevent or control acid generation.
For new mines and new developments in existing operations,it is necessary to characterize tailings and waste rockmaterials prior to production to predict if AMD will begenerated. Accurate prediction would reduce environmentaldamage and costs to the industry by allowing the implementationof sound waste management practices to both prevent acidgeneration and to maximize containment and treatment if AMDcannot be avoided. Regulatory agencies are now requiringverification that waste materials have been characterized andthat AMD control measures will be implemented before permitsare issued.
Several AMD prediction techniques have been developed andare used in Canada and the United States by commerciallaboratories, research organizations and regulatoryauthorities. In general, predictive techniques include statictests which examine the balance between acid producing and acid
1
COASTECH
consuming materials, and kinetic tests which attempt to predictdrainage quality over time. However, the relative effectivenessof the various techniques is unclear. Moreover, some techniqueswere developed for coal mines in the United States and mightnot be suitable for characterizing base metal mine wastesproduced in Canada.
1 . 3 Scope of Project
The
1)
objectives of this project were as follows:
to investigate the advantages and disadvantages ofcurrent acid mine drainage prediction techniques onthe basis of simplicity, resources required, ease ofinterpretation, value of data, cost, and timerequired,
2) to evaluate the reliability of prediction techniquesin forecasting actual field behaviour by correlatingthe laboratory data obtained from the predictiontechnique evaluation with minesite drainage qualitydata,
3) to recommend prediction methods most suitable forparticular wastes and tailings for both laboratoryand field use.
The project involved the assessment of 11 predictiontechniques, each technique being used on 4 waste rock and 8tailings samples from Canadian metalliferous/base metal mines.The prediction techniques were evaluated in the Coastechlaboratories and at other laboratories recognized for theirexpertise at carrying out a specific procedure. In addition,each mine supplying samples for the test program were asked tosupply data on the samples and on the AMD status at theminesite.
2
L COASTECH I
2.0 EVALUATION OF AMD PREDICTION TECHNIQUES : METHODOLOGY
2.1 Prediction Procedures
Eleven AMD prediction techniques were evaluated. Theliterature reference and brief description of each techniquefollows. Further descriptions of each procedure as required tosupplement or clarify the published method are given in Section3.
Direct comparison of the published methods can sometimesbe confusing as different units and definitions of terms areused. In presenting the results of each procedure evaluated inthis study, the calculation and presentation of data hasgenerally been done in accordance with the published orrecommended method. Where considered necessary, data have alsobeen calculated and presented using standard units so thatcomparison between methods is facilitated.
A standard convention adopted for comparison in thisreport is to express the potential for a sample to generate orconsume acid in terms of kg CaC03 equivalent per tonne of wasteor tailing. The difference between the acid productionpotential and the acid consumption (or neutralization)potential is expressed as the Net Neutralization Potential (NetNP) so that :
Net NP = Neutralization Potential - Acid Production Potential
In the standard convention, a positive value for the Net NPindicates that a sample is a net consumer of acid.
The neutralization potential (NP) is usually determined bydetermining the amount of standard acid consumed by a knownweight of the sample and by calculating this amount on thebasis of CaCO3 equivalent.
The acid producing potential (AP) of a sample is usuallycalculated from the sulphur (or sulphide sulphur) content ofthe waste or tailing and expressed on the basis of calciumcarbonate equivalent as follows :
AP = S% x 31.25 kg CaC03 equiv./t
3
COASTECH
2 . 1 . 1 B.C. Research Initial Test
Ref : Duncan and Bruynesteyn, 1979.
This test is static test which aims to provide aquantitative measure of the net acid production potential of asample by comparing the maximum acid potential based on thestoichiometry of complete sulphur oxidation with the capacityof the sample to consume acid. The test uses direct sulphuricacid titration from the natural pH of a slurry containing thefinely ground sample of waste rock or tailing at roomtemperature to an endpoint of pH 3.5 to determine the acidconsumption for calculation of the neutralization potential.The pH of 3.5 is chosen as it is considered that this valuerepresents the limit to biological oxidative activity. The NPvalue obtained by acid titration is compared with thetheoretical AP, expressed in kg H2S04/t, calculated from thetotal sulphur analysis to provide an l'yes/not' assessment of theacid generating potential of the sample. The method usuallyreports only the final acid consumption to the endpoint pH. Inthis study, titration curves showing acid consumption as afunction of time were also prepared.
2.1.2. Acid - Base Accounting
Ref: Sobek et al., 1978.
This is a static test similar in objective to the aboveprocedure but which is based on the addition of excesshydrochloric acid, heating to ensure complete reaction, andtitrating the unconsumed acid with sodium hydroxide to pH 7.0.Determination of the volume and normality of acid to be used inthe digestion is based on a so-called fizz test in which thecarbonate content of a sample is estimated by observing theintensity of the reaction between a small quantity of thesample and strong hydrochloric acid. Determination of the pastepH of each sample is also carried out.
The calculation of the acid producing potential in thereferenced method is based on the total sulphur analysis. Inthis project, the net NP calculated using both total sulphurand sulphidic sulphur analyses were determined.
A modification of the Sobek et al method used routinely atCoastech was also evaluated for comparison. In this method, thehydrochloric acid digestion procedure is conducted for 24 hours
4
COASTECH d
at ambient temperature.sulphur analysis.
AP is determined from the sulphide
2.1.3 Alkaline Production Potential : Sulphur Ratio
Ref: Caruccio et al., 1981.
The alkaline productionis determined by measuring
potential (APP) value of a samplethe hydrochloric acid (20 mL of
O.lN) consumed by 500 mg of the finely ground sample (-23 urn)in 2 hours at room temperature and comparing the consumptionvalue with the acid consumption obtained for calcium carbonatestandards. Acid consumption is determined by back titration ofthe excess acid to an endpoint of pH 5.0. APP is expressed asmg CaC03 per 500 mg of sample.
The originators of this technique use the APP valuesobtained for a number of samples from related geologic unitsand plot values against total sulphur contents to provide anAPP : S ratio plot. By comparing the plot with simulatedweathering tests such as humidity cells, a series of weatheringcharts can be generated which relate the chemical weatheringcharacteristics of the samples to the APP:S ratios. Forsubsequent assessments, the APP:S ratio can be used to providea rapid indication of the potential of a sample for acidproduction without the need for a moreweathering test.
time-consumingSince only one sample from each mine location
was tested in this program, the APP:S ratios obtained do notprovide a value of any particular significance.
2.1.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Test
Ref: Finkelman and Giffin, 1986.
The purpose of the hydrogen peroxide test is to determinethe amount of pyrite in a sample by comparing the rate of thechemical oxidation reaction of the sample with hydrogenperoxide, by measuring the rate of change of pH of the samplesin contact with the reagent, to a standard curve prepared byobserving the rates of reaction of standards of known pyritecontent.
In this study, the change of temperature during the
5
COASTECH
reaction was also monitored and the results compared with thetemperature profiles obtained for the pyrite standards.
2.1.5 Net Acid Production Test
Ref: Albright, 1987Lutwick, 1988Lawrence et al, 1988
This test was developed at Coastech for the program andwas based on a concept referred to in the Albright referenceand following discussions with G.D. Lutwick.
The method uses the addition of hydrogen peroxide tooxidize sulphides contained in the test sample. All or part ofthe acid generated by the oxidation is consumed by the alkalineconstituents in the sample. The net acid remaining afterreaction is determined by titration to pH 7.0 to provide adirect assessment of the net acid production potential of thesample expressed as kg CaC03 equivalent per tonne of sample.This value can be compared with the Net NP value from acid-baseaccounting.
2.1.6 B.C.
Ref:
Research Confirmation Test
Duncan and Bruynesteyn, 1979.
This test is a kinetic, biological oxidation test designedto determine if sulphide oxidizing bacteria can produce moreacid from oxidation of pyrite in the sample than can beconsumed by an equal quantity of the sample.
The test involves inoculating a pre-acidified (pH 2.0-2.4)pulp containing the test sample with an active culture ofbacteria such as T. ferrooxidans. The pulp pH is monitored andthe test is terminated when oxidation ceases as indicated bythe attainment of a stable pH. An equivalent weight to theoriginal sample is then added in two increments after 24 and 48hours and the pH is measured 24 hours after each addition. Ifthe pH is above 3.5. at either point, the sample is classifiedas a non-acid producer. If the final pH remains below 3.5 apotential for the generation of AMD is indicated. Typically,the test requires 3 to 4 weeks for completion.
6
2.1.7 Modified Confirmation Test
Ref : Lawrence and Sadeghnobari, 1986.
In addition to the tests carried out at B.C. Research, asimilar procedure used routinely at Coastech was run onselected samples for comparison. This procedure differs fromthe B.C. Research test in that the weight of sample used isgenerally smaller and is dependent on the sulphide sulphurcontent. In addition, once reaction is complete and theadditional sample has been added, if the pH is still below 3.5,then sodium hydroxide is added equivalent to the acid which wasadded initially to provide a suitable starting pH. This is doneto remove the bias towards an acid generating classificationthat the initial acidification procedure provides. Theclassification of the sample is then made on the usual criteriaof final pH. The sodium hydroxide addition is practiced sincethe initial acidification procedure can provide a bias towardsan acid-generating classification. For some samples, theinitial amount of acid to be added can be substantial and hasbeen found to significantly affect the final predictive result.
2.1.8 Humidity Cell
Ref: Sobek et
The humidity cell test
Test
al., 1 9 7 8 .
is a kinetic test which aims tomodel the processes of geochemical weathering of a mining wastematerial. A special apparatus is used to provide simple controlover air, temperature and moisture, while allowing for theremoval of oxidation products which are collected andmonitored.
The test procedure comprises subjecting a bed of thesample in a humidity cell to alternating cycles of dry air (3days), moist air (3 days), and leaching (1 day). The leachatesare then analyzed for a number of parameters including pH,redox (mV), acidity, alkalinity, sulphate, conductivity, anddissolved metals by ICP. The test generally is run for 10 weeksalthough a longer time period might be required to establishthe weathering characteristics of some samples.
The humidity cells used in this study provided dry andmoist air flows across the top of the bed of sample, and duringthe leach step. The solution was poured onto the top of the bed
7
COASTECH
and allowed to stand for 1 hour and then decanted off foranalysis.
2.1.9 Shake Flasks Test
Ref: Halbert et al., 1983.
The shake flask test as referenced is a kinetic test withthe same objectives as the humidity cell test. The tests arecarried out by leaching the waste samples in water inErlenmeyer flasks placed on a reciprocating shaker. In thisproject, 10 identically prepared flasks were set up for eachsample and one flask was removed for analysis of the totalleachate for each week of the test. Monitoring of the flasksand analysis of products was carried out in a similar manner tothe humidity cell test.
In the original referenced procedure, a 3 factor x 2 levelfactorial design was used to determine the effect oftemperature, initial pH, and the presence of bacteria onsulphate generation. In this study, only one test at roomtemperature was performed using 250 g sample (tailing asreceived, waste rock at -200 mesh) in 500 mL distilled waterwith no bacteria added.
2.1.10 Soxhlet Extraction Test
Ref: Singleton and Lavkulich, 1978Sullivan and Sobek, 1982.
This kinetic test is designed to simulate geochemicalweathering using Soxhlet apparatus. Two procedures wereevaluated as referenced: one with the calibrated Singleton andLavkulich soxhlet, using both acetic acid and distilled wateras leachate, and one with a modification described by Sullivanand Sobek using distilled water. In the former method, the testsample is leached with hot acetic acid or water (70 OC). Themodified method uses a different soxhlet arranqement so thatthe temperature of the leachate is reduced (25 OC).
8
COASTECH
2.1.11 Manometric Carbonate Pressure Analysis
Ref: Evangelou et al, 1895.
The presence of carbonates in a pyritic mine waste doesnot necessarily mean that these carbonates will be totallyavailable to neutralize acidity generated from pyriteoxidation. The manometric carbonate technique attempts todetermine the rates of reaction of carbonates present in asample including calcite, dolomite and siderite. The techniquemeasures the rates of dissolution of the carbonates inhydrochloric acid by measuring the pressure of CO2 evolved andclaims to be able to differentiate and quantify the threecarbonate species. This allows the prediction of theeffectiveness of the waste in neutralizing or controlling AMD.
2.2 Participating Laboratories
The test procedures described in Section 2.1 were carriedout in the laboratories listed below.
B.C. Research Initial TestB.C. Research Confirmation Test
Lab: B.C. Research, Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: Dr. R.O. McElroy
Soxhlet Extraction
Lab: Department of Soil Science, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: Dr. L.M. Lavkulich
Manometric Carbonate Pressure Analysis
Lab: Department of Agronomy, University ofKentucky, Lexington, KY.
Contact: Dr. V.P. Evangelou
9
COASTECH 1
Acid-Base AccountAlkaline Production Potential : S RatioHydrogen PeroxideNet Acid ProductionModified Confirmation TestHumidity CellsShake Flasks
Lab: Coastech Research, North Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: Dr. R.W. Lawrence
2.3 Samples and Sample Preparation
2 barrels containing samples of tailing and waste rock,and 1 bucket of tailings, shipped by CANMET, Ottawa, werereceived at Coastech on 28 January, 1988. Table 1 gives detailsof the individual samples received.
Tailing samples were air dried, thoroughly mixed, andriffle split into appropriate sized sub-samples for assay,mineralogical analysis, screen analysis, and provision of testmaterial to participating laboratories.
Waste rock samples were cone crushed to minus 6 mm andriffle split to provide approximately 2 kg sub-samples. Onesub-sample of each waste rock was wet ground for a short timein a laboratory rod mill to approximately 2 mm. The groundmaterial was air dried and further riffle split to providesamples for humidity cell testing. A further sub-sample was rodmilled to approximately 80 percent 200 mesh (Tyler), air driedand riffle split to provide samples for asSay, screen analysis,and for the remaining prediction procedurtas at participatinglaboratories. A representative sub-sample of minus 6 mmmaterial was submitted for mineralogical analysis.
rockThe results of screen analyses for each tailing and wastesample are given in Table 2.
2.4 Sample and Test Product Analyses
Each tailing and waste rock sample was analyzed forsulphur species, multi-element, and mineralogy as follows:
1 0
COASTECH 1
Table 1. Tailing and Waste Rock Saaples Receivedfor AMD Prediction Tests
COMPANY / MINE
II CANMET COASTECH
COOE 1 Date Revd. Moisture (X) Weight (kg)
TAILING :Curragh - YukonElliot Lake Puirke - Ont.Equity Silver - B.C.Heath Steele - N-6.Key Lake - Sask.Noranda Bell - B.C.Uaite Armlet -Uestmin - B.C.
UASTE ROCK :Curragh - YukonEquity Silver - B.C.Heath Steele - N.B.INCO - Ont.
CUT
ELTESTHST
KLT
NET
UAT
WT
ESYR
HSUR
I NUR:
I
(1987)late JIM22 Jut18 Nov15 Dee21 Aug02 Nov20 JUl02 Dee
Late Jun 0.0 24.018 Nov 0.0 24.015 Dee 0.0 24.010 Aug 0.0 24.0
2.4 30.023.4 30.022.1 30.016.1 31.044.5 36.025.9 29.59.5 27.0
25.8 31.0
I
11
COASTECH I
Table 2. Screen Analyses for Tailing andCrushed Uaste Rock Samles
SAMPLEX MINUS X MINUS X MINUS
200 MESH 16 MESH l 16 MESH **
Tailing :
VAT 40.5CLIT 85.9HST 92.1\blT 98.5EST 65.3ELT 22.5NET 61.0KLT 58.0
Waste Rock :
INUR 72.0 90.4ESUR 51.0 76.0CLJUR 65.0 87.6HSUR 55.0 72.8
t Uaste rock samples for hunidity cells* Waste rock samples for remaining procedures
12
COASTECH
Total sulphur by Leco, sulphate sulphur by hydrochloricacid digestion/gravimetry, and sulphate + sulphide sulphurby nitric acid digestion were done in duplicate at ChemexLaboratories, North Vancouver, B.C.
Multi element analyses by inductively coupled argon plasmaspectroscopy (ICP) of tailing and waste rock samples werecarried out at Chemex Laboratories.
Microscopic examination of the test sample to provideapproximate mineralogical composition by modal analysis,and a description of mineral occurrences andrelationships, was performed by Vancouver PetrographicsLtd. (Dr. J.F. Harris), Fort Langley, B.C.
Leachates produced from humidity cell, shake flask andsoxhlet extraction tests were analyzed for pH, redox (mV),conductivity, acidity/alkalinity, sulphate, and multi-elementby ICP as follows:
For humidity cell and shake flask tests, pH, redox (mVSCE), conductivity, acidity/alkalinity, and sulphate weredetermined at Coastech Research using standard procedures(Standard Methods, 1981).
For soxhlet extraction tests, pH and conductivity weredetermined in the Department of Soil Science , Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Multi-element analyses by ICP for leachates from humiditycells, shake flasks, and soxhlets were carried out byAnalytical Services Laboratories Ltd. (ASL), Vancouver,B.C. Detection limits for the ICP analyses are shown inAppendix 1.
2.5 Head Assays and Mineralogy : Results
The results of the sulphur species analyses (mean ofduplicate analyses) for the tailing and waste rock samples aregiven in Table 3.1.
Assay certificates are provided in Appendix
Multi-elementin Appendix 1.
ICP analysis certificates are also provided
13
COASTECH
Table 3. Sulphur Analyses for Tailing and Uaste Rock Samples
SAMPLE S(Total) S(Sulphate) S(Sulphide) Scother)*(X) (X) (XI (X1
Tailing :
CUT 24.95 0.14 24.21 0.60ELT 3.79 0.22 3.28 0.29EST 3.40 0.06 3.11 0.24HST 39.90 1.04 38.05 0.81KLT 4.68 4.21 0.39 0.08NBT 2.99 0.04 2.59 0.36UAT 13.00 0.24 12.74 0.03WT 22.90 0.36 22.13 0.41
Uaste Rock :
CUUR 8.66 0.03 8.19 0.44EWR 19.10 0.04 19.73 -0.67HSUR 6.12 0.03 5.89 0.20INUR 0.69 0.02 0.20 0.48
l S (other) may be baritic or elemental sutphur andis calculated from S(T) - S(SC%) - S(S=)
14
COASTECH
The mineralogical report by Vancouver Petrographics Ltd isprovided in Appendix 2. The report includes a Summary andindividual descriptions of each tailing and waste rock sample.
2.6 Field Data
Each mining company supplying tailing and waste rocksamples for the test program were requested to supplyinformation on the sample, its origin, AMD characteristics atsite, and other pertinent information, for comparison with theprediction technique data obtained in the laboratory.
A COPY of the letter and questionnaire sent to eachparticipating company is provided in Appendix 12.
1.5
COASTECH i
3.6 EVALUATION OF AMD PREDICTION TECHNIQUES : RESULTS
3.1 B.C. Research Initial Test
The results of the B.C. Research Initial Test acidtitrations are provided in Appendix 3. A summary of theresults, showing the acid consumption and theoretical acid-producing potentials calculated from the total sulphuranalyses, is given in Table 4. Titration curves for thetailing and waste rock samples showing acid consumption (kgH2S04/tonne) vs time are presented in Figures 1 and 2respectively. Some of these graphs show that, for some samples,there was more than one stage of reaction, indicated by changesin the rate of acid consumption. This could suggest that somesamples contain different types of alkaline components whichconsume acid at different rates.
All samples, with the exception of tailing sample NBT,were classified as potential acid producers by this testprocedure. Samples NBT (acid producer) and INWR (acid consumer)were marginal in their classification, having net acidpotential values very close to zero.
16 I
Table 4. B.C. Research Initial Test results
ISAMPLE I INITIAL PERCENT ACID * ACID l NET ACID l ACID
I PH SULPHUR POTENTIAL CONSUMPTION POTENTIAL PRODUCER ?
TAILING : CUT I 4.5 24.95 763.5 26.4 737.1 YESELT 1 7.2 3.79 116.0 21.6 94.4 YESEST 1 a.2 3.40 104.0 27.7 76.3 YESHST 1 3 .8 39.90 1220.9 3.4 1217.5 YESKLT 1 a.8 4.68 143.2 98.5 44.7 YESNETVATUFlT
WASTE ROCK :CUURESUR
a.4 2.99 91.5 96.5 -5.0 NO3.1 13.00 397.8 1.0 396.8 YES5.8 22.90 700.7 22.3 678.4 YES
7.8 a.66 265.0 38.5 226.5 YES4.9 19.10 584.5 10.8 573.7 YES
HSUR 1 6.6 6.12 187.3 29.4 157.9 YESINUR 1 7.3 0.69 21.1 13.9 7.2 YES
* Potentials and consunptions expressed in kg H2SO4 /tonnePositive values indicate the potential for AHD
17
COASTECH
Acid Consumption (kg/t)6 0
50
4 0
3 0
2 0
10
................. ......
............................
r
- CUWR
i - E S W R
+i+ HSWR
* INWR
J
Time (h)
Fig.2 BC Research Initial TestAcid Titration : Waste Rock Samples
Acid Consumption (kg/t)
,..
.
- CUT.._..................... .._ .._ .__...._._........ + E LT
+i+ E S T
-+- N B T
-if- W H T
x.-
Time (h)
Fig. 1 BC Research Initial TestAcid Titration : Tail ing Samples
3.2 Acid - Base Accounting
Acid-Base Account testing was carried out in duplicate onall tailing and waste rock samples according to the standardprocedure (hot digestion: total sulphur analysis). The resultsof these tests are given in Table 5.
Results of the neutralization potential and net NP valuesobtained for the standard procedure (Method A) are comparedwith values calculated using sulphide sulphur instead of totalsulphur analyses (Method B) and with values obtained withmodified procedures (Methods C and D) in Table 6.
In the modified procedures, the acid digestion was carriedout at ambient temperatures for 24 hours on a reciprocatingshaker on selected (3 tailing and 1 waste rock) samples. ForMethod C, the volume and strength of hydrochloric acid used waschosen on the same basis of the fizz test observation as in thestandard procedure. In Method D, different volumes andstrengths of acid were chosen.
The acid-base accounting test data for the four methodsare provided in Appendix 4. This includes the back-titrationdata for which curves plotting neutralization potential values(calculated from the acid consumption data) as a function of pHare shown in Figures 3 - 5 for the standard procedure.
The standard procedure classified all samples of tailingand waste rock as potential acid producers. Samples NBT andINWR were marginal in their classification, having Net NPvalues close to zero. Using the standard procedure butcalculating AP on the basis of sulphide sulphur analyseschanged the classification of samples KLT, NBT and INWR to netacid consumers. For KLT, the change in Net NP was large due tothe high sulphate sulphur content of the tailing.
The modified procedures, using an ambient temperaturedigestion, produced a tendency towards more positive Net NPvalues (more acid-consuming). This was unexpected as it shows agreater reactivity of the alkaline components at the lowertemperature. It could be expected that the hot digestion canlead to the overestimation of NP by the measuring and equatingpoorly-neutralizing carbonates such as siderite or other rocktypes, marginally reactive with acid at ambient temperatures,with effective alkalinity-producers such as limestone ordolomite.
20
COASTECH
Table 5. Acid-Base Account test : standard procedure (in duplicate, A and 8))
SAMPLEII PASTE TOTAL ACID NEUTRALIZATION NET NEUTRALIZATION
PH SULPHUR POTENTIAL POTENTIAL POTENTIAL(r.1 (*I A (*I B (') A (*I B (*I
TAILING : ICUTELTESTHSTKLTNETUATUMT
4.76 24.95 785.9 12.5 12.4 -773.4 -773.56.79 3.79 119.4 0.3 0.1 -119.1 -119.37.68 3.40 107.1 53.2 24.5 -53.9 -82.62.68 39.90 1256.9 -18.4 -18.8 -1275.3 -1275.78.50 4.68 147.4 51.5 50 -95.9 -97.47.34 2.99 94.2 87.4 87.9 -6.8 -6.32.92 13.00 409.5 1.1 -0.5 -408.4 -410.05.35 22.90 721.4 43.5 -3.9 -677.9 -725.2
WASTE ROCK :CUURESURHSUR
7.164.335.85
8.6619.106.12
272.8601.7192.8
100.9 93.44.6 5.5
13.5 14.3
-171.9-597.1-179.3
-179.4-596.2-178.5I
I NUR I 7.05 0.69 21.7 14.0 12.8 -7.7 -8.9
* Potentials expressed in kg calciun carbonate equivalentper tonne of sample
21
COASTECH
Table 6. Acid-Base Accounting : comparison of neutralization potential (NP)and Net NP obtained bv different methods
SAMPLESTANDARD METHOD (A) METHOO (B)
HP NET HP NP NET NP
METHOD (C)
NP NET NP
METHOD (D)
NP NET NP
TAILING : ICUT I 12.5ELT 1 0.2EST 1 38.9HST 1 -18.6 .KLT 1 50.8NBT 1 87.7VAT 1 0.3@JT I 19.8
-773.5 12.5 -750.2-119.0 0.2 -103.1 5.4 -97.9 7.4 -95.9-68.3 38.9 -59.0 75.0 -22.8 33.8 -64.0
.1275.5 -18.6 -1217.0-96.7 50.8 38.5-6.4 87.7 6.1 129.8 48.2 99.4 17.8
-409.2 0.3 -400.9-701.6 19.8 -677.3
IUASTE ROCK : I
CUM I 97.2 -175.6 97.2 -160.7 149.9 -107.9 117.0 -140.8ESUR ( 5.1 -596.6 5.1 -616.4HSUR 1 13.9 -178.7 13.9 -171.6INUR 1 13.4 -8.5 13.4 7.3
I
Note: NP and Net HP expressed in kg calcius carbonate equivalent per tonne of sample
Methods: A. Standard procedure (mean values of duplicates). Method uses total sulphur analysesB. Standard procedure using sutphide sulphur to determine acid potentialC. Ambient temperature / 24 h acid digestion procedure (sulphide sulphur for acid potential)D. As for method C, using different voluaes of acid in digestion procedure
(voluse and strengths of acid used in all mathods given in Appendix 4)
22
8
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
Fig.3 Acid -Base Account TltratlonsTalllng Samples CUT ELT HST WAT
PH-
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Neutralization Potentlal (kg CaC03/t)
- CUT + ELT - HST - VAT
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fig 4. Acid -Base Account TitrationsTaillng Samples EST KLT NET WMT
PH
I I I I I I I I I I I
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 4 5 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 6 0 0Neutralization Potential (kg CaC03/t)
-c- EST +KLT -+- NBT + W M T
Fig 6. Acid -Base Account TitrationsWaste Rock Samples
PH8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
00 5 0 1 0 0 150 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 4 5 0 5 0 0
Neutralization Potential (kg CaCCWt)
- - C U W R -Q-- E S W R -t- HSWR --R- INWR
3.3 Alkaline Production Potential : Sulphur Ratio
The results of the titrations to determine the amounts ofhydrochloric acid consumed by known amounts of calciumcarbonate standards and the calibration curve constructed fromthe data are provided in Appendix 5. The results of the acidconsumption titrations for the tailing and waste rock samplesare also provided in Appendix 5.
Using the calibration curve, the alkaline productionpotential (APP) of each sample was determined as mg CaC03 per500 mg of sample. These values and the APP:S ratio values areshown in Table 7.
For comparison with the acid-base accounting data, the APPdata is also shown on a kg CaC02 equivalent per tonne basis inTable 7, calculated from the titration data as in the acid-baseaccounting method. In general, NP values obtained from thisdigestion/titration procedure correlate well with the valuesobtained from the acid-base account method. Samples with higherNP values from acid base accounting tend to give lower valuesin the APP method due to the shorter retention time and themore dilute acid used. This would reduce reaction rates withthe less reactive carbonate species.
26
COASTECH
Table 7. Alkaline Production Potential results
II APP APP : S NEUT. ** NP FROM
SAMPLE I (mg CaC03 RATIO * POTENTIAL ACID BASE
I per 500 9) (kg CaC03/t) ACCOUNT
TAILING : ICUT I 3.4ELI 1 0.4EST 1 11.4HST 1 <o.oKLT 1 a25.0NET 1 25.4UAT 1 1.7kw I 7.9
0.14 10.1 12.50.11 2.5 0.23.35 27.9 38.9
-4.5 -18.6>5.34 63.4 50.8a.49 50.9 87.70.13 -0.1 0.30.34 22.7 19.8
UASTE ROCK : ICUWR I 10.0 1.15 26.8 97.2ESIJR 1 2.8 0.15 6.7 5.1HSUR 1 4.9 0 . 8 0 15.7 13.9INUR 1 4.0 5.80 12.6 13.4
* APP/S(T)X
l * NP calculated from APP titration results for comparisonwith acid base accounting data
3.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Test
The results of the Hydrogen Peroxide Test are given inAppendix 6 which provides the data and calibration curvesshowing changes in temperature and pH for the reaction of 5 gpyrite standards (0 - 15 % by weight FeS2) with 100 mL 30 %hydrogen peroxide, and corresponding data and reaction curvesfor the tailing and waste rock samples.
The rates of reaction of the tailing and waste rocksamples and the calibration curves have been used to estimatethe pyrite contents of the samples. These estimates are shownin Table 8, with"'comments, where necessary, qualifying theestimations. Also shown in Table 8 are the pyrite contents ofthe samples calculated from the sulphide assays (Table 3)assuming all sulphide sulphur is as pyrite, and NP data (fromTable 5). Figure 6 shows an example of the pH and temperaturecurves obtained for the hydrogen peroxide reaction (for sampleESWR).
In general, the method appears to produce results tooinaccurate and erratic to be of real use. The sensitivity ofthe estimations of pyrite content is very low, particularlybecause the time scale of the reaction of the unknown sampleswas often very different to that of the standards. The methodalso fails to take consideration of the alkaline component ofthe material (NP value) the reaction of which with products ofoxidation will have a marked effect on the apparent rate ofoxidation as evidenced by temperature rise or pH drop. Thewaste rock CUWR provides a good example of this shortcoming.
28
COASTECH
Table 8. Estimation of pyrite contents by Hydrogen Peroxide Test
SAMPLE
IPYRITE CONTENT ESTIMATE 1
1 TEMP.gASIS pli BASIS 1(XI (X) I
I
CGflMENTSI
PYRITE l NP l *
(X) (kg CaC03/t)
TAILING :CUTELI
EST
LIST
KLT
NET
UAI
UMT
UASTE ROCK :CUUR
ESUR
HSUR
I NUR
I>15 I Reaction t ime much shorter than standard I
0 I pH r i s e
0 I P” r i s e I>15 1 Reaction time much shorter than standard I
1 I P” r i s e I0 1 pH r i s e I
>15 I Reaction time much shorter than standard I,15 I Reaction time much shorter than standard I
I I7 I Very slow reaction
>15 I10 I I
7 l Very slow reaction I
406
6
76
1
5
25
44
12.5
0 . 2
38 .9
-18 .6
5 0 . 8
8 7 . 7
0 . 3
19 .8
16 97 .2
39 5 .1
12 13.9
1 13.4
I
l Pyrite content estimated from sulphide sulphur analyses
** NP from acid base account data
Flg 6. Example of reactlon curvesfor Hydrogen Peroxlde Test (ESWR)
PH Temperature (Cl
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
-----c- pH
--I-- Temp
0 1 2 3 4 5 6TIME (mln)
3.5 Net Acid Production
The Net Acid Production method developed for this studyinvolved the addition of 100 mL of hydrogen peroxide (15%) to 5g of each of the tailing and waste rock samples. After 1 hourfollowing the apparent completion of the reaction, the pH ofthe pulp for each test material were measured and then titratedto pH 7.0 with standardized sodium hydroxide to determine theamount of excess acidity generated by the reaction. The methodwas repeated on selected samples, with the titration beingcarried out after only 5 minutes following the apparentcompletion of reaction.
The results of the titrations for both methods (A and B)are provided in Appendix 7. From the titration data, the netacid production was calculated for each sample as follows:
NET
where: NET AP =
;:rC =
AP = 50abC
acid production potential,kg CaC03 equivalent per tonnenormality of basevolume of base, mLweight sample
The net acid production values for each sample by MethodsA and B are given in Table 9. There was good agreement betweenthe results of both methods. For comparison with the net acidproduction values, the Net NP values obtained from acid-baseaccounting using sulphide sulphur analyses to calculate NET NPare also shown in Table 9. In general, the Net AP valuesprovide a much lower indication of the potential for theproduction of AMD than the acid base account test, although theratios between the corresponding values of the two tests showgood correlation. The two tailing samples, KLT and NBT, whichhave positive NET NP values in acid base accounting, are shownto have zero NET AP values in the test in question.
31
I COASTECH
Table 9. Net Acid Production Test results
SAMPLE
I II METHOD A l METHOD B l I1 pH AFTER NET ACID l * pH AFTER NET ACID ** 1 NET NP ***1 REACTION PROOUCTION REACTION PRODUCTION 1
TAILING :CUTELTESTHSTKLTNETVATUWT
UASTE ROCK :CUURESURHSURINUR
; 2.19 82.3/ 2.16 20.6/ 4.54 7.21 2.08 69.2j 7.56 0.01 7.13 0.0I 2.14 41.21 2.05 48.4
I
i_
1.98 87.7 -750.2-103.1-59.0
2.03 67.4 -1217.0
1 38.5 6.1I -400.9I -677.3
2.76 9.6 2.79 9.61.87 84.9 1.89 84.62.45 7.3 2.41 17.02.71 6.8 2.74 6.9
IIII
.i_
-160.7-616.4-171.6
7.3
l Method A : titration performed 1 hour after reaction stopsMethod B : titration performed 5 mins after reaction stops
** Net acid production expreseed in kg CaC03 equiv. per tonne
l ** Net NP from Acid-Base Accounting (Table 6) using sulphide sulphur assays
Note : A positive NET AP value indicates potential for AMD, whereasfor NET NP, a negative value is indicative of Al4D potential
I
32 j
COASTECH
3 . 6 B.C. Research Confirmation Test
The results of the B.C. Research Confirmation Testsperformed on the tailing and waste rock samples at B.C.Research are given in Table 10.
Samples ELT, KLT, and NBT were classified as non-acidproducers, with final pH values higher than 3.5, althoughsample ELT was marginal with a final pH of 3.57. The B.C.Research Initial Test predicted only sample NBT to be a non-acid producer.
All other samples were classified as acid producers. Withthe exception of waste rock sample INWR, which had a final pHof 3.2, the samples giving a positive test result were stronglyacid producing.
33
--
I COASTECH
Table 10. B.C. Research Biological Confirmation Test results
I1 SAMPLE ACID -____________ p" _--________ ACID
SAMPLE 1 UEIGHT ADDED AFTER 24 h 48 h PRODUCER
I (g) (kg/t) REACTION ll * (?I
ITAILING : I
CUT 1 8 32.3 1.05 1.18 1.28ELT 1 16 8.8 3.03 3.47 3.65EST 1 8 29.4 1.61 1.73 1.97HST \ 8 11.7 0.83 0.91 1.00KLT 1 16 76.4 2.69 4.35 -NBT 1 8 62.4 1.66 2.00 4.20UAT 1 8 7.3 1.30 1.35 1.50UMT I 8 45.5 0.97 1.00 1.00
IUASTE ROCK : I
CtJUR I 8ESUR 1 8HSUR 1 8INUR / 8
38.9 1.41 1.53 1.64 YES13.2 1.14 1.23 1.18 YES44.8 1.37 1.66 1.47 YES13.9 2.57 3.11 3.20 YES
YESNOYESYESNONOYESYES
l pH value after addition of 0.5 x original sample ueight** pH value after addition of 1.0 x original sample weight
3.7 Modified Confirmation Test
The results of the modified confirmation/biologicaloxidation tests (Coastech) performed on samples EST, KLT, NBT,WMT, and CUWR are shown in Table 11. The sample classificationsderived from these tests were the same as for the B.C. Researchtests, although the final pH values were generally higher dueto the addition of the sodium hydroxide at the end of the test.For more marginal SampleS, a higher end pH could result in achange of classification from acid producing to non-acidproducing.
The major criticism of this and the previous procedure isthat the initial acidification procedure is not realistic,particularly for samples with moderate to high NP values. Thebuffering capacity of such samples is possibly sufficient toeffectively inhibit any oxidative activity from starting or toprevent pH from falling to ranges where biological oxidativeactivity is really effective. Any sample shown by static testssuch as acid-base accounting to be potential sources of AMD arealmost certain to be confirmed as such by the B.C Research orthe modified Confirmation Test method.
35
COASTECH
Table 11. Coastech Research Biological Oxidation Test results
I/ SAMPLE _____________ p" ___________ ACID
SAMPLE 1 UEIGHT AFTER AFTER AFTER PRCOUCER
I (9) REACTION SAMPLE* NaOH ** (7)
TAILING : IEST 1 7 1.59 1.90 2.41 YESKLT 1 7 1.85 4.41 - NONET 1 7 1.54 2.12 3.78 NOkJMT I 4 0.95 1.17 1.29 YES
UASTE ROCK : ICUUR 1 5 1.51 1.77 2.09 YES
l Original sample weight added in 2 increments over 48 h** NaOH added equivalent to acid added to initiate biological oxidation
36
COASTECH
3.8 Humidity Cell Tests
The results of the Humidity Cell Tests are provided inAppendix 8 and comprise leachate analysis tables (PH, redox(mV), conductivity, sulphate, cumulative sulphate, acidity, andcumulative acidity); ICP metal analyses and cumulative metalextraction tables: and graphs of pH and redox, and cumulativesulphate and cumulative acidity, versus time).
A summary of the final values for pH, conductivity,cumulative sulphate, and cumulative acidity are shown in Table12. Also shown are the sulphur assay and NP for each sample.
In general terms, the trends of pH and acidity, and ofconductivity and sulphate, show close correlation. Similarly,there are generally good correlations between increase inacidity and increases in soluble metals (ICP data). For samplesshowing an increase in acidity, there is generally a rise inredox potential, although in no case do very high values (~450mV) occur which would be indicative of strong microbiologicalactivity (Fe-oxidizing bacteria).
The four samples showing zero acidity at the terminationof the tests after 19 cycles (EST, KLT, NBT, and CUWR), are thesamples with the highest NP values. For sample KLT, zeroacidity is accompanied by high sulphate and conductivity valuesindicating that pyrite oxidation is taking place but that theacidity produced is neutralized by the calcareous content ofthe tailing sample. Minor oxidation is also indicated forsample NBT and to a lesser extent for samples EST and CUWR.
Four samples, ELT, WMT, HSWR, and INWR, indicate thatoxidative activity was producing increasing acidity in thelater stages of the tests, particularly for sample_WMT. Thefour remaining samples, CUT, HST, WAT and ESWB produced aciditythroughout the tests, albeit at varying rates.
37
COASTECH
Table 12. Humidity Cell Tests : f inal cycle teachate ana lyses
SAMPLE
HUHlDlTY CELL ANALYSES (FinaL Cycle) Iffrom Acid-Base Acc.11CUM. CUM. 1 I
I P” CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE A C I D I T Y 1 S(T) NP* 1fmS/cm3) ----(mg/lOOg)---- I LX) (kg CaC03/t)l
I I
6
COMMENTS
_ _
TAILING :cur I 3 .1
EL1 I 4.8I
EST 1 7 .4
HST ; 2 . 7
KLT I 7.7
NET I 7.4
VAT ; 3.0
Wl ) 3 . 2
IWASTE ROCK : I
CUUR l 7.1
IESVR l 3 . 6
IHSUR l 5.8
IINUff 1 5 . 2
I
1960
443
170
2890
1395
426
2200
1334
134
353
460
233
2043
851
424
4785
3191
414
2761
1112
216
342
391
289
1178
75
0
17293
0
0
6127
1892
0
262
8
18
I
; 25 .0
I 3 . 8
I 3 . 4
; 39 .9
; 4 . 7
; 3 . 0
; 13.0
; 22 .9
I
I
Ia.7
I 19.1
; 6 .1
; 0 . 7
I
12.5 I Moderate acidity produced throughout test
0.2 I Minor acidity starting to appear during Last cycles
38.9 I Sarrple able to neutralize very minor acid production
I-18.6 I Sample strongly acid producing from start of test
50.8 I Sample able to neutralize strong acid production
87.7
0.3
19.8
97.2
5.1
13.9
13.4
Sanple able to neutralize minor acid production
Steadily acid producing throughout test
Strong acidity starting to increase during Last cycles
No acid production
Low acidity produced throughout test
Very minor acidity starting to increase during last cycles
Very minor acidity starting to increase during last cycles
l NP values from Table 6
3.9 Shake Flask Tests
The results of the Shake Flask Tests are presented in asimilar format as for the humidity cell tests in Appendix 9 .The data comprise leachate analysis tables (pH, redox (mV),conductivity, sulphate, cumulative sulphate, andcumulative acidity):
acidity,ICP metal analysis tables; and plots of
PH, redox,time).
and cumulative sulphate, cumulative acidity, versus
A summary of the final values for pH,cumulative sulphate,
conductivity,and cumulative acidity are shown in Table
13. also shown are the sulphur assay and NP for each sample.
In general terms, the values of the leachate parametersshow very similar trends to those obtained in the humidity celltests, although the data obtained from week to week oftenexhibits considerable deviation from the general trend forseveral of the parameters.graphs in Appendices
This can be seen by comparing the8 and 9. In most cases, values ofcumulative acidity are lower than for the humidity cell tests,
although cumulative sulphate values are similar or higher.
39
COASTECH
1
Table 13. Shake Flask Tests : f inal Leachate ana lyses
6
SAMPLE
SHAKE FLASK ANALYSES (Final Leachates) Iffrom Acid-Base Acc.)~
CUM. CUM. 1 II P” CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE ACIDITY 1 S(T) NP* 1
tmS/cd) -----(mg/lOOg)---- I (X) (kg CaC03/t)(
I I
COMMENTS
ITAILING :
CUT II
ELT I
ES1 I
LIST I
IKLY 1
P0
NET I
VAT I
IH’ I
UASIE ROCK :cub/R
ESUR
HSUR
INUR
2 . 5 12020 4950 1313
4 . 9 2200 555 3
7 .5 1828 420 0
2 .1 19430 7800 4126
7.1 2370 600
7 . 5 1505 315
2 . 8 8080 2700
2 . 5 a760 3750
7 . 0 1417 375
3 . 2 3140 750
5 . 8
6 . 4
2940 600
ii87 330
0
0
1094
1200
0
540
2
1
III 25 .0
i 3 . 8
II 3 . 4
I 39 .9
; 4 . 7
; 3 . 0
Il 13.0
; 22 .9
I
I
Ia . 7
I 19.1
; 6 .1
; 0 . 7
I
I
12.5 II
0.2 1
38.9
- 18 .6 I
50.8 II
87.7 I
0 . 3 I
19.8 I
I
97 .2 II
Acid producing, particularly towards end of test
Very Litt le acid production activity
Sample
Sample
Sample
able to neutral ize very minor acid production
strongly acid producing
able to neutralize very minor acid production
No acid production
Moderately acid producing throughout test
Moderately acid producing throughout test
Sample able to n e u t r a l i z e very minor acid production
Low acidity produced throughout test
Sarrple able to neutral ize very minor acid production
Sarrple able to neutral ize very minor acid production
l NP values from Table 6
J
3.10 Soxhlet Extraction Tests
The report by L.M. Lavkulich and W. Price, Dept. of SoilScience, UBC, is provided in Appendix 10 and gives the resultsof the Soxhlet Extraction Tests. The results are summarized inTables 14 (tailings) and 15 (waste rock) which show leachateanalyses (pH and conductivity) for the three methods evaluated.
In general terms, the results of the tests using distilledwater correlate reasonably well with the humidity cell andshake flask tests. For tailings, the three samples showing zeroacidity in humidity cell tests (EST, KLT, NBT) are the onlysamples for which pH values did not fall in the soxhlet tests.For the other tailing samples, the drop in pH was not so rapidin the Singleton and Sobek method (lower temperature). Thetests on waste rock show similar correlations with the otherkinetic methods.
Tests using acetic acid all produced low pH endpoints. Theinterpretation of this test procedure is less certain.
41
COASTECH
Table 14. Soxhlet Extraction Tests : Suimiary of Results for Tailing
Method :jSINGLETON AND LAVKULICH 1978 (SINGLETON AND LAVKULICH 1978 1 SULLIVAN AND SOBEK 1982
I I ILeachate :I ACETIC ACID I DISTILLED UATER I DISTILLED UATER
I II I CONDUCTIVITY 1 CONDUCTIVITY 1 CONDUCTIVITY
SAMPLE 1 WEEK 1 pH (mS/Cm3) I PH (mwCm3) I PH (mS/cm3)
I ICUT 1 1 I
I 2 II 3 II I
ELT 1 1 II 2 II 3 II I
EST 1 1 II 2 II 3 II I
HST 1 1 II 2 II 3 II I
KLT 1 1 II 2 II 3 II I
NBT 1 1 II 2 II3 II I
VAT l 1 II 2 II 3 II I
MT 1 1 II 2 II 3 I
4.73.42.8
48004200
3.0 27002.5 12002.2 1300
4.0 78003.2 20003.0 2700
2.9 40002.4 33001.9 5000
4.3 134003.0 32002.7 2800
4.4 127002.9 18002.5 1900
3.9 80003.6 55003.3 5200
3.72.42.1
640026Do3500
. _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIII
3.1 40002.2 33001.7 4600
8.5 19003.2 3002.3 800
9.3 23009.4 9008.7 1000
1.8 128001.8 70001.6 7600
9.2 30009.2 8009.4 600
9.3 20009.4 9009.2 900
3.2 44003.2 16002.5 2100
4.0 28002.0 42001.6 5000
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIII
2.4 18002.3 25002.4 2900
8.7 15008.5 1004.3 100
9.5 16009.3 6009.3 500
2.0 135001.9 58001.9 6600
9.3 30009.2 18009.4 500
8.8 21009.4 6009.0 600
2.1 72002.1 30002.3 3000
6.6 30003.9 13002.5 1800
I - I I I
42
COASTECH
Table 15. Soxhtet Extraction Tests : Sumwy of Results for Uaste Rock
Method :~SINCLETON A N D LAVKULICH 1978 ISINGLETON AND LAVKULICH 1978 1 SULLIVAN AND SOBEK 1982
I I ILeachate :I ACETIC ACID I DISTILLED UATER I DISTILLED UATER
I I II I CONDUCTIVITY 1 CONDUCTIVITY 1 CONDUCTIVITY
SAMPLE 1 WEEK 1 pH (mS/Cm3) I PH (mS/cm3) I PH (mWcm3)
I - I I II I
CUUR 1 1 1 4.4 11800 / 9.2 1700 / 9.4 20001 2 I 3.4 35001 3 ) 3.2 4200
I IESUR 1 1 1 3.7 6100
I 2 I 3.2 29001 3 ( 2.9 3400
9.3 800 I 9.4 8009.3 900 I 9.1 900
I2.5 3200 I 2.5 34002.5 3100 / 2.4 18002.0 3200 2.3 2400
HSIJR
INUR
1 I 4.0 7200 I 9.2 2600 I 9.2 6002 I 3.4 3000 I 7.2 1000 I 8.9 7003 1 3.2 3400 I 4.0 2100 I 8.6 600
1 I 4.0 7900 I 9.1 1400 I 9.1 1100I 3.4 3300 I 5.5 1700 I 8.4 300
3.3 4700 I 4.5 500 I 6.2 500
I - I I
43
COASTECH
3-11 Carbonate Pressure Analysis
The report giving the results of the Carbonate PressureAnalysis tests conducted by Dr. V.P. Evangelou, University ofKentucky, are provided in Appendix 11.
A summary of the results, showing the proportions of thecalcareous material in the tailing and waste rock samples whichare identified as having reactivities approximately equivalentto calcite, dolomite, and siderite, is given in Table 16. TheNP values for the samples are also given for comparison.
ofResults are inconclusive in establishing the reliabilitythis technique. Correlation of the totals of CaC03equivalent for each sample with NP values are only marginal.
Similarly, there does not seem to be much correlation betweenthe test data and other test data such as the acid consumptioncurves for the B.C. Research Initial Test.
44
L COASTECH
Table 16. Carbonate Pressure Analysis : sunnary of results
SAMPLE
I I1 COMPOSITION IN kg/t CaC03 EQUIVALENTS 1,___________________-__-________________, NP t
1 CALCITE DOLCMlTE SIDERITE 1
TAILING :CUT
ELT
EST
HST
KLT
NET
VAT
UMT
UASTE ROCK :CUUR
ESUR
HSUR
I N M
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
0.0 25.9 82.0
0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0
20.1 0 . 0
0.0 2.3
3.9 0.0
43.5 26.0
0 . 0
15.5
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
17.5 0.0 35.0
2.1 0.0 1.6
0.0 32.0 0.0
3.6 0.0 0.0
II1 12.5
/ 0.2
Il 38.9
II -18.6
I1 50.8
I1 87.7
I 0.3
II 19.8
III
97.2
5.1
13.9
l NP values (kg CaCO3/t) from Table 6
4.0 FIELD DATA
In order to obtain information onthe tailing and waste rock samples usedprograms, a questionnaire was sentoperating mines which had supplied the
the field behaviour ofin the laboratory test ~
to each of the ninesamples. A copy of_ *questionnaire and details on individual replies received
provided in Appendix 12.
Table 17 summarizes the more important aspects ofreplies received. Although more than half of the tailingwaste rock samples were generating significant AMD infield, some only did so after significant lag timesindicated.
46
theare I
t h eor
the ~as I
COASTECH
Table 17. Swrsnary of Field Behaviours of Tailing and Uaste RockSamples Selected for AMD Prediction Tests
SAMPLE
TAILING :
II SAMPLE LIME FRESH/ PRODUCING
CODE 1 DESCRIPTION ADDED OLD AMD
III
Curragh CUT 1Elliot Lake Quirke EL7 1Equity Silver EST 1Heath Steele HST 1Key Lake KLT 1Norarxia Bell NBT 1Ueite Amulet UAT 1Uestmin MT I
UASTE ROCK : ICurragh CUUR IEquity Silver ESUR 1Heath Steele HSUR 1INCO INUR 1
Tail discharge Line
Pond-beach surfacePond-beach surfaceTail discharge lineTail discharge linePond-above naterPond-beach surface
Uaste pile surfaceMain zone pitUaste pile surfaceUaste pile surface
N o
No
YesNo
No
YesNo
No
No
No
Yes
Fresh
FreshOldFreshFreshOldFresh
1 yearFreshOldFresh
Yes - after 15 years
NoYesNo
No
YesYes - after > 1 year
Yes - high Zn, S04. neut. pHYes - after 6 months?Yes
47
5 . 0 COMPARISON OF PREDICTION TECHNIQUES
5.1 Static Methods
A summary of the results of the static test procedures forthe prediction of AMD is given in Table 18. For each statictest procedure, a simple yes AMD/no AMD classification is givenbased on whether the value of the Net NP value derived from thetest data is positive or negative. These classifications can becompared with the data obtained from the field survey which arealso simply given in Table 18 as "yes or no". The principalobservations for each method are as follows:
Acid Base Accounting : all tailing and waste rock sampleswere predicted to be potential sources of AMD. Three of thetailing samples, EST, KLT, and NBT, were not generating acid inthe field. Both EST and KLT gave large negative NET NP valuesin the test. Samples NBT and INWR were barely acidic with NETNP values of -6.3 and -8.9 kg CaC03/t respectively. The Sobeket al method recommends that acid generation is indicated ifthe NET NP is < -5 kg CaC03/t. The end point of pH 7.0 asspecified is not very stable. An endpoint of pH 8.3 isrecommended for this and other tests using back titration ofexcess acid.
Modified Acid Base Accounting : this test, in which AP iscalculated based on sulphide sulphur analysis, predictedtailing samples KLT and NBT as non - acid producing, as is thecase in the field. One waste rock sample (INWR) was predictedto be non-acid generating (marginal) although AMD in the fieldwas noted. For sample KLT, the value of using sulphide sulphuranalysis is very evident since 90% of the total sulphur ispresent as gypsum formed in the acid leach process at Key Lake.Thus the assessment made by the standard procedure is clearlyunrealistic. However, in other cases, the presence of sulphatein a sample is the result of oxidative processes, often in veryreactive tailing or waste rock. In such cases, use of themodified procedure calculation could lead to an error and abias towards a non-acid generating classification.Differentiation between the sulphur species in a sample shouldbe carried out. For some samples, particula,ly coal, non AMDforming organic sulphur can exist and should be differentiated.
BC Research Initial Test : two tailing samples, EST andKLT, were given AMD classifications opposite to that observedin the field. The erroneous classification of sample KLT as apotential source of AMD was again the result of using total
48
COASTECH
Table 18. Sumary of the Results of Stat ic Predict ion Procedures
I I IACID BASE HCXTIFIED l BC RESEARCH 1 ALKALINE PRDDUCllONl NET
SAMPLE 1 ACCOUNT 1 ACID BASE ACCOUNT 1 INITIAL TEST 1 POTENTIAL ** 1 ACID PRDDUCTION I FIELD1 NET NP AMD 7 1 NET NP AMD 7 1 NET NP AMD ? 1 NET NP AMD 7 1 NET NP AMD ? 1 AMD?
T a i l i n g :CUT 1 -773.5ELI 1 - 1 1 9 . 0EST 1 - 6 8 . 3HST I - 1 2 7 5 . 5KLT 1 - 9 6 . 7NET 1 - 6 . 4WAT 1 - 4 0 9 . 2~JMT I - 7 0 1 . 6
Uaste Rock: ICUUR 1 - 1 7 5 . 6ESUR 1 - 5 9 6 . 6HSUR 1 - 1 7 8 . 7INUR 1 -a.5
Yes 1 - 7 5 0 . 2Yes I - 1 0 3 . 1Yes I - 5 9 . 0Yes I - 1 2 1 7 . 0Yes I 3 8 . 5Yes I 6 . 1Yes I - 4 0 0 . 9Yes 1 - 6 7 7 . 3
IYes 1 - 1 6 0 . 7Yes 1 - 6 1 6 . 4Yes 1 - 1 7 1 . 6Yes I 7 . 3
YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYes
YesYesYesNo
- 7 3 7 . 1- 9 4 . 4
I - 7 6 . 3I - 1 2 1 7 . 5
- 2 2 6 . 5I - 5 7 3 . 7
- 1 5 7 . 9- 7 . 2
YesYesYesYesYesNo
YesYes
YesYesYesYes
I -775.8 -94.4
I -12::::I -43.3 -84.0
I -409.6 -698.6
I
I -246.0 -595.0- 1 7 7 . 1
- 9 . 1
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
YesYesYesYes
I -82.3 -20.6I -69.2 -7.2
; 0.0 0.0
I -41.2 -48.4
II -84.9 -9.6
- 7 . 3-6.B
YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYes
YesYesYesYes
1 YesI Yes1 No1 Yes
I No
1 Es1 Yes
I1 Yes1 Yes
Note:
t
**
NET NP values alt expressed as posi t ive to designate an acid consuming mater ia l orn e g a t i v e t o i n d i c a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a c i d g e n e r a t i o n
Hodified procedure uses ambient teqxrature/24 h digest ion and sulphide sulphur analysis
Net NP values for the APP test calculated as for the standard Acid Baseusing t i t rat ion data and tota l sulphur a s s a y s
Account test
sulphur analysis for the calculation of AP. Net NP valuesobtained using this sulphuric acid titration were very similarto those obtained using the hydrochloric acid digestion methodof the Acid Base Account. The BC Research method is more timeconsuming and requires slightly more sophisticated equipmentthan the latter method. On the other hand, the method might nottitrate carbonates such as siderite which should not be countedin the acid-base balance since it is not an effectiveneutralizer.
Alkaline Production Potential : values of NET NP derivedfrom this less severe and shorter acid digestion procedure weresimilar to those obtained by Acid Base Accounting, although insome cases, NP values were significantly lower indicating onlypartial reaction of the contained carbonates. All samples wereclassified as potential sources of AMD. The APP : S ratiovalues are of little use in this study without the comparisonwith kinetic weathering charts on multiple samples from thesame geologic units. Such a comparison might only really beviable for lower sulphur values, such as found in the wastes ofcoal mines for which the test was originally developed.
Net Acid Production Test : This test correctly predictedall tailing and waste rock relative to the current field datawith the exception of one tailing sample (EST) which all otherstatic tests also incorrectly assessed. For this sample,' onlyweak NET AP was predicted unlike the high values obtained inthe other tests. In the field, no AMD was reported. Anadvantage of this procedure is that sulphur assays are notrequired. This reduces the cost and time required for the testand makes it suitable for field use. Further development ofthis method to increase the data base should be carried out ona wider selection of waste materials.
Other Static Tests : The Hydrogen Peroxide Test did notprovide a realistic assessment of the pyrite contents of thetest samples. The determination lacks sensitivity, mainly dueto the difficulty in using the calibration/standard curves withthe test data. The effect of the alkaline components of thesamples on the direction and rates of reaction is alsoneglected. The results appear to be too inaccurate to be ofreal use.
The Carbonate Pressure Analysis method used tocharacterize the potential rate of reactions of the alkalinecomponents of a sample did not provide conclusive evidence of
50
COASTECH
reliability in predicting the effectiveness ofproduction from a sample. alkalinity
The test procedure is considered tohave potential as a supplemental test to be used with otherstatic tests or to aid in the interpretation of kinetic testdata.
5.2 Kinetic Methods
A summary of the results of the kinetic test proceduresfor the prediction of AMD is given in Table 19. Fieldobservations are also included in the table.observations for each method are as follows:
The principal
BC Research Confirmation Test : with the exception oftailing samples ELT and EST, the method identified all fieldAMD. It is believed that the initial acidification of samplesmakes some results unrealistic. The modified procedure whichcompensates for the initial acid addition is seen to provide amoderate improvement, although the opportunity to study thepotential for the development of AMD in the higher pH ranges isstill not possible. For some samples, the reactions takingplace in the approximate pH range 7 down to 2 might be criticalin determining the formation of AMD.
Humidity Cells Test : The humidity cell correctlypredicted field results on all 8 tailing samples and 3 out of 4waste rock samples. The one incorrectly classified waste rocksample was shown not to generate AMD when it did (rarely) inthe field. The test seems particularly well suited to theevaluation of waste materials, particularly waste rock, whichare deposited on asubjected to
land site where they would be alternatelyinfiltration of water, drying and flushing
sequences.
Shake Flask Test : The shake flask test correctlypredicted the behaviour of all 8 tailing samples, but wasincorrect for 3 out of 4 waste rock samples which were shownnot to generate AMD when they did in the field. The goodprediction for tailing could be expected from this test whichhas a constant leaching action and might better model thebehaviour of tailings which are often saturated and have lowoxygen permeability. For the same reason, the test might not bewell suited for waste rock which would be more likely to be
51
COASTECH
Table 19. Sunsary of the Results of Kinetic Prediction Procedures
BC RESEARCH ISAMPLE CONFlRHATlON T E S T 1 HlJl4lDlTY CELLS SHAKE FLASKS SOXHLET EXTRACTION * FIELD
I AMD -2 I AMD 7 I AMI ? I AMD? 1 AMD ?
ulN
Tailing:CUT IELT 1EST 1HST 1KLT 1NET 1UAT 1~JMT I
Waste Rock: Icwff IESUR 1HSUR 1INWR 1
Yes, strongNo, v. marginal
Yes, strongYes, strong
NoNo
Yes, strongYes, strong
Yes, strongYes, strongYes, strong
Yes, marginal
I Yes, moderate I Yes, at end of testI Minor at end of test I Very Lou activity
;
NoYes, strong I
NoYes, strong
I
No I NoNo
IYes I
NoYes, moderate
Strong at end of test I Yes, moderate
I I
I
No I NoVery Lou production I Low production
JV.minor at end of test IExtremeLy Low activity(V.minor at end of test lExtremeLy Lou activity
I Yes, strong 1 Yes, after 15 years
I
YesNo I
YesNo
I
Yes, strong I YesNo No
I
No I NoYes, strong
I
Yes
I
Yes Yes, after 1 year
II
No I Yes, high Zn, SO4
I Yes, strong I Yes, after 6 monthsI Yes, Lou production 1 YesI Yes, Low production 1 Yes
I I I I I
l Soxhlet extraction tests using water
subjected to alternate wetting, drying and flushing cycles asmodelled by humidity cells.
Soxhlet Extraction Tests : although this test procedure isseen to be less realistic than some other weathering tests suchas humidity cells, the method (using water) was successful inpredicting the field behaviour of all 8 tailing samples and 3out of 4 of the waste rock samples. The method using aceticacid predicted all samples to be sources of AMD and it isbelieved that the results of this procedure is unrealistic.The method has the disadvantage of being more complex than thehumidity cell or shake flask tests and requires moresophistication in equipment. However, the test is of shorterduration and might be able to simulate a long weatheringsequence in a relatively rapid time.
5.3 Overall Comparison
Table 20 provides an overview of the various static andkinetic test procedures for the prediction of AMD evaluated inthis study on the basis of simplicity, time required, specialequipment, cost, ease of interpretation, and correlation withthe field data.
53
COASTECH
Table 20. Comparison of AM0 Prediction Procedures
I1 SIMPLICITY S COST EASE CORRELATION
PREDICTION PROCEDURE 1 OF1 TEST
TIME SPECIAL PER OF ;IITHREQUIRED EQUIPMENT SAMPLE INTERPRETATION FIELD DATA
ISTATIC TESTS : I
BC Research Initial Test1
Acid - Ease Accounting 1
Mod. Acid-Base Account [
APP : S Ratio Test I
Net Acid Production Test1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
KINETIC TESTS : II
EC Research Confirmation( Moderate
Humidity Cell Test I Moderate
IShake Flask Test I Moderate
ISoxhlet Extraction Test 1 Moderate
II
OTHER TESTS II
Hydrogen Peroxide Test I Yes
ICarbonate Pressurf? I No
2 days * N o
Gh* No
1 day * No
4h' NO
4 h NO
3-4 weeks Moderate
lO+ weeks Moderate
lO+ weeks Moderate
3+ weeks Yes
4h' No
4 h Specialized ?
75 - 200
50 - 130
50 - 130
50 - 130
40. a0
200 - 400
500 -1000
500 -1000
250 - 500
a0 - 120
Easy
Easy
Easy
Moderate
Easy
1 tai
3 tai
1 tai
3 tail
1 tail
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Specialized
ing
ing
ing
ng
w
2 tailing
sampte in error
samples in error
and 1 waste rock in error
samples in error
samole in error
samples in error
1 waste rock sample in error
Poor prediction for waste rock
1 waste rock sample in error
Poor estimate of pyrite content
Estimates of carbonate speciesinconclusive
Notes to Table :
1. In the Simplicity catagory, rating assumes test carried out by a trained L aboratory technician or technoiogist
2. In the Time Required catagory, for tests marked with l , time should be all owed for sutphur assay turnaround
3. In the Special Equipment catagory, rating assms test carried out in a normally equipped chemical laboratory
4. In the Cost category, costs will vary from lab to lab, will depend on mmbcr of samples tested at same time,and on the number and cost of the sulphur species assays required. For kinetic tests, costs are based on a weeklysampling regime. Actual costs will depend on the number of and frequency leachate analyses performed including ICPrmtti-element analyses. Costs are estimates in S Cdn as of March 1989.
6:O CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this study support the followingconclusions and recommendations:
1. This study shows that several of the static and/or kineticprocedures evaluated provided a good prediction of thefield behaviour of many of the tailing and waste rocksamples. However, the choice of one particular testprocedure alone is not likely to provide a definitiveassessment of whether a particular sample is going toproduce AMD. It is more likely that a combination of twoor more tests will provide a more confident assessment buteven then, for some samples, prediction might beuncertain. The prediction of long term weatheringcharacteristics of a tailing or waste rock will alwayshave some uncertainty factor if the prediction test iscarried out on a practical time scale in the laboratory.
2. Static methods of prediction have merit in providing asimple, rapid and low cost screening test to give a "firstpass" indication of wastes that have the potential for AMDgeneration. In this study, the prediction of fieldbehaviour on a yes/no basis was good for most of themethods, with approximately 80% accuracy. However, thepredictions assume complete reaction of the sulphide andalkaline components of the rock and do not take intoaccount the kinetics or equilibria of the acid generatingand consuming reactions. The rate of release of alkalinityfrom a particular sample might not match the rate of acidproduction.
3. The use of sulphide sulphur analyses to calculate APvalues in static tests is recommended over the use oftotal sulphur to avoid error in assessment by neglectingthe presence of sulphates such as gypsum. However, thepresence of sulphates resulting from the oxidation ofsulphides in a sample prior to testing should be includedin the assessment as these readily hydrolyzable oxidationproducts can contribute to AMD. Analyses of such sulphurspecies should be carried out to make these distinctions.Use of this procedure in combination with Acid BaseAccounting, BC Research Initial Test, Alkaline ProductionPotential, or modifications thereof, should provide a morerealistic static prediction.
4. The use of hot acid digestion in the standard Acid BaseAccounting procedure is believed by some to overestimatethe NP of a sample. In this study, use of a 24 hour/room
55
COASTECH
5 .
6 .
7 .
a .
9 .
1 0 .
1 1 .
temperature digestion did not confirm this. The lattermethod is, however, easier to perform.
In static tests using a back titration of excess acid tocalculate NP, the use of an endpoint of pH 8.3 issuggested as this provides greater stability of endpointthan the usual pH 7.0 endpoint.
The Net Acid Production method provided predictionaccuracy equal to the other static tests, but did notrequire sulphur species analyses for the assessment. Themethod could therefore be carried out at a lower cost andwould be suitable for field use. Further development ofthis method is recommended.
The APP : S ratio method provided results of limited usein this study due to only one sample of each wastematerial being tested. Its use in assessing wastes fromcoal mines has been shown by others to be effective andfurther assessment of the method for application to basemetal mines could be carried out. It is thought that themethod might not be applicable to high-sulphur wastes.
The so-called Hydrogen Peroxide method for pyriteestimation is not recommended.
The Carbonate Pressure Analysis method for characterizingthe nature of alkaline producing carbonate. in a sampleprovided inconclusive data in this study. The reliabilityof the method has not been established.
The kinetic tests, Humidity Cells and Shake Flasks,appeared to be capable of accurately predicting AMD. Thealternate wetting, drying and flushing cycles of theHumidity Cells appears to be preferable for the assessmentof waste rock stored in an unsaturated condition on land,although the method also successfully predicted the fieldbehaviour of all 8 tailing samples. Shake Flasks might bemore suited for evaluating underwater storage of tailingand waste rock but not above-ground permeable wastes. Thismethod was successful in predicting only 1 out of 4 wastesamples of this type- Further investigation of thesuitability of one method over another for the predictionof land-based or sub-aqueous waste deposition isrecommended.
The Soxhlet Extraction Test using distilled water providedaccurate prediction of all samples except one waste rocksample. Its advantage appears to be that it provides amore rapid assessment but it requires more sophisticated
56
COASTECH I
equipment than the other methods. The use of acetic acidas leachate appears to be unrealistic.
The prediction of AMD in a humidity cell type kinetic testwill be a function of the degree and frequency of theflushing cycle. In this study, the operation of thehumidity cells was according to the standard procedureonly. Investigation of the type of weathering apparatusand its operation using different wetting, drying,flushing cycles is recommended. The objective of such astudy would be to produce a definitive method(s) toprovide rapid assessment of weathering characteristics ofwaste materials so that prediction of the long termbehaviour of the material can be confidently assessed andmodelled.
The BC Research Confirmation Test also provided goodprediction in this study although, in general, it isbelieved that the initial acidification procedure used inthe method provides an unrealistic condition. The methoddoes not address the weathering characteristics in theapproximate pH range of 7 down to 2, nor does it provideleachate quality trend data.
14. It is recommended thatcompilation of a Manualall of the predictionthis study.
15. It is recommended that
this report be supplemented by theto provide detailed description ofmethods and modifications used in
the work carried out in this studybe extended to provide greater analysis of some of thedata, and to evaluate more fully specific methods from thecurrent list of prediction procedures. Such a study woulduse a greater number and wider range of samples both fromselected sites used in this work and from other sitesexhibiting a wider range of sulphur contents and NPvalues. Methods should include static methods, such asAcid Base Accounting and the Net Acid Production methcd,and a more detailed comparison of the kinetic methodsHumidity Cells, Shake Flasks and the Soxhlet ExtractionTest.
16. Comparison of the data obtained in this study with thefield data provides evidence of the lack of fieldverification for currently used prediction techniques. Itis recommended, therefore, that the recommended extensionto this study include a more in-depth assessment of AMD atminesites supplying the tailing and waste rock samples. Inthis study, only one sample from each mine was suppliedand it is believed that in some cases, the samples mightnot have been representative, or the simple yes/noassessment provided in response to the questionnaires
57
might not have provided the full details on AMD at thesite.
17. An overall objective of further research into predictiontechniques should be to combine the effects of waste type,mining plan, disposal method, and reclamation plans, intothe predictive scheme.
58
!
COASTECH
REFERENCES
Albright, R. 1987. Prediction of acid drainage in Megumaslates. Proc. Acid Mine Drainage Workshop, EnvironmentCanada, Transport Canada, 146-62.
Caruccio, F.T., Geidel, G., Pelletier, M. 1981. Occurrence andprediction of acid drainages. J. Energy Div. Amer. Sot.Civil Engineers, 107, No. EYl, May.
Duncan, D.W. and Bruynesteyn, A. 1979. Determination of acidproduction potential of waste materials. Met. Sot. AIME,paper A-79-29, 1Opp.
Evangelou, V.P., Roberts, K. and Szekeres, G.W. 1985. The useof an automated apparatus for determining coal spoilcarbonate types, content and reactivity. Symposium onSurface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology and Reclamation,December 9-13, Lexington, KY.
Finkelman, R.B. and Giffin, D.E. 1986. Hydrogen peroxideoxidation: an improved method for rapidly assessing acid-generating potential of sediments and sedimentary rocks.Recreation and Revegetation Research, 5, 521-34.
Halbert, B.E., Schaver, J.M., Knapp, R.A. and Gorber, D.M.1983. Determination of acid generation rates in pyriticmine tailings. 56th Annual Conference of WPCF, October 2-7, Atlanta, GA.
Lawrence, R.W. and Sadeghnobari, A. 1986. In-house developmentof a modified biological confirmation test. CoastechResearch.
Lawrence, R.W., Jaffe, S., Broughton, L.M. 1988. In-housedevelopment of the Net Acid Production Test method.Coastech Research.
Lutwick, G.D., Nova Scotia Research Foundation, 1988. Personalcommunication.
Singleton, G.A. and Lavkulich, L.M. 1978. Adaption of thesoxhlet extractor for pedologic studies. Soil Sci. Sot.Am. J., 42, 984-6.
Sobek, A.A., Schuller, W.A., Freeman, J.R. and Smith, R.M.1978. Field and laboratory methods applicable tooverburden and minesoils. EPA 600/2-78-054, 203~~.
59
COASTECH
Standard Methods, 1981. Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater, 15th Edition, American Public HealthAssociation, Washington, DC.
Sullivan, P.J. and Sobek, A.A. 1982. Laboratory weatheringstudies of coal refuse. Minerals and the Environment,4(l). 9-16.
,
60
COASTECH
The following Coastech personnel participated in thisstudy:
R.W. LawrenceP.B. MarchantL.M. BroughtonS. JaffeS. BasraA. SadeghnobariB. Holt
61
COASTECH
APPENDIX 1
SULPHUR SPECIES AND ICP ANALYSESFOR TAILING AND WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
9oooooo-
ITou3e-1r
10
. ,
oto
OIa
D
‘9
-iT
TT
NO
\N
IaO
OD
OO
- 10
I.
,.
-.Page No -AT o t . PaiDate 19-FEB-&lInvoice I ~I-8811562P.O. II ~88-2135
Chemex Labs Ltd.An.l~~lo.l ChemIsta l Goochemlsta * Roglstered ASJaYOla111 BROOKSBANK AVE , NORTH V A N C O U V E R .
BnlTlSH CoLlhmlA. C A N A D A V7J-ICIPHONlZ (604) 964-0111
TC MSTBCH RESEAFMX I N C .
869 WEST THIRD ST.NORTH VANCOUVEB, B . C .VlP IE2
Projrcc : 67-SO13Conmc D, s : ATTN : L I NDA BROUGHTON
I CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS AS 8 115 627 r
MI-I d Ppn18)
b Ppn18)
Ii ppn18)
ia Ppn18)
c %18)
k%Icy)
SAMPLED E S C R I P T I O N
P R E PCODE
b ppn18)
f Ppn18)
Ii ppn16)
8-l Ppn18)
‘r Ppm18)
>25.0 295 10518.00 1245 71
>25.0 1210 18>25.0 315 69
2 0 . 0 286 20
6.123.514 . 6 41.709 . 6 7
63320
::;1175
‘:19
5%
2 1 . 6 601 43111.40 923 313I l . 6 5 1220 254
* Ppn Ppn b ppn18) 18) 18)
12127104780
X00004060
‘3;:850240240
<2150
38207710
458_~__
2540
s3:447218
1250410
%780
_.__478206
10::
__~454
3620>lOOOa
1230410710
10::4610
INI- HEADA 2 9 9MT HEADA 2 9 9aJr HEAD‘4 2 9 9sr HEADA 2 9 9ww HEADA 2 9 9
:: i::<2 6 . 5314 4 3 . 5<2 14.5
20
<:162<2
18.01 . 5
f.:2 : o
197
1::647<l
9104
:;
::
0.x2.240.370.310 . 7 :
232
:::232232
_- __-Esr HEADAE L T HEADA
k!Kz%WARHEADA
2 9 9 232
:;3: :::299 232299 232
ESfRI-IEADA 299ClMRHEADA 299I-BNtHENlA 299
232
:::
:f
:t41
1:x270
50600
:z460
<2
5:
< 10
: tx< IO< 10
.~__< 10< IO< 10< 10< 10
< 10< 10
180
0.7525::
87
4532
XG1086-.251161137
0. o-0 . 7 ;i .3;3.2t
0 . 6 :
t::i
CERTIFICATION :
TC MSTECH RESEARCH INC. Paae I% -B
Chemex Labs Ltd.AnJyUo~l Chomlstr l Geoohemlsto l Re&lored A~aayora211 BROOKSBANK AVE NORTH VANCOUVER.
B R I T I S H COLth4BlA:CANADA V’IJ-ICIPHONE (604) 914-0111
869 WEST THIRD ST.NORTH VANCOUVER. B.C
Tot. PalDale : i 9-FEB-8 8I n v o i c e II :I-8811562
VlP l E 2Projecl : 17-5013Common 8 I : ATTN: 1. I NLM BROWXITON
P.O. r ~88-2135
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS A8 8 1 154’2 I
SAMPLE P R E PD E S C R I P T I O N CODE
ri b118)
0 . 1 00.320 . 0 80.020 . 0 7
0.280.100.110.200.64
0.23
::::
ir Ppn18)
18
f;
118
307
1::ii0266
201187
32
.
u %; 18)
!:Z2 . 5 41.435 . 2 0
k ppm18)
:a %!I:I@)
k Ppn18)
< 0 . 5 0.31 562< 0 . 5 1.x 1675< 0 . 5 O.J! 1145< 0 . 5 0.4t >lOOOOc 0 . 5 I . lC 1720
Ja %IcPl
: %18)
0 . 1 6 0 . 0 60 . 8 8 0 . 4 50 . 1 0 0 . 6 30 . 0 8 0 . 4 40.31 2.01
’ Ppn18)
pJ
1::
2 9 92 9 92 9 92 9 92 9 9
232
:::232232
3 . 012.019.537.511.5
31.52 . 01 . 54 . 02 . 0
2 . 54 . 0
22.0
EsTHI3DAEXT ElFiADANFnHEADA
2 9 92 9 92 9 92 9 92 9 9
232
:::232232
EsmHEADA 2 9 9 232aAmHE4DA 2 9 9 232EEwAHmDA 2 9 9 232
I107
31:225 7.81
1 .Ol0.2!1 .5t
::t:
885
12::300
1465
I .OQ 3.060.11 1.710 . 4 7 2.830 . 0 9 0 . 3 62 . 0 0 1.12
0 . 8 6 2 . 2 00 . 6 8 2.460 . 5 6 2 . 5 4
< 0.5< 0.5c 0 . 5
5 . 0< 0 . 5
< 0 . 5
: x:::f80
7.01
;:::
0. st 932.3 13600. St 1960
\h -cCERTIFICATION :
APPENDIX 2
~ICALREPORT ON TAILINGAND WASTE ROCKSAMPLES
JAMES VINNELL, MMZWIJOHN G. PAYNE, Ph.D. ~mtog~sr
A.L. LITTLEJOHN, H SC. ~rnbalrtJEFF HARRIS, Ph.D. cicologisr
Report for: Linda M. Broughton,Coastech Research Inc.,869 West Third St.,North Vancouver, B.C.V7P lE2
P.O. BOX 3988.97 NASH STREETFORT LANGLEY. B.C.VGX lJ0
PHONE (604) 888- l 323
March 9th, 1988
Samples :8 tailings samples and 4 waste rock samples for polished thin section
preparation and mineralogical study.Samples are numbered as follows:
Tailings: CUT, FIST, EST, ELT, KIT, NBT, WAT, WMT.Waste Rock: (JJWR,=WR,P=SWR,INwR
sumnary:These materials - as might be expected from their disparate origin - show
considerable variety in terms of grain size and overall sulfide content. Theyshow less variation in actual sulfide mineralogy - pyrite, and sometimes pyrrhotite,being the only significant sulfide components in almost all cases.
Of the tailings samples, CUT, HST, WAT and WHIZ are sulfide-rich, whilst NBT,EST and EL,T contain much less sulfides (estimated 4 - 7%). KLT contains veryminor amounts of sulfides and arsenides.
Of the above samples, WAT and EL,T are relatively coarse grained, whilst theothers are finely to very finely cornninuted, with sulfide particles extendingdown to the low micron size range.
Sulfides are largely as liberated particles in all the tailings samples.Of the waste rock samples, ESWR is sulfide-rich, HSWR and CUWR have low to
moderate sulfide contents, and INWR is very low in sulfides. Ihese materialsgenerally show a particle size range of about 0.05 - 3.Omn.
Ihe presence of carbonate may be significant in acid-generation studies asan at-source neutralizer. Most of the samples appear to contain very littlecarbonate. Exceptions are CUT, WMT, CUWR and ESWR withl- 2%, and NBT with anestimated 5%. More precise measurements of carbonate contents could be obtainedby chemical analyses for CO2 .
SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR MICROSTUDIES . PETROGRAPHIC REPORTS . SPEC:AL GEOLOG’I FIEL3 STUDIES
- 2 -
A few of the samples contain minor amounts of iron oxides (magnetite andhematite) of primary origin. None contain secondary (limonitic) oxides whichmight be indicative of active oxidation of the particulate materials havingstarted. In fact, the freshness of the pyrite particles, even at the bottom endof the size range, is a notable feature throughout the suite.
The partial alteration of pyrrhotite referred to in a number of thedescriptions is a typical feature of this mineral in many primary ores. It isa late hydrothermal and/or near-surface modification and not the result of post-mining oxidation.
The slides have been retained for later comparison with the same material aftersubjection to .sirrPllated weathering.
Individual descriptions are attached.
J.F. Harris Ph.D.(phone: 929-5867)
Sample CUT
EstimatedGangue
mode
QuartzFeldsparSericiteChloriteCarbonate
OpaquesPyriteSecondary pyrite )Altered pyrrhotite )PyrrhotiteChalcopyrite )Sphalerite )Galena )Magnetite
305
12
;
33142
1
trace
This is a sulfide-rich product consisting predominantly of pyrite grains inthe size range 5 - 200 microns.considerably coarser,
Some of the accompanying gangue particles areranging up to 500 microns.
About 99% of the pyrite appears to be as free grains. It includes a notableproportion of the microgranular type which is commonly secondary after pyrrhotite.Observation of locking characteristics is impeded by the tendency for slimes-sized material to agglomerate as close-packed C~UITEX, with optical superpositionof grains.
Base metal sulfides are sparse. They occur partly as a few relatively coarsecomposites (sphalerite/pyrrhotite/gangue;pyrite/ sphalerite/galena, etc).
galena/gangue, chalcopyrite/gangue,'Ihe remainder occurs as tiny free grains, and as
disseminated specks, on the scale 5 - 50 microns, in gangue.
Sample HST
EstimatedGanguePyrite
mode
2055
Ryrrhotite )Altered pyrrhotite ) 24Sphalerite )Magnetite ) 1Chalcopyrite trace
This is a finely comninuted, sulfide-rich product, in which the majority ofparticles are in the size range 5 - 50 microns. Extensive flocculation of finesinto tight packed aggregates impedes observations. Gangue particles include somecoarser grains to 100 microns or more. They are not identifiable, as this samplehad to be prepared as a polished mount rather than a polished thin section.
The principal sulfide is pyrite, but there is a significant proportion ofpyrrhotite and brownish secondary-type pyrite, probably derived from pyrrhotite.Relative proportions are difficult to determine in such finely divided material.
Sulfides appear to be largely liberated. This is also true of the traceaccessories, though a few grains show locking on a scale down to a few microns.
The slide includes noticeable munts of a grey mineral which could bemagnetite or sphalerite. The two cannot readily be distinguished optically atthis size range.
The high Cu and Pb analyses for this product are at odds with the microscopicobservations. (halcopyrite is observed - but only in fractions of a percent - antno galena was seen.
Sample EST
Estimated modeGangue
SericiteSericitized felsiteVolcanic lithic fragmentsPlagioclaseQuartzChloriteRutileCarbonate
OpaquesPyriteSphaleriteChalcopyriteGalenaTetrahedriteMagnetite )Hematite )
82
51
:trace
7tracetracetracetrace
2
This is a sulfide-poor product whose true particle size is difficult todetermine.
The slide includes numerous sub-rounded masses, 0.2 - 3.Orrxn in size, of whatlooks like a rather well-sorted wacke or tuff, made up of close-packed, sericitizedclasts, 0.02 - 0.2am in size.to be flocculated aggregates,
These look too well-compacted and free of slimes
contain such coarse particles.but it seems unlikely that a tailings product would
The grain size range is, therefore, tentatively estimated (on the basis ofclearly disaggregated components) as 5 - 200 microns.
Sulfides are principally pyrite, as ragged, sub-angular grains, 5 - 75 micronsin size, mainly hornogenous, free particles.are as inclusions in gangue.
A proportion of the tiniest grains
Accessory traces of base metal sulfides are present, partly as free specksand partly in gangue.other sulfides.
The minute traces of galena are normally composite withMagnetite - partially hematized - is of similar mode: mainly
free, partly as specks within gangue. It is not generally associated with sulfides.
Sample ELT
Estimated
Ganguemode
Quartz 75Feldspars 15Sericite 5
OpaquesPyrite 5Pvrrhotite traceChalcopyrite )Galena ) trace
This is another sulfide-poor product, of relatively coarse particle size.It consists largely of angular grains of quartz and feldspar, 0.05 - l.kn
in size. The feldspar shows varying degrees of sericitization. The coarsestgrains are often composites of quartz and sericitized feldspar.
Sulfides are minor and consist almost entirely of pyrite. This occurs asfree grains, 0.02 - 0.2rnn in size. Fine-grained disseminations of sulfides ingangue are apparently absent. The pyrite is as fresh angular grains.
Sparse grains of pyrrhotite are also seen, and very rare traces ofchalcopyrite (free grains) and galena (a single case of an inclusion in a pyritegrain).
Sample KLT_
Estimated
Ganguemode
QuartzMineral XLeucoxene )Rutile )Zircon )Monazite )
OpaEeLsenidesF&teGraphite
76202
trace
1trace
1
This sample consists predominantly of angular fragments of monocrystallinequartz, 0.05 - 0.3mn in size.
The other major constituent is a mineral of uncertain identity which shows alath-like/acicular habit and occurs as individual elongate crystals, 0.03 - 0.2mmin length. This has a very low birefringence, straight extinction and a low tomoderate relief: it is sometimes twinned (when it resembles microlitic plagioclase)and often dusted with sub-micron sized sub-opaque material.
It is not possible that liberated, perfectly formed, minute, individual crystalslike this could be produced by grinding a normal rock. It therefore seems likelythat this is a by-product of some processingresidue. Lt may, perhaps, be gypsum.
Opaques are very sparse. They consistin size, of various cream, pinkish and whitewhich are thought to be nickel arsenides andramnelsbergite, gersdorffite etc. Some areconcentric zoning.
step of which this material is the _
of individual grains, 10 - 100 micronsminerals - some of them anisotropic -sulfarsenides such as niccolite,tiny isometric euhedra showing ’
Traces of pyrite are also seen.Graphite, as relatively coarse, contorted flakes, is a
constituent.notable minor
Sample NBT
EstimatedGangue
mode
QuartzSericitePlagioclaseCarbonateBiotite
OpaquesPyriteChalcopyriteBorniteHematite )Magnetite >
52172051
4tracetrace
1
This product shows a rather wide particle size, from 10 - 500 microns.Quartz is the predominant constituent, commonly as polygranular particles
or composites with sericite and/or plagioclase.Carbonate is a notable accessory.Composites of the various gangue components are costnon, but it is difficult
to determine to what extent these are true lithic fragments as opposed to artificialagglomerates. The slide includes ntnnerous relatively coarse, subrounded patches,0.5 - ~.OITIII in size, which look exactly like a natural, poorly sorted, volcaniclasticrock (greywacke), but which may be a function of poor disaggregation of a partiallycemented tailings.
Sulfides consist mainly of angular fragments of pyrite, 5 - 120 microns insize. These are typically fully liberated.
Minor and trace components are iron oxides (hematite and magnetite) andchalcopyrite - occasionally with intergrown bornite. The oxides and the copperminerals are generally unassociated with the pyrite. The chalcopyrite is sometimesseen as minute specks in gangue or intergrown with Fe-oxides.
Sample WAT_
Estimated mcdeGangue
QuartsFeldsparAmphiboleMuscoviteEpidoteChloriteGarnetSphene
opaquesPyrite
25
;:3
5’11
1291
trace
This is a well-sorted, slimes-free material, having a particle size range of50 - 250 microns.
'Ihe gangue particles are a mixture of liberated mineral grains and lithicfragments of an apparent fine-grained meta-igneous rock.
Sulfides are relatively abundant, as well-liberated grains of pyrite andpyrrhotite, 30 - 250 microns in size. The pyrrhotite cormonly shows varyingdegrees of alteration to mottled, dusty, secondary oxides. Pyrite and pyrrhotiteare seldom seen intergrown.
An estimated 5% of the sulfides occur as fine-grained disseminations (10 -50 microns) in silicates.
Traces of chalcopyrite are partially as free grains, but more often as tinyspecks in gangue or intergrown with magnetite.
Magnetite occurs predaninantly as free grains, tit about 10% of it showssmall inclusions of sulfides.
Sarrrple WMT_
EstimatedGangue
mode
QuartzFeldsparSericiteCarbonate
opasuesPyrite
~%ICZlalcopyrite
This is a very finely ground product with an estimated particle size range of2- 70 microns. It shows severe flocculation/agglomeration and masking by slimes,tending to hamper accurate obsemation of mineral proportions.
Sulfides are abundant and appear to be essentially all pyrite, as fresh,
3515
!
40tracetracetrace
homogenous, finely caminuted, often splinter-like fragments. It exhibits almostperfect liberation from the gangue.
Accessory sulfides are sparse. They also occur principally as free grains,though occasional tiny composites of chalcopyrite and sphalerite with pyrite areseen.
Sample CUWR
EstimatedGangue
mcde
wtzFeldsparBiotiteMuscoviteEpidoteCarbonateGarnetSphene
OpaquesmiteMagnetiteSphaleriteChalcopyritexatite
30301015
;tracetrace
11
1
This sample consistsof rock fragments and disaggregated mineral grains 0.05 -2.51nn in size.
The host rock is a crystalline schist composed of quartz and plagioclase withbiotite, muscotite and occasional garnet.
The dominant sulfide is pyrite, as homogenous well-polished fragments, 0.05 -l.Omn or more in size. These are partly liberated grains and partly as simplecoarse-grained c-sites with silicates (principally quartz). One or twocomposites of pyrite with brown carbonate were seen.
Accessory sulfides are minor in quantity and occur, in various combinations,as fine-grained intergrowths in pyrite, on the scale 10 - 50 microns. Occasionalgrains of intergrown sphalerite and chalcopyrite up to 100 microns are seen.
Magnetite is another minor component, chiefly as granules in silicate hostrock particles.
The trace constituents are listed above in estimated decreasing order ofabundance.
Sample IiSWR
Estimated
Ganguemode
Plagioclase >Felsite >QuartzSericiteChloriteHornblendeCarbonate
SulfidesPyritePyrrhotiteSphaleriteChalcopyriteGalenaArsenopyriteFe-oxides
20
::18tracetrace
3220.50.5
tracetrace
This material consists of particles in the size range 0.1 - 3.Omn. These areprincipally rock fragments of fine-grained metavolcanics and metasediments with someapparent vein quartz.
The majority of the sulfides are c-site with, or more or less finelydisseminated in, silicates.
The various sulfides typically show rather fine-grained mutual intergrowthson the scale of 5 - 100 microns. Typical associations are pyrrhotite cementingpyrite euhedra; pyrite in a sphalerite matrix; pyrrhotite/galena/sphalerite inemulsion-type, tri-component intergrowth; very fine networks of chalcopyrite inpyrite; multicomponent sulfide disseminations in gangue, etc.
Occasionally sphalerite is seen intimately intergrown with carbonate, but thelatter is not a quantitatively significant component in this material.
Sample ESWR_
EstimatedmodeGangue
Sericitized felsiteVolcanic Ethic fragmentsPlagioclaseQuartzCarbonateChloriteSphene
OpaquesPyritePyrrhotite )Altered pyrrhotite >MagnetiteHematiteArsenopyriteTetrahedrite
30
:.111
trace
5631
tracetracetrace
lhis sample consistsof rock and disaggregated mineral particles, principallyin the size range 0.02 - 2.5nm. A few elongate particles up to S.Cmn are alsopresent.
mite is abundant, chiefly as liberated fragments, 0.1 - 3.Gmn or more in size.This is a homogenous, massive variety, generally lacking crystal form.
A very minor proportion of pyrite occurs as fine-grained disseminations (grains5 - 50 microns in size) in silicates.
A little of the pyrite is sanewhat brownish in colour and shows a relictcleavage; this type grades to definite altered pyrrhotite and is presumably asecondary alteration of that olineral.
Traces of arsenopyrite are seen as fine-grained intergrowths in pyrite, andtraces of tetrahedrite as simple composites with pyrite.
Magnetite occurs as a widespread, though minor constituent. It is seenin some coarse particles in the form of a microgranular matrix to clumps of pyrite;as simple or finely intergrown composites with pyrite, as fine disseminations insilicates and as liberated grains 20 - 400 microns in size. The magnetitesometimes shows partial replacement by hematite, and a few discrete grains of hematiteare present.
Sample INWR_
Estimated mode
GanguePlagioclaseQuartsPyroxeneHornblendeBiotiteSpheneEpidoteChloriteIlmeniteBlack glass
SulfidesPyrrhotiteChalcopyritePyritePentlandite
3210
;:1.5trace
1trace
1Ir
h.50.5
trace
This material consists of rock fragments and disaggregated mineral grains,0.05 - 2.Om in size. 'fhe rocks amear to be gabbroic and dioritic intrusiveswithsomediabase. There are also&&gmentssilicate and sulfide microlites and granules,is probably not of natural origin.
Sulfides are sparse. They include rarechalcopyrite, to 300 microns in size, but areon the scale 10 - 50 microns, in silicates.
Chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite are comnonly
oT a black glass, with minute oxide,which looks like slag or matte, and
free grains of pyrrhotite, pyrite andchiefly fine-grained disseminations,
intergrown, and the pyrrhotite often_ __contains m&on-sized exsolution bodies of pentlandite.Scattered grains of ilmenite show no particular association with sulfides.
APPENDIX 3
B. C. REXZZiRCH INITIAL TEST DATA
B.C. RESEARCH INITIAL TESTACID TITRATION RESULTS
I ISAMPLE 1 INZTIAL ( SULPHURfC ACID CONSUWPTION (kg/t)
IPH I lh 3h 5h ah 2lh 24h 48h 96h 12OhI II I
CUT I 4.5 I 6.9 11.5 13.0 22.5 26.4EL1 I 7.2 1 2.9 3.4 3.9 15.7 21.6EST I 8.2 I 12.5 16.1 17.6 25.0 27.7HST 1 3.8 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.4KLT I 8.8 1 53.9 55.9 59.3 70.6 88.6NBT 1 8.4 I 23.5 27.7 39.9 61.7 70.1UAT I 3.1 I 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5WT I 5.8 I 19.6 20.6 21.3 22.0 22.0
ICUUR l 7.8 i 20.3 22.3 22.8 23.3 29.6 31.6 38.5ESUR I 4.9 1 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.4 6.4 6.9 10.8HSUR I 6.6 I 7.8 10.3 11.2 il.8 17.6 19.1 29.4INUR I 7.3 I 8.7 4.2 4.6 4.7 7.6 8.6 13.9
98.596.51.0
22.3
I I
APPENDIX 4
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING DATA
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Curragh Tailing CUT (1)
S[T] (%): 24.95 AP ** 785.9
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00ml_ acid: 20.00paste pH: 4.76
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
~*~: 0.00 51.00:oo i?~~
1.020 1.0201.020 :i+
-734.9 -734.90.00 0:oo 1.020 51:o ::g;zi
3:so
zi
1:85
1.020 1.015 51.0 50.8 :;g;
0.9294.00 :*;i 0.909
1;;;::
5.006.00 4:98 z;f
-742:3-747.2
7.00 15.58 0:250 -773.4
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-8ASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Elliot Lake Tailing ELT (1)
S[T] (%): 3.79 AP ** 119.4
N acid : 0 . 1 0N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid:paste pH: 2~~~~.
PH ml base mg e uiv%
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 0.000.00 0.001.802.00 :z
:*;:lo:60
3:50 17.00 17.98
1.020 :;*!I -68.41.0201.020 51:o
X;:0:179
33.9 24.8
0.131 ::; -112.80.105 5.3 -114.10.033 A:; -117.70.018 -118.50.005 0.3 -119.1
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Equity Silver Tailing EST (1)
S[T] (%): 3.4 AP ** 107.1
N acid : 0.52N base:Wt sample: ~$ImL acid:paste pH:
4::;;.
PH ml base mg e uivi
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNT
Sample : Heath Steele Tailing HST (1)
S[T] (%): 39.9 AP ** 1256.9
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10;; ;;yjle:
paste pi:
20.00 2.00
2.68
PH ml base mg e uivaci lg1
N P ** NETNP **
0.00 0.00 1.0200.00 ;*:: 1.020
::.: -1205.9
1.945.80 1:62
1.020;*02: 0.940 0.733 2;:;
-1205.9-1205.9-1209.9
2:80 12.00 0.427 2;:;
:*z:5:oo
13.80 14.65 0.338 0.296 16:9 14.8
:;;;og*;
-1240:0 -1242.120.20 0.021 -1255.8
I?;: . ;z . :;*;;: . -18:4 _:*: -1264.6 -1275.2
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Key Lake Tailing KLT (1)
S[T] (%>: 4.68 AP ** 147.4
N acid :N base: :*i:Wt sample: 2:oomL acid:paste pH: 4080z.
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci lg NP **
0.00 0.00 2.040 102.00.00 :z 2.040 102.0 :;;*t0:oo 2.040
z::
;Fz*: -45.4 -45:4
1:728102:o -45.4
1.635
4.005.00 ;*;:z6.00 17.64 1:1687.00 20.44 1.029
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Noranda Bell Tailing NBT (1)
S[T] (%): 2.99 AP ** 94.2
N acid : 0.52N base: 0.50Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 80.00paste pH: 7.34
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.37 20.880 1044.0 949.81.00 6.649 238.3
1.50 3.6791.80 z*:
;*02:2:80
:?z74:94
:z 2:649 47:1 38.32.332 116.6 22.4
:*z 75.715:oo :z
107.1 104.7 12.9 10.6
;*::77:oo F: _:*':
. 77.30 87:4 -618
** Potentials expressedper tonne of sample
as kg calcium carbonate
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Waite Amulet Tailing WAT (1)
S[T] (%): 11.85 AP ** 373.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10;; ;;r$e:
paste p;:
20.00 2.00
2.92
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
!!*G1:97
:*z0:oo
1.020 1.020 ::.:1.020 51:o
X2:80
4.81 1.00 o-97110.29 00.;::
z*:25:6 -347.7
34':: 19.2 -354.05:oo
:z14:40
0:385 0.3670.308 K ::;;j
6.00 16.29 10:7 -362:67.00 20.20
:*;:':. 1.1 -372.2
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Westmin Tailing WMT (1)
S[T] (%): 22.9 AP ** 721.3
N acid : 0.52N base:;; ;;T$le: ;z
.paste pi:
l3o:oo5.35
PH ml base mg e uiv NP ** NETaci /g! NP **
0.391.00
56.2; 20.880 1044.0 322.7
2:oo zoo
!% 348.3 -373.1
2:565 2.169168.8 -552.5128.3 108.5 -593.1
%:g:;.;
3:50 -643:24.00 :K!5.00 79:70
:;:;*;-663:6
;*oo: . 80.28 80.85 0.870 1.011 43.5 50.5 -677.9 -670.8
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Curragh Waste Rock CUWR (1)
S[T] (%) : 8.66 AP ** 272.8
N acid :N base: :*:i;; ;;y;le: 2:oo
.paste pi:
80.007.16
PH ml base mg e uiv NP ** NETaci /g1 NP **
0.43 50.0: 2Et 1044.0 771.21.00 425.3 152.51.50 63.90 5:065 253.2 -19.61.80
Ed4.377 218.8 -54.0
2.0068: 75
4.100 205.0 -67 .a2.20 -79.62.80 70.05
?Ei
31283
K
g::-95.7
-108.7
:%2: 139
113:4 -116.7 -159.4107 .o
2.018 100.9 :;g*; .
*+ Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonaterler tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Equity Silver Waste Rock ESWR (1)
S[T] (%): 19.1 AP ** 601.7
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00ml_ acid: 20.00paste pH: 4.33
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
1.020 51.0 -550.70.985 49.3 -552.40.685 34.2 ~~-567.40.477 23.8 -577.8
E5 . 19.1 17.1 -582.6 -584.5
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Heath Steele Waste Rock HSWR (1)
S[T] (%): 6.12 AP ** 192.8
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 20.00paste pH: 5.85
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 0.000.00 0.00
0.002.08 Ki:.2.20 2.502.80 8.20;.g 10.25
5:oo10.6112.10
;*::13.10
. 15.15
1.020 51.01.020
:k:1.020 .1.020 51.00.896 44.8
0.6150.513 E.0.495 24.80.422 21.10.372 18.6 -/74.20.271 13.5 -179.2
-141.8-141.8:;t:*;-148:o-162.1-167.1
+* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD A
Sample : Into Waste Rock INWR (1)
S[T] (%): 0.694 AP ** 21.9
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10;; ;;ytle: 2.00
.paste pH: 2?%.
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
~*~~0:oo
0.00 0.00 1.020 1.0201.020
0.00 ~*~: 1.0202.24 0:oo 1.0202.80 :*z 0.741i*z
Loo
8:40 0.637
10.90 ~*~:
i% . ;z; . 0:415 0.281
37.1 15.210.0
Fi!-1:1-7.8
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Curragh Tailing CUT (2)
s= (%a) : 24.21 AP **: 762.6
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10;; y$Ie:
paste pi:
20.00 2.00
4.76
PH ml base mg e uivaci /g1
NP ** NETNP **
0.00 0.00 1.020 51.0 -711.60.00 !Z 1.020 -711.60.00
0:oo1.020
:z
0.00 1.0200.00 0.00 1.020
:::;-711.6-711.6-711.6
2.92 0.00 1.020 -711.6
:-z5:oo
1.50 1.85 13*Z8
$3
0:87646:4 -715.3 -716.2
:*;;43.8 -718.8
;*::-724.2
. 15:61 :*z. :z. -750.2
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Elliot Lake Tailing ELT (2)
s= (%) : 3.28 AP **: 103.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 20.00paste pH: 6.79
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
51.051.051.0 -52.333.1 -70.223.6 -79.8
:*:1:1
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Equity Silver Tailing EST (2)
s= (%) : 3.11 AP **: 98.0
N acid : 0.52N base:;; ;;$zle: ;*z
.paste p;l:
40:oo7.68
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.89 9.2: 10.440 522.0 424.01.00 8.163 408.21.50 3.3171.80
zz: z: 3;?;
33:78 KS! 104:o24:9
2.002.20 34.66 1:862 93.1 _:j2.80
105:
:z: :.z: 74.3 -23:7
5:oo37:20 1:233 if*: -32.0 -36.3;K4 40:20
0.852 42:6?Z . 0.490 0.684 24.5 34.2 -73:4 :z:*;
.I** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonate
per tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample. : Heath Steele Tailing HST (2)
s= (%) : 38.05 AP **: 1198.6
N acid : 0.10N base:;; ;;yjle: ~~~~
.paste pi:
20:oo2.68
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 0.00 1.020 -1147.60.00 0.00 1.020
::.;
1.92 E: 1.020 51:o :::t:*i
7:35 z:; 43.9 32.8 -1154:6 -1165.7:z! 0:33916:00 Et!
16.9 13.4 :g:*;
Ei KK’: -0:00911.4 -1ia7:l
-1199.0
7:oo 28122 :;*;:: .
-11.1 -0.4
-18.8 :g;*: .
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD I3
Sample : Key Lake Tailing KLT (2)
S= (%) : 0.39 AP **: 12.3
N acid : 0.10N base:Wt sample: zmL acid: 40:oopaste pH: 8.5
PH ml base mg e uiv!
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 0.00 102.0 89.7
0.00 0.00
K:t:
102.00.002.19
:*;: 2:040 102.0 :z
0:so2.040 102.0
2.20 2.015 100.88&;
:*:: 84.34:oo
8.55 7.14 1.687 1.617 72:1 68.6
::*::1.541 64.7
5.00 1.230 49.26.00 la:16 1.142 44.87.00 21.05 0.999 37.7
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD I3
Sample : Noranda Bell Tailing NBT (2)
s= ('a) : 2.59 A P **: 81.6
N acid : 0.52N base: 0.50Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 80.00paste pH: 7.34
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.43 52.6: 20.880z: 7.862
1:80 ::*:;2.00 71:602.20 72.502.8034':: :1-z: 75:50 2.268
5:oo 76.05 5*G
?Z . :?t: . 1:959 1.758
1044.0 962.4393.1 311.5
:;t*:136.8
158:0.93.776.4
146.8125.8113.4
65.244.231.828.1109.7
102.9 21.397.9 16.387.9 6.3
t* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD 8
Sample : Waite Amulet Tailing WAT (2)
s= (a) : 12.74 AP **: 401.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 20.00paste pH: 2.92
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.000.00 iEi1.94 0:oo2.00 4.682.20 8.252.80 lS.52
:*;:5:oo
K?16:60
6.00 18.447.00 20.84 -
1.020 51.01.020 51.01.020 51.0
X920:351
:z17:6
0.266 13.3K::
0:108
10.0 12.2
*O.Oll -;:;
-383.7-388.0-389.1-391.4-395.9-401.8
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD 6
Sample : Westmin Tailing WMT (2)
s= (%) : 22.13 A P **: 697.1
N acid :N base: :$I;; ;;yzle: 2:oo
paste ~4: a!*!!.
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
2K%
2:243
-419.1 346.9
s;:2.20 1:080 54.02.80 81.60
34%ii%
5:oo0:412
::*:
20:6 10.7
%! . -0:078 ii%! -::;
c* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Curragh Waste Rock CUWR (2)
s= (%) : 8.19 AP **: 258.0
N acid : 0.52N base:Wt sample: ~~~~mL acid: 80:00paste pH: 7.16
PH ml base mg e uiv NP ** NETaci /g1 NP **
0.44 20.880 1044.0 786.0
:*05:1:80
g$
;'5:;;
~~34~~4:905
4::*:245:3
'Kz-12:7
2.00 4.565 228.22.20 ;;:;i 4.330 216.5 ::y*:
:*::4:oo ;$;;
3.980 3.695 199.0 184.8 -59:o -73.2
75:oo 32':::177.0 -81.0
5.006.00 75.64 1:970 '!Z
93:4:;;;*:
7.00 76.05 1.868 -164:6
t* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Equity Silver Waste Rock ESWR (2)
s= (56) : 19.73 AP **: 621.5
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 20.00paste pH: 4.33
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 0.00 1.020 51.00.00 0.00
:*h?0.00 t*z ::*:
I;;;.:2:20 6.72 2.90 0:877 0.688 34.4 43:8 -587:l 1;;;:;
:z 12.30 13.78 0.412 20.6 -600.9
4:oo 14.46 Fz;z0:252
z*;z: 12:6
7:oo
::z
18:40 ~*~~o" . 'K .
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD B
Sample : Heath Steele Waste Rock HSWR (2)
s= (%) : 5.89 AP **: 185.5
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00ml_ acid: 20.00paste pH: 5.85
PH ml base mg e uiv NP +* NETaci /g1 NP **
1:461.020 -134.5
2.20 0.948 47:4 -138.1
:*Fi 8.75 0.5874:oo KZ E34
E24:2
-156.2 -159.9
12:26 0:414-161.4
5.00 20.7 -164.86.00 13.00 0.377 18.97.00 14.85 0.286 14.3 1:;;. :.
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonfle of sample
Sample : Into Waste Rock INWR (2)
s= (%) : 0.2 AP **: 6.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00mL acid: 20.00paste pH: 7.05
PH ml base mg e uiv9
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.00 1.0201.0201.0201.0201.020
6.90 0.6799.82
K::-::f:
12:660:4420.394
15.44 0.256
E51:o ;;:I
44.7 44.7
44.744.7 44.7
3236*; . 27.6 20.4
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD C
Sample : Elliot Lake Tailing ELT
s= (%) : 3.28 AP **: 103.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10Wt sample: 2.00ml_ acid: 20.00paste pH: 6.79
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
1.12 0.00 1.020 51.0 -52.3
1.50 9.36 0.5711.80 12.30 z*:
;z2:80
14.06 15.00 :*z 0:300 17:3 15.0
:*;:z:
5:oo 17:49 18.50
?Z ::*:4:;;.:
. . -98:0
t* Potentials exprsssed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sanple
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD C
Sample : Equity Silver Tailing C l
s= (%) : 3.11 AP **: 98.0
N acid : 0.54N base:Wt sample: 02*2mL acid: 40:oopaste pH: 7.68
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.56 22.5: 10.700 535.0 437.0
1.00 5.2551.501.80 E
$:;~
K%:;:*i152: 4
%54:4
Ei2:80 33:69
2:845 2.738 E$ 44.3 38.9
34*;:34.08 ;*:z:
2:397 1.831
;;; :;
119:8 91.5;z
5:oo 34.31 36.65 21:9
F-*E1.809 I;*;
. :x2”. 1.499 ?x. -23:0
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD C
Sample : Noranda Bell Tailing NBT
s= (%) : 2.59 AP **: 81.6
N acid :N base: :zWt sample: 2:oomL acid: 80.00paste pH: 7.34
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.42 21.400 1070.01.00 54.2: 414.2 %i1.501.80
z*: 168:o
195:z127.0113.6
183.8 102.2
:z -ii:
76: 70
: 2:996 l ;z164.9 83.3152.2 149.8 68.2 70.6
2.83977.14 :;;*z ~~~~77.70 ;*;i:. 129:8 48:2
'* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD C
Sample : Curragh Waste Rock CUWR
s- (%) : 8.19 AP l *: 258.0
N acid :N base: i-z!Wt sample: 2:oomL acid: 80.00paste pH: 7.16
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.48 0 21.400 1070.0 812.03:1:80
$Ei62:71
10.970 7.025 351.3 548.5
6.224 311.22.00 288.3
2.20 :4z:.!$4:oo
67.89 66:69z:;4.971 5:261
;:;*:248:5
;:*z4.702 235.1
5.00 3.318 165.96.00 75:25 3.190 159.57.00 76.04 2.998 149.9
-22.9-92.1-98.5
-108.1
t* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD D
Sample : Elliot Lake Tailing ELT
s= (%): 3.28 AP **: 103.3
N acid : 0.10N base: 0.10;; ;;yjle: . 2.00
paste pi: 3E.
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci lg NP **
1.00 0.00 1.785 89.3 -14.11.50 20.201.80 20.50 ZhZ
oh85z*:
2.00 :;*K! 24:3:;:*;-79:1
2.20
31:21 32.19
0.407 20.4 -83.0
:z 0.2874:oo :z
14.3 12.0
5.00 0:17711.0
?!z. Kg?!
. 7:4
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD II
Sample : Equity Silver Tailing EST
s= (%): 3.11 AP **: 98.0
N acid :N base: ia:81; ;$$e: Loo
paste p;:50.007.68
PH ml base mg e uiv NP ** NETaci /g1 NP **
2.490 124.5 26.5
2.490 124.52.106 105.3 2?:1.760.
z*:-1o:o
2.00 17.60 1.6452.20 20.22 :*z; 76:0 ::I*;2.80
1:31368.3 -29:665.7
1.273 ::*: :;;j1.110 -42:51.043 52:l -45.8
37.80 0.676 33.8 -64.2
+* Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD D
Sample : Noranda Bell Tailing NBT
s- (%): 2.59 AP **: 81.6
N acid : 0.54N base:Wt sample: g-gmL acid: so:00paste pH: 7.34
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.57 33.1; 13.375 668.81.00 5.362 268.1
1.50 40.90 3.4771.80 42.90 2.993 z;2.00 43.18 ?:f: 146:3
2.20 43.52 2:679 K
;-:;;2:316
125:2 123.5115.8
2.243 112.21.989 99.4
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
ACID-BASE ACCOUNTMETHOD D
Sample : Curraugh Waste Rock CUWR
s= (%): 8.19 AP **: 258.0
N acid :oa-2N base:
;; ;g$e: Loo
5?Yo6paste pi: .
PH ml base mg e uiv1
NP ** NETaci /g NP **
0.53 13.375 668.8 410.81.00 7.010
z:1.50z:1.80 -9:14:845 -15.84.733 -21.34.542 -30.9
-41.8-60.4
5.00 -118.6
;*:z-120.4
. 45.60 -141.0_I
** Potentials expressed as kg calcium carbonateper tonne of sample
APPENDIX 5
ALKALINE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL DATA
ALKALINE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
TITRATION RESULTS FOR CALCIUM CARBONATE STANDARDS
N acid (HCL) 0.0996N base (NaOH) 0.0995Volume acid 20.0 mLVolume d. water 20.0 mLEndpoint pH 5.0
STANDARD(mg CaC03)
0.0 21.601.5 19.683.0 18.865.0 18.72
10.0 17.1015.0 16.8925.0 15.00
VOLUME BASE
I
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
1 00
ALKALINE PRODUCTION POTENTIALCaC03 STANDARD CURVE
mL of Base Added
_...
.
.
I I I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30mg Calolum Carbonate
ALKALINE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
TITRATION RESULTS
Sample weight 500 mgN acid (HCl) 0.0996N base (NaOH) 0.0996volume acid 20.00 mLVolume d. water 20.00 mLEndpoint pH 5.0
SAMPLE
TAILING :CUTELTESTHSTKLTNBTWAT
WASTE ROCK :
ESWRHSWRINWR
VOLUME BASE (mL)
SERIES A SERIES B
19.08 18.8919.80 19.7017.20 17.1920.4513.75 13.5115.12 14.6520.17 19.8517.70 17.74
17.32 17.3419.36 19.3018.50 18.3518.70 18.76
APPENDIX 6
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST DATA
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
STANDARD: 0 WT % STANDARD: 1 WT %
TIME_________-
0.0
:*i4:o
i-i1o:o12.014.015.020.025.030.0
PH______----3.764.124.184.244.294.314.33
t*$!;:g
4:384.38
TEMP. C_________-
21.5
TIME______----
0.0
::i
Z:i
1:*:12:o14.015.020.025.0
i 30.0
PH_________--4.02
3.24
TEMP. C__________
21.021.021.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
STANDARD: 2 WT 4
TIME______-__-
0.0
::;
ii:;
1x12:o14.015.020.025.030.0
PHw_______--3.98
2.60
TEMP. C.________-
21.0
si*:21:521.722.022.0
:z22:823.224.025.0
STANDARD:
TIME._________
0.0
::i
i::
1:*:12:o14.015.0
3 WT %
PH.________-3.933.67
2.45
TEMP. C._____----
21.021.021.5
;:*i22:o22.2
28.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
STANDARD: 4 WT 4 STANDARD: 5 WT %
TIME__________
0.0
::"o
ii:;
1:*:12:o14.015.020.025.030.0
PH____--____3.913.673.52
TEMP. CI_________
TEMP. C.___----_-
fi*Z22:o22.222.6
2.422.262.10
TIME__-_-_____
0.01.0
f:i
i*;1o:o12.0
:1*:20:o25.030.0
PH_________-3.71
?Z3:032.892.79
s-ii2:52
5*zi1:951.47
29.639.967.8
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
STANDARD: 6 WT % STANDARD: 8 WT %
TIME__-____--_
0.0
::"o
64::
1t:12:o14.015.020.025.030.0
PH___-___--_
z*:i3:21
;*;i2:62
;*:i2:312.271.991.591.74
TEMP. C___-____--
22.022.0
z*:23:824.825.426.5
TIME____-_____
!-i2:o
;:i
li?Z12:o14.0
Ki20:o
PH_____-__--TEMP. C.________22.0
44.057.068.555.9
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
STANDARD: 10 WT %
TIME.
PH.____-----3.383.082.83
2.35
:$i1:491.45
t::
TEMP. Cm_____----
22.522.9
;z*i27:231.0
it:73:o
Lit:.
STANDARD:
TIME________--
0.0
::i
i::
il3.i9:o
15 WT %
PH._____----3.23
TEMP. C_______---
22.624.025.5
:t-:.46.582.075.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TESTpH CURVES ; STANDARDS
PH5
..,,,, .,,. ......,.,, ,., .’
.,.
I I I I I I
Pyrite Content
- O W T %
+ lWT%
*- 2 WT 96
-m- 3 WT 96
* 4WT%
%- 6WT%
0 5 10 15 2 0 26 3 0 3 5TIME (min.)
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TESTpH CURVES ; STANDARDS
PH5
4
3
2
1
00
I I I 1 I I
5 10 15 20 25 30 35TIME (min.)
Pyrite Content
- 6WT%
+ 8WT%
--*. lOWT%
-El- 15WT%
,\:
00
07
HYDROGEN
SAMPLE: Curragh Tailing ASAMPLE WT: 5.00
PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Curragh Tailing 6SAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME_________e
0.01.0
T::
;:;
PH__________3.221.930.930.091.161.30
TEMP. C____---___
19.524.0
t;*:58:052.0
TIME__--______
0.0
::::
;::
K!.
i:f.
t-l32:o
PH___-_______3.42
0.75
:*88:0:870.900.930.96
.
TEMP. C_____-____
22.0
92.087.0
:%f81:s80.077.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Elliot Lake Tailing ASAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME__-______-
0.01.0
5::
31D:O12.014.015.0
PH__________4.565.155.27
E5:51
TEMP. C__________
z:191520.0
%oo2D:0E20:o
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Elliot Lake Tailing ASAMPLE WT: 5.00
I
TIME__________
I 0.01.0
f*i6:0
I
PH__________
z*::5:27
:*::5:51
:*::5:595.60
TEMP. C.____-___.
19.5
K20:o
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Equity Silver Tailing A SAMPLE: Eauitv Silver Tailing BSAMPLE WT: 5;OO - SAMPLE WT: 5:OO d
TIME__________
0.0
;::
:::
65::
;:Fl
1;::
t24*:15:o
PH-___---__-5.72
z*z6:73
TEMP. C________-_
19.519.519.8
K!20:o20.020.020.020.120.4
K20:1
TIME-____--___
0.0
;:i.
2::
!i:i
GE1210
:z*:.
PH_______--_5.206.196.29
?34%6:416.42
:*::6:46
TEMP. C________--
25.026.5
z-:;;::
27:528.028.028.028.2
~~~:.
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Heath Steele Tailing A SAMPLE: Heath Steele Tailing BSAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME________--
i-il:o1.5
f::
PH_________-2.681.72
;*z1:63
TEMP. C________--
21.041.082.0
TIME
Ei:;
.
Y*i1:21.31.5
PH_________-
I
TEMP. C_____----
22.031.099.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Key Lake Tailing ASAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME__________
0.01.0
T::
:*:1o:o12.014.015.0
PH._________6.187.187.22
TEMP. C-_________
22.025.0
%271227.828.0
z28:8
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Key Lake Tailing ASAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME______----
0.0:*oo4:o
kf.i1o:o12.014.015.0
PH_____-----6.18
TEMP. C
E-8261026.527.2
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE:SAMPLE WT:
TIME______----
0.01.0
P:;
:*:1o:o12.014.015.0
to;;nda Bell Tailing A.
SAMPLE: Noranda Bell Tailing BSAMPLE WT: 5.00
PH_______-__6.636.566.666.76
TEMP. C_____--_--
TIME_________-
0.10.2
:::
t:o:a
:::
:::
:*:7:o
PH___-__--___TEMP. C_________-
26.0
%26:5
;:-z26:526.526.827.027.0
;;*t27:8
HYDROGEN
SAMPLE: Waite Amulet Tailing ASAMPLE wT: 5.00
PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Waite Amulet Tailing 6SAMPLE wT: 5.00
TIME______----
:-!l:o1.5
;:;
?ii4:o
PH________--
5:;
2:011.851.621.251.281.33
TEMP. C__________
22.0
82.0
:?oo.
TIME______----
I3::
i::
i-i1:5
:-:2:s
::i4,o
PH__________2.72
0.80
K%0:97
:%i1:15
TEMP. C______----
25.0
94.0
it:80:576.074.070.0
HYDROGEN
SAMPLE: Westmin Tailing A SAMPLE: Westmin Tailing 8SAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME__________
:::
:*:2:o
g-z3:s
PH___--____-3.98
x3:21
S*E1:411.51
TEMP. C___---___-
22.024.0
78.0
PEROXIDE TEST
TIME-_--__---_ PH___-_____-
3.44
1.111.171.231.281.32
TEMP. C___--___--
27.029.0
z*:521093.087.083.0
;:*;74:o70.067.5
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Curragh Waste Rock A SAMPLE: Curragh Waste Rock 0SAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME._________ PHw_______--
5.98
6.266.22
5.785.34
.
. .
TEMP. C._________
;z*i26:527.0
_TIME
,_________0.0
i:"o
i-i1o:o12.014.016.018.0
42.044.0
;:*i55:o58.060.060.5
66i.i62:062.5
::*i63:5
66:.:65:0
. .
PH._______--
ii.3326:33
i*$Z6:216.186.156.106.056.01
:.z5:464.924.504.00
:.;':2:812.602.44
2.00
;*z1:871.881.91
TEMP. C._______-24.0
z.:26:526.827.027.027.527.828.028.029.0
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Equity Silver Waste Rock A SAMPLE: Equity Silver Waste Rock BSAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
PH.____-----3.42
:*;:2:80
z$3":
2:282.202.132.051.981.911.841.761.691.531.330.97
TEMP. C_______---
21.0
23.2
TIMEI_________
0.01.0
:::
;*352:8
:::
::;
:*:4:55.0
.
.
PH.____-----
32%2:011.801.70
:*::1:331.14
C
I
. _
TEMP. C.________-
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TEST
SAMPLE: Heath Steele Waste Rock A SAMPLE: Heath Steele Waste Rock BSAMPLE WT: 5.00
TIME._________
0.0
:::
2
I:*!12:o12.513.013.213.513.814.014.515.0
PH___---__--
z:2:142.031.86
z1:471.50
i*zi.
TEMP. C.-___---_-
23.2
TIME._I---_---
i:;
::i
i::
lzi10:310.510.811.011.512.013.014.015.0
PH______--w_-3.67
1.661.69
TEMP. C-____---_-
;;-i28:5
85.093.0
HYDROGEN
SAMPLE: Into Waste Rock A SAMPLE: Into Waste Rock BSAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
PEROXIDE TEST
TIME._____----
Ki.
;:i
1:-i12:o14.015.018.020.025.0
%~30:o
PH,________-
z:5:264.58
TEMP. C._____----
25.026.2
TIME,_________
Ki.
i::
1:::
::-i16:018.020.025.0
:i-i40:o
;;*:55:o60.0
66:-i67:0
;i
;:
:z80
PH.________-
4.003.833.763.66
S%2:812.72
22-i’:2:57
?:;2:422.33
?32!2:24
TEMP. C,________-
;z*:26:0
z:26:827.0
38.0
47.851.5
595:
636:
HYDROGEN
SAMPLE: Into Waste Rock A SAMPLE: Into Waste Rock BSAMPLE WT: 5.00 SAMPLE WT: 5.00
PEROXIDE TEST
TIME.______---
0.0
::"o
i::
:Ki14:o15.018.0
z27:o29.030.0
PH._________
E5:264.50
3.18
TEMP. Cm__w_____-
TIME,______---
ii.
ii:"0
1!-i12:o14.016.018.020.025.0
z-t?)40:o45.0
:t:60:0
;:*i67:0
;:*:72:074.075.078.080.0
PH.____-----
4.314.154.003.833.763.66
2.72
x2:57
22%2:422.332.302.232.24
TEMP. C,____-----
::*;26:0
38.039.041.0
%i47:851.557.059.865.063.5
CUR JAQH TAILINQ CUTHYD 90GEN PEROXIDE TEST
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PH Temperature (Cl
,
\
c
.......... ......
........
..... ..................... ......... .......
... ........
..... ................... ......... ......... ...........
100
60
60
40
20
00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
TIME (mln)
dual -t_I-Id -
9C Pl ZC OC 8 9 p z 0
02
OP
09
0 8
0 0 1
0
1
z
8
P
9
9iid
1531 3CllXOU3d N3DOkiCIAH113 F)NIlIVl 3MVl 101113
(3) elnauledwel
(“IUJ) 3Wll91 Pl 21 01 8 g p z 0
0
9
01
91
oz
9Z
O&
I I I I I I I 0
1
Z
&
P
9
9/
L7-
I I 1 I
1 1 1 l/I I I I
I I -1 I I II
8(3) eJn~eJedt!Jel Hd
IS31 3CJlXOU3d N3F)O)JCJAH163 ONIlIVl t13AllS AllnO)
HEATH STEEL TAILINQ HSTHYDROQEN PEROXIDE TEST
PH Temperature (Cl8 1 2 0
_.
1 0 0
6II 8 0
5
4 6 0
3
2
1
0
4 0
2 0
00 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
TIME (mln)
OZ
0t
0 9
0 8
I I I I I I I
..................... .... ...
..... .......................... .... ........................... ... .............. ..................... .....
Z
8
P
9
8
0Iu 0
.
a
t
t
dual -+-Hd -
0
OZ
09
08
(UIU) 3Wll9P8z10
IIII0
1
8
IS31 %llXOtl3d N30OldClAHIV/M ONIllVl 131nWV 31lVM
WESTMIN TAILINQ WMTHYDROQEN PEROXIDE TEST
PH Temperature (Cl8 100
7
8 06
5
4
3
6 0
4 0
2 0
0
2
1
0
- PH
-I- T e m p
0 1 2 3 4 5TIME (mln)
0h
)0
t
t
l-
t
t
+- x .: i
HEATH STEELE WASTE ROCK HSWRHYDROQEN PEROXIDE TEST
PH Temperature (Cl
I1 0 0
8 0
6 0
4 0
2 0l -
0 I I I I I I I 00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
TIME (mln)
- PH
-I- T e m p
h)
0
APPENDIX7
NET ACID PRODUCTION POTENTIAL TEST DATA
NET ACID PRODUCTION TESTMETHOD B
Sample weight 5.00 gVolume 15% (v/v) peroxide 100.0 IllLNaOH normality 0.0959Temperature 25 CReaction time before titration 5 min
SAMPLE
TAILING :CUTHST
WASTE ROCK :
ESWRHSWRINWR
PHAFTER VOLUME NaOH ADDED (mL)
REACTION pH 2.2 pH 3.5 pH 7.0
1.98 13.1 61.5 91.42.03 8.0 31.1 70.3
2.79 0.0 2.8 10.01.89 17.5 75.7 88.22.41 0.0 8.6 17.72.74 0.0 2.0 7.2
NET ACID PRODUCTION TESTMETHOD A
Sample weight 5.00 gVolume 15% (v/v) peroxide 100.0 mLNaOH normality 0.0959Temperature 25 CReaction time before titration 1 hour
I PHSAMPLE AtiER VOLUME NaOH ADDED (mL)
REACTION pH 2.2 pH 3.5 pH 7.0
TAILING :CUTELTESTHSTKLTNBTWAT
WASTE ROCK :
ESWRHSWRINWR
2.19 0.5 42.8 85.82.16 0.9 16.0 21.54.54 0.0 0.0 7.52.08 3.8 21.3 72.27.56 0.0 0.0 0.07.13 0.0 0.0 0.02.14 1.6 22.8 43.02.05 10.7 28.7 50.5
2.76 0.0 3.5 10.01.87 19.6 73.0 88.52.45 0.0 6.4 7.62.71 0.0 2.5 7.1
APPENDIX8
HUMIDITY CELLTEST DATA
BrrmDITT CELL TZST
Saqle: Curqh Tailiq CDT
CTcu pe RmxcaaanvmsmsaaR cull. AmITT CDH.mm
NV a) ww MN (q/lOOg) (q caco3/L) (q caaI311oOq
5.05 248 798 1000 138 30.89 4.26; 5.15 24% 638 330 173 32.90 1.78
k.15 295 594 330 204 103.40 17.40t 4.52 325 682 140 241 129.60 31.39
1.15 378 1520 800 105 263.20 52.45i 1.68 283 1100 1000 413 819.00 140.90
1.14 319 957 1150 523 552.82 193.973 4.01 313 1414 1350 678 532.98 255.273 4.31 299 1366 1350 830 108.68 267.44
10 4,21 322 887 1050 9kS 79.50 276.1811 1.04 318 981 950 1050 279.84 306.9612 3.79 334 912 1050 1165 264.80 335.9713 3.85 326 918 1050 1286 367.50 378.1214 3.62 370 662 400 1323 212.80 398.3115 3.56 429 362 700 139a 504.00 451.9916 3.21 413 1168 1200 1500 947.52 532.5317 3.81 317 2210 2100 1714 2661.23 012.5618 3.64 408 HA 1400 1896 1573.56 1012.5019 1.10 388 1960 1600 2013 1103.04 1178.38
flDl!IDIR CELL l%T
Sdlple: Elliot Lake Tailinq EL!
CYCLE P r i m -nsDLPEAn mmslJ&k AEkn
(IV XI) (dcd) (44 (r1~Wl (19 m3m P9 ~311Oog)
6.82 253 969 1400 160 2.4 0.27i 6.72 284 1160 800 247 0.273 6.62 255 682 400 281 0”:; 0.274 6.51 310 627 360 320 2.4 0.53
6.61 388 605 400 358 0.765 7.29 290 5610 330 393 ;:I! 0.76
6.08 283 737 480 434 0.0 0.76i 6.63 280 420 240 461 0.0 0.76J 6.29 302 597 130 500 2.4 1.04
10 6.22 312 723 440 554 1.4711 6.43 321 921 570 631 f : f 1.7612 6.05 328 606 380 675 2.2 2.0213 6.05 307 651 290 707 0.0 2.0214 5.64 358 508 250 738 2.0215 5.44 440 349 190 753 ;:6” 2.4716 5.10 398 563 175 767 15.7 3.7617 5.16 364 458 240 795 479.5 59.3818 4.85 419 IiA 230 822 57.7 66.1819 4.78 338 443 245 851 77.9 75.22
BmnDITr GILL TEST
Saqle: Equity Silver Tailing EST
cTu.8 ptl !mxcDl%mnm~ ACIDITY CUE.slli&E AuDm(111 scz) (rs/a3) WLI M/1009) P! m3m (19 ~3110091
7.72 238 681 270 0.00i 7.16 252 129 250 dt 1:: 0.00
7.24 218 319 180 0.0 0.001 7.04 291 242 110 13 0.0 0.00
7.13 381 627 260 121 0.0 0.005 7.21 288 275 170 142 0.0 0.001 6.85 287 171 130 153 0.0 0.00
7.24 281 591 280 183 0.00B 7.24 310 616 300 221 I:; 0.00
10 7.19 304 461 260 252 0.00II 7.52 317 401 210 276 1:; 0.0012 7.24 324 401 240 101 0.0013 7.19 291 380 200 328 1:: 0.00lk 7.15 3k8 122 75 334 0.0015 7.16 311 240 130 344 oO:t 0.0016 7.15 316 335 270 379 0.0017 7.10 284 305 155 397 i:! 0.0018 7.29 418 HA 165 417 0.0019 7.41 241 170 80 424 ;:t 0.00
Saqie: Eeath Steele Tailinq BR
cm
i3
i6
;9
10111213141516171819
P RlDcR-~ CDL ACIDITY cm.NXDITT
(WV sa) (rsh3) WV Wboq) (rl~3W (rl~3/WJ
3.23 330 Ilk0 560 23180.001.52 328 1540 1600 2;: 1818.903.43 355 1380 1200 373 2298.303.22 360 1950 800 466 4776.003.04 349 1620 320b 812 9230.802.87 347 4070 2900 1232 8819.753.09 369 2110 2100 1178 8743.612.93 387 2020 1700 1683 5197.502.72 361 4960 4600 2254 16334,322.75 370 3090 2700 2575 9520.002.48 405 2480 2200 2819 6595.602.87 400 3040 2800 3169 1296.082.96 395 2460 1950 3401 5654.602.91 415 2210 1900 3637 5107.203.08 401 991 5w 3678 1316.002.62 391 4120 3250 4081 10668.002.87 426 2280 1750 4296 6065.672.13 419 2480 1900 4519 6854.102.69 408 2890 2300 4785 HA
3303.153501.413728.944282.965455.216552.647575.648201.54
10229 * 9911362.8712091.9913007.0013679.8914313.19lkk22.4115745.2516188.2917293.65
NA
HUllIDITT CELL TEST
Sample: Key Idke Tailing KLT
CmJE pa m-m CUM. llCIDITI CDL
(rV s(z) (rs/cd) (S/L) ) (4 cacD31L) (4%%00$
7.81 154 1790 1300 116 0.00 0.00i 8.03 236 2010 1900 321 0.00 0.00
7.53 252 1900 1600 483 0.00 0.00t 7.46 281 1730 1kOO 614 0.00
7.38 342 1980 1800 807 I:: 0.00t 7.48 276 1830 1850 998 0.00 0.00
7.47 174 1870 1850 1148 0.00 0.00i 7.54 295 2030 1850 1344 0.00 0.009 5.55 306 2040 2250 1607 0.00 0.00
10 7.69 279 1659 1600 1789 0.00 0.0011 7.98 297 1466 1100 1970 0.00 0.00
7.46 323 1168 1300 2121 0.00 0.00i3 7.62 1066 1050 2244 0.00 0.0014 7.70 3f 1116 1550 2411 0.00 0.0015 7.60 153 1963 1800 2553 0.00 0.0016 7.61 287 1371 1200 2684 0.00 0.0017 7.66 269 1849 1750 2817 0.00 0.0018 7.07 401 1669 1600 3029 0.00 0.0019 7.69 242 1395 1100 3191 0.00 0.00
WKIDITTCXLLTESI
Saqle: Noranda Eel1 Tailiq fiBX
CYcLl
7.60 215 2577.70 236 3417.71 214 3857.58 269 3304.53 272 10206.53 290 4386.98 251 3107.81 276 3227.11 209 4577.59 263 3518.00 207 2077.18 313 2387.53 276 2567.58 317 3037.55 255 11567.61 221 3067.03 280 1807.33 396 4207.42 226 426
200180190170600210190150240190155130135155100150100240220
21 0.00 0.00II 0.00 0.00
t :0.00 0.000.00 0.00
133 1182.05 96.93160 0.00 96.93182 0.00 96.93199 0.00 96.93230 0.00 96.93254 0.00 96.93272 0.00 96.93207
1:396.93
303 96.93123 0.00 96.93330347 1::
96.9396.93
355 0.00 96.93385 0.00 96.93414 0.00 96893
IiDMIDIR C&L TEST
Saaple: Mite Amulet Tailing HAT
CYCLE ptl Rmx CORWICTIVIR iiuLPEATE$JlKlb
ACIDITY CDLACIDITY
(IV SCE) (rs/a3) (4/L) (411W) (4 cacw (4 ~~~lOog1
J3
36789
10111213141516171819
4,03 239 2050 2100 2504.12 258 924 1200 3783.59 300 660 330 4103a85 256 1090 670 4812.90 358 1200 1400 5922.86 359 1270 1200 7122.89 384 1620 1550 8423.14 349 1818 1650 10303.28 333 1301 1200 11573a26 345 1163 1200 12873.42 307 1731 1600 14643.43 299 1714 1550 16393.34 327 1418 1250 17673.54 312 1631 1200 19242.99 407 500 19632.83 410 1:9 1250 20633.10 382 2510 2500 23382.98 401 1853 1700 25272.95 397 2200 1950 2761
5400.301236.101254 .!O1795.202237.202727.733902.852948.402220.75482k.004829.412271.281886.502940.001646.402800.004564.844149.664061.56
642.64774 .!O891.11
1086.201262.941535.711863.552199.672435.072956,Oi3489.713746.373939.734324.874453.294677.295179.435640.046127943
EWIDITI CELL TEST
Sa@e: Heiestain Tailing Mtff
CYCLE
23
36
59
10111213141516171819
Pi mix CoeDDcTmTT SDLPEATE m. AUDIT! CDL!aPnArx ACIDITY
(IV SCE) (B!Ycd) W) (mg/lOog) (Bg cacD3lL) (q cacD3/10og)
7.40 174 980 1000 111 0.00 0.006.70 241 421 220 135 0.00 0.006.53 258 407 260 162 32.90 3.425.89 304 473 290 197 19.20 5.734.84 315 308 180 210 37.60 8.365.20 347 572 320 246 18.20 10.454.38 335 451 280 277 602.44 75.514.39 331 459 220 301 91.66 85.604.30 336 598 295 335 51.98 91.634.70 316 603 290 370 68.00 99.794.05 348 342 180 387 74.80 106.854.46 335 630 340 426 35.20 110.904.31 331 740 380 472 88.20 121.574.33 322 688 370 519 46.48 127.483.79 386 342 155 531 263.20 147.883.44 391 993 450 560 812.00 200.663.38 357 2170 1110 695 6248.84 959.893.14 396 2190 1900 935 5513.04 1654.533.22 375 1334 1550 1112 2081.52 1892.87
EDlfIDITI CXLL TEST
Saqle: Cmagh Waste Rock CWR
m Pfl RXDDX ConDDCTrvIR SIlLPEAT)? Clm. ACIDITY ‘JIM.LlillImT! ACIDITY
(BV SCE) (rskd) (M) WOo9J (v cacow (4 ~3~Wl
7.71 185 473 220 23 0.00 0.001 7.50 223 242 130 0.00 0.00
7.50 2kO 242 150 31 0.00 0.00t 7.34 280 341 170 69 0.00 0.00
7.04 307 253 130 0.00 0.00s 7.03 319 165 125 !i 0.00 0.007 6.72 322 176 125 105 0.00 0.008 6.88 234 219 120 117 0.00 0.009 7.44 308 188 100 127 0.00 0.00
10 7.28 236 204 120 140 0.00 0.0011 7,85 236 217 125 154 0.00 0.0012 7.43 302 143 70 162 0.00 0.0013 7.41 233 206 110 174 0.00 0.0014 7.44 236 211 110 188 0.00 0.0015 7.33 254 120 40 191 0.00 0.0016 7.62 231 201 120 207 0.00 0.0017 7.04 273 134 208 0.00 0.0018 7.06 388 138 ii 212 0.00 0.0019 7.14 227 134 35 216 0.00 0.00
IIDHIDIR CELL TEST
Saqle: Equity Silver Waste Rock ESHR
CYCLE pa REDDxccmamvIR~ cm!. ACIDIR CVILACIDIR
( I V SCE) @s/d) (NJ) (q/lOog) (mq caaw) (q cacD3/10Oq
7.10 202 312 190 24 0.00 0.00J 6.10 250 199 140 40 0.00 0.00
5.71 229 187 130 53 9.40 0.961 4.91 201 352 195 74 52.80 6.77
4.77 307 330 195 92 51.70 11.37z 4.74 306 275 180 113 50.05 17.177 4.24 325 240 165 129 122.85 29.468 4667 291 297 170 lk8 87.41 39.079 4,43 299 325 180 169 93.56 50.39
10 4.46 294 255 145 188 99.00 62.7211 4.34 305 198 120 200 57.20 68.7812 4.33 317 329 165 220 116.60 82.4813 4.38 305 270 155 238 166.60 101.7314 4.20 330 263 125 254 109.20 115.9215 4.18 309 227 120 265 81.00 123.5716 3.91 337 315 170 281 179.76 110.3717 4.04 312 383 200 306 456.00 198.2918 3.88 384 254 150 323 226.92 223.2519 3.55 381 153 180 3k2 351.00 262.36
liuHIDITT CELL TEST
Sample: Beath Steele Waste Rock ESiiR
cm
i
156
39
10111213141516171819
ptl UIXIX columcTIvIR SULPEATE CmL ACIDITY CUM.ACIDITT
(IV SCE) (rs/cd) (4/L) (4llOOg) (4 caco31L) (4 caco3/100$
7.71 1986.58 2526.40 2346,34 2956.10 2966.14 3085.71 2816.27 2796.54 2895.73 1856,75 1866.46 3066.41 2806.51 3156.23 2716.54 2746.18 3045.50 3825.78 231
513 210429 160209 120319 175341 180231 160253 175330 180361 210342 180620 330281 160265 145399 190356 160329 190376 200305 150468 160
36 0.00
tl0.002.35
!i4.802.35
114 4.55130 0.00148 0.00171 1.89190 5.00232 0.00250 0.00164 0.00287 11.20305 0.00326 14.00352 0.00368 4.65391 26.43
0.000.000.210.710.931.371.371.371.582.112.112.112.113.453.455.045.045.557.88
mmIDIT! CKLL lm
Saqle: Into Haste Ikck IEHR
cY!JJI PlI REINX cDnImcPIvITTsm98EsE ACIDITT cm.& ACIDITY(IV x8) (d/cd) WJ) WOoq) P! (=)3/L) Irg ~311009)
7.19 196 399 190 24 0.00 0.00i 6.94 249 308 180 43 0.00 0.003 6.60 230 165 110 55 2.35 0.254 6.11 317 187 120 68 4.80 0.75
6.23 299 429 225 87 0.00 0.75i 6.19 293 198 125 100 13.65 2.127 5.92 351 176 130 114 0.00 2.12
6.41 284 253 135 127 0.00 2.12I 4.54 324 282 160 146 2.65 2.42
10 5.59 273 285 155 165 6.50 3.2311 6.19 282 216 140 182 4.40 3.75
6.08 300 165 110 194 6.60 4.48if 5.98 279 242 100 206 9.80 5.6214 5.11 303 269 140 225 5.60 6.4115 5.98 221 160 120 236 2.80 6.6716 5.50 232 212 120 247 9.52 7.4817 5.58 289 222 130 263 40.76 12.5618 5.39 357 173 105 275 18.60 14.6919 5.18 277 233 125 289 25.96 17.71
looicuI
1I
I
--1
HUMIDITYEQUITY S I
PH8 r
6
CELL TESTLVER TAILING
REDOX (mV SCE)600
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
500
400
300- PH
+ REDOXI I
200
100
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819
TIME (weeks)
dd
‘s:01;
HUMIDITY CELL TESTHEATH STEELE TAILida
3 . 5
3
2 . 5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PH
I
REDOX (mV SCE)160
I
- 3 0
- 2 0
- 10
III1 1 I l 1 11 l l 11 l l l 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819
TIME (weeks)
0
0
0
0
0
0
t 9
-
HUMIDITY CELL TESTKEY LAKE TAILING
CUM. 8ULPHA1E ~O/lOOQ) C U M . A C I D I T Y (0 C~C09/100~)
10
8
6
1
0.8
1 :::::I’..0.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213141516171819TIME (weeks)
_L0
coco
r:
ol
0
l-
t t
-
HUMIDITY CELL TESTWESTMIN TAILINQ
CUM. WLPHATE (Q/lOOQ) CUM. ACIDITY (0 csc03/100~)
10 2.5
a
6
2I
1.5
1
0.5
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 111213141516171819
TIME (weeks)
---- Sulphate
-8- Acidity
I- -
c90CDdI
1L
colo
HUMIDITY CELL TESTHEATH STEELE WASTE ROCK
PH REDOX (mV SCE)8 600
6
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
500
400
300
200
100
0
- PH
+ REDOX
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819TIME (weeks)
HUMIDITY CELL TESTHEATH STEELE WASTE
C U M . 8lJLPHATE ~QIlOOQ) CUM. ACIDITY IQ Cd.203/100@)1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.6
0.4
ROCK
-.- Sulphate
- Acidity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19TIME (weeks)
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINCO WASTE ROCK
PH REDOX (mV SCE)
IO
8
6
k
III III I I I I II 11 11 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19TIME (weeks)
300
5 0 0
400
300
200
100
0
- PH
+ REDOX
HUHIDITY C E L L T E S T I N G
LEACHATE A N A L Y S I S
Sample: Curragh Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 U A T E R E X T R A C T ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
I I A l Sb As Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb ng Mn MO Ni K Na 2n II I <0.04 co.04 co.2 <0.005 <0.005 co.02 <0.015 co.01 co.002 <0.003 <0.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl co.02 co.01 co.01 <O.Ol <0.003 1
I’ I
I210.24
co. 10
I t I0.220.22
I 5 I 0.90I 6 I 0.28
I 7 II : 1
0.60 0.280.30
I ‘cl I 0.24I 11 I 0.87I ‘2 I 0.84I 13 I 0.75I 14 l 0.84I 15 I 2.15
co.04<O.lOCO.04x0.04co.040.05
co.04co.040.10
<O.OG(0.04<0.04<0.04<0.040.06
(0.2 0.046 0.021 89.30 0.012 0.05 0.096 1.650 3.72 42.40 18.000.3 0.035 0.016 46.60 <O.OlO 0.03 0.088 1.270 3.75 35.50 15.30
co.2 0.028 0.050 53.70 <0.015 0.15 1.310 2.850 4.19 33.80 15.60x0.2 0.035 0.027 49.00 <0.015 0.04 0.240 2.430 3.25 53.60 26.10x0.2 <0.005 0.250 111.00 <0.015 0.61 3.660 9.630 2.65 92.30 42.80co.2 0.062 0.053 74.70 0.036 0.16 0.061 55.800 2.40 106.00 38.70co.2 0.060 0.210 97.20 0.150 0.20 1.650 6.400 2.90 78.20 35.30co.2 0.022 0.050 67.40 0.033 0.09 0.160 26.400 2.35 157.00 55.00co.2 0.035 0.048 62.10 0.062 0.06 0.120 9.960 2.59 168.00 56.50<0.2 0.031 0.016 37.20 <0.015 0.02 0.110 4.210 1.74 86.30 28.40co.2 0.029 0.019 64.20 0.045 0.05 0.130 37.100 2.84 97.50 37.50co.2 0.045 0.007 41.30 0.021 0.02 0.260 29.700 1.66 83.40 28.90<0.2 0.055 0.017 37.5 0.016 0.03 0.18 27.4 1.37 88.4 32.6<0.2 0.021 0.110 43.70 0.026 0.14 1.740 13.200 3.98 43.80 20.70<0.2 0.034 0.065 37.10 0.026 0.17 0.690 35.200 2.35 68.40 31.50
I<0.02 0.55 2.81 11.20 45.50 10.02 0.27 1.65 6.52 29.30 1<0.02 0.15 1.23 4.52 42.50 1go.02 0.17 1.29 5.08 30.00 1<0.02 0.40 23.70 26.10 159.00 I<0.02 0.20 2.39 5.81 47.40 Ico.02 <0.15 1.30 3.30 49.10 I<0.02 0.17 8.95 24.00 15.20 I<0.02 0.10 2.76 4.93 6.96go.02 0.07 1.71 2.83 3.39 Ico.02 0.06 1.85 3.34 4.57<0.02 0.04 1.90 2.16 3.80 I<0.02 0.03 2.88 3.42 5.09so.02 0.06 1.14 2.11 12.10 Iso.02 0.08 1.47 7.55 17.50 I
.I
HUHlDlTY C E L L T E S T I N G
LEACHATE A N A L Y S I S
Sample: Curragh Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 C U M U L A T I V E UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/lOO g sanple)
II
Al Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb us HI-I HO Ni K Ma 2n III_I
0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00I
: I0.04 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.00
I 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01I 4 I 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.01I zJ I 0.16 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.03I 0.19 0.03 0.15 0.02 0.04I 7 I 0.25 0.04 0.17 0.03 0.06I i I 0.28 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.06I 0.31 0.05 0.21 0.04 0.07I 10 I 0.34 0.06 0.23 0.04 0.07I ‘1 I 0.44 0.06 0.25 0.04 0.07I ‘2 I 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.05 0.07I '3 I 0.61 0.07 0.30 0.05 0.08I '4 I 0.69 0.07 0.32 0.06 0.09I '5 I 0.92 0.08 0.34 0.06 0.09
12.32 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.51 5.85 2.48 0.00 0.08 0.39 1.55 6.2817.31 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.91 9.65 4.12 0.00 0.10 0.56 2.24 9.4122.30 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.63 1.30 12.79 5.57 0.01 0.12 0.68 2.66 13.3727.60 0.01 0.03 0.17 0.89 1.66 18.58 8.39 0.01 0.14 0.82 3.21 16.6136.48 0.01 0.08 0.46 1.66 1.87 25.97 11.81 0.01 0.17 2.71 5.30 29.3344.54 0.01 0.09 0.47 7.69 2.13 37.41 15.99 0.01 0.19 2.97 5.93 34.4553.87 0.03 0.11 0.63 8.30 2.40 44.92 19.38 0.01 0.21 3.10 6.24 39.1661.63 0.03 0.12 0.65 11.34 2.68 62.98 25.71 0.02 0.22 4.13 9.00 40.9168.58 0.04 0.13 0.66 12.45 2.97 81.79 32.04 0.02 0.24 4.44 9.56 41.6972.67 0.04 0.13 0.67 12.92 3.16 91.29 35.16 0.02 0.24 4.62 9.87 42.0679.73 0.04 0.14 0.69 17.00 3.47 102.01 39.29 0.02 0.25 4.83 10.24 42.5684.26 0.04 0.14 0.71 20.25 3.65 111.14 42.45 0.03 0.25 5.03 10.47 42.9888.59 0.05 0.14 0.74 23.41 3.81 121.35 46.21 0.03 0.26 5.37 10.87 43.5792.67 0.05 0.16 0.90 24.65 4.18 125.45 48.15 0.03 0.26 5.47 11.06 44.7096.63 0.05 0.17 0.97 28.40 4.43 132.73 51.51 0.03 0.27 5.63 11.87 46.56
HlJMIDlIY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Elliot Lake Tailing
ICYCLE 1 WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
II
Al Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb ng Mn I40 Ni K We Zn II co.04 co.04 co.2 <o.oos <o.oos <0.02 <0.015 x0.01 <o-o02 go.003 qo.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl go.02 so.01 so.01 <O.Ol <0.003 1I_I II II
: Ico.10 co.10 co.1
I31co.10 <O.lO 0.10.64 <0.04 co.2
I' 4 I 0.52 co.04 qo.2I 5 I 0.22 <0.04 qo.2I 6 I 0.33 0.05 co.2
I 8' ) 0.18 0.56 x0.04 0.07 co.2 co.2I 9 I 0.25 co.04 co.2I 10 I 0.38 co.04 co.2I 11 I 0.66 0.05 so.2I 12 I 1.35 co.04 0.0I 13 I 0.64 so.04 <0.2I 14 I 0.87 co.04 co.2I '5 I 0.45 <0.04 <0.2
0.040 <0.005 366.00 <O.OlO0.030 *0.005 322.00 so.0100.048 <0.005 184.00 <0.0150.040 0.009 133.00 <0.0150.065 <0.005 87.50 <0.0150.032 <0.005 149.00 0.0350.037 <0.005 176.00 0.0340.028 <0.005 81.50 0.0420.045 0.026 120.00 0.0540.020 0.019 155.00 0.0190.040 0.006 283.00 0.0720.020 <0.005 138.00 0.0420.03 <0.005 144 0.026
0.029 <0.005 113.00 0.0300.055 0.015 67.90 0.023
<O.Ol (0.010 c 0.003co.01 <O.OlO 0.090<O.Ol 0.009 0.031co.01 0.005 0.025<O.Ol 0.025 0.130<O.Ol 0.003 0.036co.01 0.010 0.031x0.01 0.008 0.0350.02 0.005 0.0250.03 0.012 0.0270.06 0.019 0.0290.05 0.027 0.0360.06 0.03 0.10.07 0.032 0.0310.04 0.023 0.140
so.05<0.05qo.05<0.05so.050.09
<0.05co.05co.05so.05<0.050.070.1
0.050.14
12.30 0.28 so.02 0.04 13.206.69 0.40 (0.02 co.02 7.802.95 0.13 <0.02 so.01 4.054.87 0.17 go.02 so.01 6.643.87 0.13 so.02 <o-o1 30.602.82 0.01 go.02 <O.Ol 5.383.84 0.18 go.02 <O.Ol 5.861.85 0.22 <0.02 so.01 15.103.56 0.37 so.02 <O.Ol 4.633.53 0.44 co.02 0.03 3.974.19 0.73 go.02 0.05 4.351.89 0.34 so.02 0.03 2.601.75 0.39 so.02 0.02 2.71.49 0.43 co.02 0.06 2.020.70 0.21 so.02 0.06 1.35
I3.95 0.14 I3.13 0.51 I2.51 0.11 I3.26 0.11 I
27.60 0.17 I3.99 0.16 14.23 0.21 I16.70 0.07 I3.30 0.10 I-2.28 0.12 I2.81 0.19 I1.50 0.21 I2.43 0.25 I1.90 0.27 I2.82 0.20 1
I - I I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Elliot Lake Tailing
CunuLATlVE WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS mg/lOO g sanple) I1 CYCLE 1 AL Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb ng Mn MO Ni K Na 2n II II_I I
I1 1 I 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 41.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.40 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.45 0.02 1I 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 76.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.13 0.08 0.00 0.01 2.36 0.79 0.07 I
: I 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 92.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 2.38 0.09 0.01 0.01 2.70 1.00 0.08 II41 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.00 106.96 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 2.91 0.11 0.01 0.01 3.42 1.36 0.09 II 5 I 0.15 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.00 115.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 3.28 0.12 0.01 0.01 6.33 3.98 0.11 lI 6 I 0.19 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.00 t3n.92 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 3.58 0.12 0.01 0.01 6.89 4.40 0.13 1
7 I 0.24 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.00 '146.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 3.91 0.13 0.01 0.01 7.40 4.77 0.14 II 0.26 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.00 155.19 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 4.11 0.16 0.02 0.01 9.07 6.61 0.15 I1.: I 0.29 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.01 169.47 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 4.54 0.20 0.02 0.01 9.62 7.00 0.16 lI 10 I 0.33 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.01 188.54 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 4.97 0.26 0.02 0.02 10.11 7.28 0.18 II 1' I 0.42 0.07 0.22 0.05 0.01 226.46 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.06 5.53 0.35 0.02 0.02 10.69 7.66 0.20 II 12 I 0.58 0.07 0.22 0.05 0.01 242.47 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.07 5.75 0.39 0.03 0.03 10.99 7.83 0.23 II 13 I 0.65 0.08 0.24 0.05 0.01 258.60 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.08 5.95 0.44 0.03 0.03 11.29 8.10 0.26 II 14 I 0.76 0.08 0.27 0.05 0.01 272.38 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 6.13 0.49 0.03 0.03 11.54 8.33 0.29 I .I 15 I 0.79 0.08 0.28 0.06 0.01 277.88 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.10 6.19 0.51 0.03 0.04 11.65 8.56 0.31 1I - - _ I I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Equity Silver Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
II
AL Sb AS Ba Cd C8 Cr co cu Fe Pb n9 mtl MO Ni K We 2n II co.04 x0.04 co.2 <0.005 <0.005 go.02 <0.015 co.01 so.002 <0.003 go.05 so.01 <O.OOl <0.02 <O.Ol <O.Ol so.01 so.003 1I_-_._._ I III 1 III : II 4 II 5 II 6 II 7 I
I : II 10 II 1’ II 12 II 13 II 14 II '5 I
co.10 <O.lOco.10 co.100.10 co.04co.04 <0.040.16 0.040.13 x0.040.10 co.040.38 co.040.10 so.040.19 <0.040.23 co.040.16 qo.040.23 <0.040.11 0.040.25 0.04
co.1 0.062<O.l 0.039co.2 0.048co.2 <0.005co.2 0.066<o.z 0.150co.2 0.100x0.2 0.025x0.2 0.030co.2 0.0310.0 0.047
co.2 0.036<o.z 0.029co.2 0.038co.2 0.048
<0.005 79.40<0.005 51.50<0.005 44.70<0.005 25.700.009 69.900.019 47.50
<0.005 22.20<0.005 101.00<0.005 45.000.011 67.70<0.005 78.800.011 65.600.010 52.80<0.005 14.40<0.005 34.90
<O.OlO<O.OlO<0.015<0.015<0.0150.020
<0.0150.047<0.015<0.0150.0420.0280.0150.0130.011
<O.Ol <O.OlO < 0.030<O.Ol <O.OlO ( 0.030so.01 0.023 0.024co.01 <0.002 -z 0.0030.01 0.025 0.110
<O.Ol 0.007 0.041(0.01 0.023 0.110co.01 0.009 0.036co.01 0.020 < 0.003<O.Ol 0.024 0.019<O.Ol 0.038 0.0220.02 0.034 0.027<O.Ol 0.031 0.070<O.Ol 0.021 0.0480.01 0.024 0.120
co.05 8.43 0.18so.05 7.17 0.270.09 5.54 0.34<0.05 4.11 0.24co.05 11.80 0.50co.05 7.54 0.35<0.05 3.57 0.17co.05 12.20 0.550.12 10.50 0.35
(0.05 10.40 0.49<0.05 9.48 0.57<0.05 8.97 0.490.08 7.51 0.440.08 1.98 0.100.13 3.63 0.13
<0.02so.02co.02<0.02co.02<0.02go.02so.02so.02go.02<0.02<0.02go.02<0.02<0.02
<0.02 21.90 22.40co.02 14.40 21.60(0.02 11.70 16.50<0.02 10.20 11.90<0.02 36.40 43.000.03 11.10 10.70
<O.Ol 6.01 5.48so.01 37.80 35.00so.01 11.40 10.60so.01 9.06 8.02so.01 7.50 5.35go.01 6.75 3.960.05 6.13 4.300.02 2.47 2.510.02 4.26 4.09
I0.130 I0.160 I0.280 I0.190 I0.300 I0.420 I0.420 I0.190 I0.210 I0.200 I0.230 I0.330 I0.320 I0.088 I0.051 1
Y.Ct33<
OO
r-~
-N
NN
NN
Nm
~~
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0d
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
OO
-----N
NN
Nm
rem
m000000000000000
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
dd
d
--N
mm
*~
mQ
hh
Qo
bO
~0
00
00
00
00
00
00
--
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.000000000000000
Ors-rN
m*.Y
uum
m~
0000000000000
%6
, .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
oooo-.----N
N~
~~
~000000000000000
.,
,
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
000000000000000
cc-c
8888~
~0000~
~~
8~
.,
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
ooor--.-
NN
NN
C)m
mm
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0*
.d
dd
dd
od
dd
dd
do
od
_ _
_ c
.-
c
.-I c
c
_
88
8~
80
00
00
00
00
0*
, .
. *
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
.--N
NN
**vt9
9h
h~
0
0
0
0.
0.
0 0.3
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.
. *
. *
. .
.*
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
~Iw
~gg-nm
~oonm
~Q
ccc
NN
NN
NN
, * .,
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
.-N
mm
***vim
~S
hbQ
Qo
oo
oq
oo
oq
oo
oo
oo
. *
. .
. .
. .
dd
do
oo
do
oo
oo
oo
o
-N
m*ahQ
N*-K
iQ
o**~
ooooooo-“‘c-f”“”
. .
..
. .
dd
do
oo
dd
oo
oo
oo
o
HUHlOlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Heath Steele Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (&-I/L)
Al Sb As Ba Cd Ca Cl- co cu Fe Pb ns Hn HO Ni K la Zn I<0.04 co.04 so.2 <o.oos <o-o05 <0.02 so.015 go.01 go.002 qo.003 <0.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl <0.02 <0.015 <O.Ol <O.Ol co.003 1
I
I 2 1 ; 1 408.00 59.00I 3 I 51.20I 4 I 75.90I 5 I 170.00I 6 I 90.50I 7 I 58.40I 8 9 I I 84.80 24.30
I 10 I 48.00I 11 I 36.10I 12 I 55.70I 13 1 28.00I 14 1 22.30I '5 I 3.10
co.10<O.lO(0.04<0.04co.04co.40co.400.70co.400.50co.40co.40co.40co.400.80
1.150.420.270.91.86
( 0.2( 0.2< 0.2
3( 0.2
1.52.4
s 2.03
< 2.0
0.027 7.210 146.00 1.210 71.90 675.000 525.0000.019 1.500 62.00 0.280 11.80 38.900 157.000
co.005 1.120 68.80 so.015 9.35 92.100 88.1000.010 1.530 61.20 go.015 11.60 78.500 231.0000.018 3.820 115.00 1.800 22.80 151.000 672.000<0.050 2.160 77.10 1.180 11.60 83.800 454.0000.410 1.460 64.50 1.040 6.90 85.000 335.000co.050 0.940 48.80 0.630 4.50 300.000 202.0000.080 2.100 106.00 2.850 10.50 450.000 902.0000.670 1.230 57.40 1.280 4.23 166.000 464.000(0.050 1.400 77.80 1.500 22.30 107.000 506.000co.050 1.450 79.50 1.760 2.67 159.000 592.000so.500 0.910 51.00 0.850 1.70 107.000 316.0000.070 0.630 55.70 0.082 1.50 102.000 270.0000.130 0.120 56.80 0.250 0.70 56.000 61.600
0.510.98
so.05<0.05<0.051.00
<0.50<0.50<0.50<0.50co.50so.50so.50so.501.07
117.0022.9018.2027.5053.1030.4021.208.108.60
21.1020.4027.00
III
III
15.20 2.02 <0.20 0.21 0.50 2.60 350.00 112.20 1.49 <0.20 0.39 0.20 1.70 306.00 11.40 0.17 <0.20 0.30 ( 0.10 2.20 48.90 I
68.2013.1010.5014.2030.4015.708.973.38
< 0.204.063.804.16
<0.020.08
<0.02<0.02so.02go.20<0.20d-20<0.20<0.20<0.20<0.20
6.270.910.080.410.630.37<0.15so.150.23
<o-150.19
so.15
0.050.080.120.11
22.500.200.100.300.410.102.400.30
1.551.692.021.83
23.602.802.2012.101.921.79
24.201.70
1350.00237.00275.00425.00930.00632.00509.00405.001120.00465.00465.00569.00
HlJf4lDllY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Heath Steele Tailing
ICYCLE 1 CUIUJLATIVE WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS bng/lOO g sanple)
II
Al Sb As ga Cd C8 Cr co cu Fe Pb no Mn MO Ni K Ye Zn III _ _ _ . _ II II 1 I 58.14I 2 I 64.57
I 3 4 I I 69.64 70.44
I 5 6 I I 100.03 111.26
I 8 7 I I 118.09 121.03I 9 1 131.54I 10 1 137.26I 11 1 141.26I 12 1 148.23I 13 I 151.56I 14 I 154.32I 15 I 154.58
0.01 0.16 0.00 1.030.03 0.21 0.01 1.190.03 0.24 0.01 1.300.03 0.34 0.01 1.480.04 0.58 0.01 1.960.09 0.60 0.02 2.230.14 0.63 0.06 2.400.22 0.65 0.07 2.520.27 1.02 0.08 2.700.33 1.05 0.16 2.920.37 1.21 0.17 3.080.42 1.51 0.17 3.260.47 1.75 0.23 3.370.52 2.12 0.24 3.450.59 2.29 0.25 3.46
20.8127.5434.3741.4756.0865.6473.1979.0992.2399.06107.70117.64123.71130.61135.33
0.170.200.200.210.430.580.700.781.131.281.451.671.771.781.80
10.25 96.19 74.81 0.07 16.67 9.72 0.00 0.89 0.01 0.22 192.3811.53 100.43 91.93 0.18 19.17 11.15 0.01 0.99 0.02 0.41 218.2112.46 109.55 100.65 0.18 20.97 12.19 0.01 1.00 0.03 0.61 245.4313.80 118.65 127.44 0.19 24.16 13.83 0.02 1.05 0.04 0.82 294.7316.70 137.83 212.79 0.20 30.90 17.69 0.02 1.13 2.90 3.81 412.8418.14 148.22 269.08 0.32 34.67 19.64 0.04 1.17 2.92 4.16 491.2118.94 158.16 308.28 0.38 37.15 20.69 0.07 1.19 2.93 4.42 550.7619.49 194.46 332.72 0.44 38.13 21.10 0.09 1.21 2.97 5.88 SW.7720.79 250.26 444.57 0.50 39.20 21.12 0.12 1.24 3.02 6.12 738.6521.29 270.02 499.78 0.56 41.71 21.61 0.14 1.26 3.03 6.33 793.9823.77 281.90 555.95 0.62 43.98 22.03 0.16 1.28 3.30 9.02 845.6024.10 301.77 629.95 0.68 47.35 22.55 0.19 1.30 3.34 9.23 916.7224.31 314.50 667.55 0.74 49.16 22.79 0.21 1.32 3.40 9.54 958.3724.49 327.15 701.03 0.80 50.67 22.97 0.24 1.37 3.42 9.75 996.3224.55 331.80 706.15 0.89 50.79 22.99 0.25 1.39 3.43 9.94 1000.38
I___..- I I
HUMlDlIY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Key Lake Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 LEACHATE ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
AL Sb As Be Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb n9 Hn MO Ni K Na Zna.04 <0.04 <o.z <o.oos <0.005 <0.02 so.015 <O.Ol <0.002 <0.003 so.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl so.02 <0.015 co.01 (0.01 <0.003 1
I1 1 1
: I
0.66 0.63 0.28 0.13 10.5 13.2 0.032 0.061
I 0.96 co.04 14.6 *0.005I 4 I 2.00 0.07 15.8 0.050I 5 I 5.96 0.13 16.8 0.042I 6 I 2.30 co.40 15 co.050I 7 I 1.40 go.40 20 0.060I * I 1.90 <0.40 18 <0.050I 9 I 1.00 co.40 17 0.180I 10 I 2.00 CO.40 12 0.080I 11 I 0.70 0.13 16.1 0.025I ‘2 I 0.80 co.40 10.7 (0.050I 13 I 0.90 (0.40 9 <o-o50I 14 I 1.70 so.40 10 0.070I 15 I 2.40 0.70 19 0.100
co.005 446.00so.005 512.00<0.005 667.000.012 624.00co.005 987.000.060 709.00<0.050 727.00x0.050 769.00co.050 592.00co.050 407.00<0.050 476.00<0.050 344.00<0.050 202.00<0.050 245.00co.050 640.00
so.0100.018<0.015so.015go.0150.1900.2500.1900.380SO.1500.100
<0.150SO.1500.1700.180
0.07 0.460 0.0800.05 0.120 0.1100.01 ( 0.002 c 0.003
( 0.01 0.011 0.1500.02 0.040 0.300
< 0.10 ( 0.020 0.240s 0.10 0.050 0.180
0.10 0.110 0.210< 0.10 0.080 0.650< 0.10 0.040 0.250
0.02 0.009 0.1100.02 0.030 0.090
< 0.10 0.060 0.300s 0.10 0.080 0.270
0.10 0.080 0.2e.a
<0.05 2.88 0.06 0.43 0.38 3.150.19 2.83 0.03 0.52 0.19 3.17
co.05 2.75 .z 0.00 0.37 0.31 1.87(0.05 3.66 0.01 0.36 0.67 1.710.06 5.18 0.03 0.51 0.85 25.20go.50 5.80 -z 0.01 0.30 0.81 3.30so.50 6.80 0.01 0.20 0.59 2.60<0.50 7.30 0.01 go.20 0.49 11.400.70 7.70 ( 0.01 qo.20 0.79 2.84so.50 6.50 ( 0.01 so.20 0.34 1.830.09 7.78 0.01 0.41 0.59 2.22
12.70 1.26132.00 0.489.32 0.118.66 0.23
32.70 0.4510.30 < 0.009.70 0.44
30.70 0.137.63 0.224.73 0.066.61 0.03
<0.50 5.80 ( 0.01 0.20 0.46 1.30 3.40 ( 0.03 I0.70 4.70 * 0.01 co.20 0.33 1.80 4.50 0.07 I0.61 6.00 < 0.01 co.20 0.55 1.60 4.00 -z 0.03 I1.21 9.30 0.01 <0.20 1.10 1.70 4.30 0.14 I
HUHlDlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Key Lake Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 CUWLATIVE WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/lOO g sample)
A l Sb As Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb no Hn MO Ni K Na 2n II
0.06 0.01
I : I 0.13 0.22 0.04 0.05I 4 I 0.45 0.05
II : )
1.00 0.071.23 0.11
II: I
1.35 0.14I 1.55 0.18
; 1: I I 1.66 1.89 0.23 0.27I ‘1 I 1.98 0.29I ‘2 I 2.08 0.34I '3 I 2.18 0.38I '4 I 2.40 0.43I '5 I 2.55 0.48
0.93 0.01 0.00 39.69 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.28 1.13 0.112.36 0.01 0.00 94.99 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.56 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.62 15.39 0.163.83 0.01 0.00 162.36 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.64 0.01 0.13 0.09 0.81 16.33 0.185.65 0.02 0.00 234.12 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.04 1.26 0.01 0.17 0.16 1.01 17.32 0.207.18 0.02 0.00 323.93 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.04 1.73 0.01 0.22 0.24 3.30 20.30 0.240.73 0.02 0.01 396.96 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.09 2.33 0.01 0.25 0.32 3.64 21.36 0.2410.35 0.03 0.01 455.85 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.13 2.88 0.01 0.27 0.37 3.85 22.15 0.2812.25 0.03 0.02 537.36 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.19 3.65 0.02 0.29 0.42 5.06 25.40 0.2914.24 0.06 0.02 606.63 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.20 0.27 4.55 0.02 0.31 0.52 5.39 26.29 0.3215.61 0.06 0.03 662.14 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.23 0.33 5.30 0.02 0.33 0.55 5.60 26.83 0.3217.69 0.07 0.04 723.55 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.34 6.30 0.02 0.39 0.63 5.89 27.68 0.3318.93 0.07 0.04 763.45 0.16 0.07 0.10 0.25 0.39 6.97 0.02 0.41 0.68 6.04 28.08 0.3319.98 0.08 0.05 787.09 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.29 0.40 7.52 0.02 0.43 0.72 6.25 28.61 0.3421.25 0.09 0.05 818.20 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.32 0.55 8.28 0.02 0.46 0.79 6.45 29.11 0.3422.44 0.09 0.06 858.20 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.34 0.63 8.87 0.02 0.47 0.a6 6.56 29.38 0.35
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Noranda Bell Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 LEACHATE ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)I I Al Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb m Mn MO Ni K Na 2n II I ~0.04 x0.04 <0.2 <0.005 <0.005 <0.02 <0.015 <O.Ol so.002 <0.003 40.05 so.01 <O.OOl go.02 <0.015 <O.Ol <O.Ol <0.003 II_.____ I I
0.130.430.100.219.810.180.100.150.13
I 10 I 0.13I 11 II ‘2 I 0.12I 13 I 0.14I 14 I 0.16I ‘5 I 0.24
co.10 < 0.10.28 0.53
<0.04 ( 0.2<0.04 < 0.2<0.04 < 0.2co.04 < 0.2<O.OG .t 0.2<0.04 < 0.2<0.04 ( 0.2so.04 c 0.2
(0.04 < 0.2co.04 -z 0.2<0.04 .z 0.2<0.04 < 0.2
0.048 co.0050.029 0.0090.036 0.0070.040 so.0050.071 0.5100.150 0.0120.130 0.0100.420 <0.0050.020 <D.O050.020 0.016
0.019 co.0050.029 co.0050.020 <0.0050.032 0.045
52.20 <O.OlO41.10 0.03058.40 go.01567.20 so.01575.80 0.17072.30 0.02643.00 0.01543.00 <0.01542.50 0.03540.20 <o-o15
4 0.010.06
< 0.01< 0.01
3.73( 0.01( 0.01
0.01< 0.01< 0.01
0.038 < 0.030 <0.05 16.70 0.08 <0.02 0.03 14.40 6.26 0.240.076 < 0.030 0.25 12.10 0.06 0.05 0.16 8.52 4.02 0.12 I0.006 0.034 0.07 14.70 0.06 (0.02 <O.Ol 10.30 4.92 0.12 I0.013 0.029 0.06 18.40 0.13 so.02 0.03 a.41 4.40 0.12 I
21.100 113.000 <0.05 16.50 4.68 <0.02 0.13 11.20 9.33 1.46 I0.012 0.020 <0.05 23.70 0.08 so.02 so.01 8.54 4.67 0.170.025 0.013 <0.05 13.00 0.07 <0.02 <O.Ol 5.23 3.73 0.120.029 0.180 <0.05 15.20 0.28 so.02 <O.Ol 17.70 17.70 0.120.010 0.090 <0.05 18.30 0.13 co.02 <O.Ol 5.86 3.00 0.030.014 0.052 so.05 13.50 0.11 <0.02 <O.Ol 4.31 2.10 0.02
29.70 so.01525.00 0.01131.00 0.01326.00 0.012
4 0.01-z 0.01( 0.01
0.01
0.021 0.220 <0.05 9.99 0.09 <0.02 <O.Ol 2.58 1.67 0.080.022 0.077 0.07 9.84 0.08 so.02 <0.02 3.02 2.76 0.04 I0.013 0.110 0.12 12.20 0.07 go.02 go.02 2.85 1.85 0.02 10.015 0.100 0.08 3.24 0.02 <0.02 0.02 1.52 2.91 0.04 I
I_ I I
HUI4lDlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Noranda Bell Tailing
ICYCLE 1 CUMULATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS mg/lOO g saaple)
I I Al Sb As Be Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb ng Hn MO Ni K Na *n II I Il- I IiI
IIIIII
III
I
1 I: I4 I
: I(: I9 I
‘0 I‘1 I‘2 I'3 I‘4 I‘5 I
0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 6.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.97 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.700.06 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.00 10.89 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 3.36 0.02 0.01 0.02 2.680.08 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.00 17.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 4.96 0.03 0.01 0.02 3.800.10 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.00 24.85 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 7.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 4.750.90 0.06 0.13 0.02 0.04 31.06 0.02 0.32 1.75 9.28 0.05 8.40 0.42 0.01 0.04 5.670.92 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.05 39.16 0.02 0.32 1.75 9.28 0.06 11.05 0.43 0.02 0.04 6.630.94 0.07 0.18 0.06 0.05 44.15 0.03 0.32 1.75 9.28 0.06 12.56 0.44 0.02 0.04 7.230.95 0.07 0.20 0.10 0.05 48.88 0.03 0.32 1.75 9.30 0.07 14.23 0.47 0.02 0.04 9.180.97 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.05 54.36 0.03 0.32 1.75 9.32 0.08 16.59 0.49 0.02 0.04 9.940.99 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.05 59.54 0.03 0.32 1.76 9.32 0.08 18.33 0.50 0.03 0.04 10.490.99 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.05 59.54 0.03 0.32 1.76 9.32 0.08 18.33 0.50 0.03 0.04 10.491.00 0.08 0.28 0.11 0.05 63.03 0.04 0.32 1.76 9.35 0.09 19.51 0.51 0.03 0.04 10.801.02 0.09 0.30 0.11 0.05 65.91 0.04 0.32 1.76 9.36 0.10 20.64 0.52 0.03 0.05 11.141.04 0.09 0.32 0.11 0.05 69.85 0.04 0.33 1.76 9.37 0.11 22.19 0.53 0.03 0.05 11.501.05 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.06 71.80 0.04 0.33 1.76 9.38 0.12 22.43 0.53 0.04 0.05 11.62
0.74 0.031.20 0.04 I1.74 0.06 I2.24 0.07 I3.01 0.19 I3.53 0.21 I3.96 0.22 I5.91 0.23 I6.30 0.24 16.57 0.24 I6.57 0.24 I6.77 0.25 I7.08 0.25 I7.32 0.26 I7.54 0.26 I
HlJMlDlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Waite Amulet Tai l ing
I I1 CYCLE 1 WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)I
IAl Sb As ga Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb %I Mn HO Ni K Na 2n
I co.04 ~0.04 co.2 <0.005 ~0.005 <0.02 <0.015 <O.Ol co.002 so.003 <0.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl so.02 <O.Ol so.01 (0.01 so.003I___ I
1 I 3.34I
: I2.15
I413.662.58
I 5 I 11.90I 6 I 5.04I 7 1 11.10
I : I0.663.00
I 10 I 3.20I 11 I 4.30I 12 I 6.30I 13 I 4.20I 14 I 6.00I 15 I 9.80
<O.lO0.24
co.04<O.D4co.04<o.coso.400.050.50<0.40x0.40co.40co.40x0.40<0.40
-G 0.10.34
( 0.20.40.3
( 0.2< 0.2< 0.2< 0.2-z 0.2( 0.2
0.3x 0.2c 0.2( 0.2
0.031 0.0770.025 0.0380.028 0.0710.027 0.1300.033 0.250<0.050 0.190<0.050 0.270so.005 0.0170.050 0.130<0.050 <0.050co.050 0.160<O.DSO 0.150<0.500 <0.0500.080 0.0600.130 0.130
96.80 0.06332.60 0.05034.20 <0.01553.10 <0.01547.80 0.12032.50 <0.15032.10 <0.1504.05 <0.015
25.90 0.26024.40 <0.15044.90 0.33053.80 <0.15034.70 <0.15045.78 0.13029.29 0.120
0.22 0.038 550.000 0.27 84.70 24.100.14 0.110 176.000 0.39 21.90 5.720.75 0.430 94.300 0.25 10.10 3.271.00 0.220 415.000 0.08 23.30 7.373.10 5.930 286.000 0.10 18.90 4.671.70 2.420 334.000 1.10 13.40 2.853.50 9.200 457.000 so.50 17.40 2.660.18 0.210 58.500 <O-OS 1.76 0.230.53 0.640 337.000 0.80 10.40 1.380.40 0.730 320.000 co.05 10.20 1.190.34 0.650 612.000 0.70 19.30 2.320.38 0.340 615.000 co.50 22.30 2.560.40 0.930 358.420 1.50 14.24 1.540.50 0.090 480.200 0.68 17.70 1.622.00 8.290 188.140 0.70 7.30 0.70
0.04 3.11 6.37 3.98 224.000.07 0.71 2.43 2.33 68.90
<0.02 0.60 0.93 2.52 47.60so.02 1.13 1.02 2.72 76.00go.02 1.72 2.75 5.22 69.80<0.20 1.10 0.30 2.80 38.00<0.20 1.70 0.60 3.10 49.70<0.02 0.09 3.79 16.60 3.54co.20 0.21 1.21 2.68 20.10<0.20 0.38 0.94 1.99 15.30<0.20 0.51 1.80 3.60 29.60(0.20 0.62 1.70 2.00 28.50go.20 0.44 1.90 3.40 17.22co.20 0.31 1.70 2.70 19.65co.20 0.78 0.30 2.90 13.74
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Waite Armlet Tailing
I I I1 CYCLE 1 CUMULATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS hg/lOO 9 Serrple)
I IA L Sb AS ga Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb n9 Hn I40 Ni K Na Zn I
I__1 III
I : II 4 II 5 II 6 II 7 I
8 II91
I 10 I
I 1’ I
I ‘2 I
I ‘3 I
I ‘4 I
I ‘5 I
0.40 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.52 0.01 0.03 0.00 65.45 0.03 10.08 2.87 0.00 0.37 0.76 0.470.63 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 15.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 84.28 0.07 12.42 3.48 0.01 0.45 1.02 0.720.98 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 18.26 0.01 0.11 0.06 93.24 0.10 13.38 3.79 0.01 0.50 1.11 0.961.25 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.03 23.94 0.02 0.22 0.08 137.65 0.11 15.88 4.58 0.02 0.62 1.22 1.252.19 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.05 27.71 0.03 0.46 0.55 160.24 0.11 17.37 4.95 0.02 0.76 1.43 1.672.70 0.09 0.15 0.02 0.07 30.96 0.04 0.63 0.79 193.64 0.22 18.71 5.23 0.04 0.87 1.46 1.953.63 0.12 0.17 0.02 0.10 33.66 0.05 0.93 1.56 232.03 0.27 20.17 5.46 0.05 1.01 1.51 2.213.70 0.13 0.19 0.02 0.10 34.12 0.05 0.95 1.59 238.70 0.27 20.37 5.48 0.06 1.02 1.95 4.104.02 0.18 0.21 0.03 0.11 36.87 0.08 1.01 1.66 274.42 0.36 21.47 5.63 0.08 1.04 2.07 4.384.37 0.22 0.24 0.03 0.12 39.50 0.10 1.05 1.73 308.98 0.36 22.57 5.76 0.10 1.09 2.18 4.604.84 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.13 44.46 0.13 1.09 1.81 376.60 0.44 24.71 6.01 0.12 1.14 2.37 5.005.55 0.31 0.29 0.05 0.15 50.54 0.15 1.13 1.84 446.10 0.50 27.23 6.30 0.14 1.21 2.57 5.225.98 0.35 0.31 0.10 0.16 54.10 0.17 1.17 1.94 482.84 0.65 28.69 6.46 0.16 1.26 2.76 5.576.77 0.41 0.34 0.11 0.16 60.10 0.18 1.24 1.95 545.74 0.74 31.01 6.67 0.19 1.30 2.98 5.927.53 0.44 0.35 0.12 0.17 62.38 0.19 1.39 2.60 560.42 0.79 31.57 6.73 0.21 1.36 3.01 6.15
26.6634.03 138.55 I46.68 I52.20 I56.00 I60.17 I60.57 I62.71 I64.36 I67.63 I70.85 I72.61 I75.19 I76.26 I
HUWIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Uestmin Tailing
I I1 CYCLE 1 UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (n&L)
I I Al Sb AS ga Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb no Mn MO Ni K Na Zn
!I ~0.04 ~0.04 '0-F <O.ODS <O.DOS go.02 <0.015 <O.Ol <o-o02 so.003 SO.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl <0.02 <O.Ol <O.Ol co.01 <O.D03
-___.__III < 0.10
I : I0.490.25
I 4 I 0.49
I 0.36
I : I 0.40
I: I
0.51
I91
0.410 . 3 0
I 10 I 0 . 2 3
I ‘1 I 0 . 2 5
I ‘2 I 0 . 4 3
I ‘3 I 0 . 5 0
I ‘4 I 0 . 6 2
I ‘5 I 0 . 6 3
<O.lD0.31co.04co.04co.04<0.04so.04co.04<O.D4<0.04<0.04~0.04<O.D4x0.040.05
s 0.10.44
< 0.2< 0.2-z 0.2< 0.2+z 0.2( 0.2c 0.2< 0.2( 0.20.05
( 0.2< 0.2< 0.2
0.048 0.006 214.00 <O.OlO0.038 0.015 67.10 0.0310.031 0.016 83.10 ~0.0150.032 <0.005 126.00 <0.0150.071 0.021 70.70 0.0560.051 0.034 129.00 0.0390.100 0.046 64.40 0.0190.029 0.027 63.80 x0.0150.100 0.026 57.50 0.0420.010 0.038 86.50 0.0170.043 0.032 44.00 0.0430.023 0.070 67.70 0.0420.017 0.066 83.29 0.0450.020 0.049 73.88 0.0420.045 0.078 30.82 0.020
(0.01 <O.OlO0.06 0.075
co.01 0.022<O.Ol 0.310x0.01 1.090<O.Ol 0.210<O.Ol 0.710co.01 0.610x0.01 0.280<O.Ol 0.260<O.lO 1.5300.02 0.4100.02 0.307
so.01 0.2740.02 3.522
0.100 <0.05 14.00 5.63 go.02 (0.02 10.00 5.44 2.280.050 0.31 5.17 2.15 0.05 0.16 3.85 2.82 2.460.033 0.14 5.17 2.74 so.02 0.02 2.90 3.29 5.890.130 0.07 11.60 4.36 go.02 0.03 3.41 3.02 5.741.250 0.09 3.81 1.88 (0.02 go.01 3.52 5.23 7.140.130 <0.05 16.50 9.54 <0.02 0.06 3.04 2.98 7.061.640 0.21 11.90 6.26 40.02 0.05 2.41 2.68 9.141.680 0.21 15.00 7.34 <0.02 0.03 9.13 14.80 9.571.230 0.28 16.60 9.47 (0.02 0.04 2.60 2.80 14.200.580 0.15 22.60 12.30 go.02 0.06 2.30 1.79 17.201.890 0.50 6.52 3.81 <0.02 0.03 1.00 2.53 10.501.110 0.24 19.10 9.89 <0.02 0.15 1.82 1.73 41.101.425 0.39 26.31 13.19 (0.02 0.19 2.25 2.92 59.301.047 0.31 19.40 8.56 so.02 0.19 1.45 1.91 49.823.412 0.93 2.76 1.25 go.02 0.06 0.53 1.90 18.03
I_-.-I
HUE(IOITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Uestmin Tailing
II
CYCLE 1 CLJMULATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS hg/lOO g senple) I
II Al Sb AS Be Cd C8 Cr co cu Fe Pb ng Iln MO Ni K Na Zn I
I--__._. I II I Ii 1 i 0.01
I : I 0.07 0.09I 4 I 0.15I 5 I 0.18I 6 I 0.22
I i ;0.280.32
I 9 I 0.36I ‘0 I 0.38
I ‘1 I 0.41
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 23.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.55 0.62 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.60 0.250.05 0.06 0 . 0 1 0.00 31.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 2.12 0.86 0.01 0.02 1.53 0.91 0.520.05 0.08 0.01 0.00 39.78 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 2.66 1.15 0.01 0.02 1.84 1.26 1.140.05 b.10 0.02 0.00 54.90 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.06 4.05 1.67 0.01 0.03 2.24 1.62 1.830.06 0.12 0.02 0.01 59.85 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.07 4.32 1.80 0.01 0.03 2.49 1.98 2.320.06 0.14 0.03 0.01 74.68 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.07 6.22 2.90 0.02 0.03 2.86 2.33 3.140.07 0.16 0.04 0.01 al.64 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.32 0.10 7.50 3.57 0.02 0.04 3.10 2.62 4.120.07 0.18 0.04 0.02 88.65 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.50 0.12 9.15 4.38 0.02 0.04 4.10 4.24 5.180.07 0.21 0.05 0.02 95.32 0.02 0.02 0.33 0.64 0.15 11.08 5.48 0.02 0.05 4.41 4.57 6.820.08 0.23 0.05 0.03 105.70 0.03 0.02 0.36 0.71 0.17 13.79 6.96 0.03 0.05 4.68 4.70 a.890.08 0.25 0.06 0.03 109.86 0.03 0.03 0.50 0.89 0.22 14.41 7.32 0.03 0.06 4.78 5.02 9.88
I ‘2 I 0.46 0.09 0.26 0.06 0.04 117.65 0.04 0.03 0.55 1.02 0.25 16.60 a.45 0.03 0.07 4.99 5.22 14.61 lI '3 I 0.52 0.09 0.28 0.06 0.04 127.73 0.04 0.03 0.59 1.19 0.29 19.79 10.05 0.03 0.10 5.26 5.58 21.78 lI '4 I 0.60 0.10 0.31 0.07 0.05 137.11 0.05 0.03 0.62 1.32 0.33 22.25 11.14 0.03 0.12 5.44 5.82 28.11 II 15 I 0.64 0.10 0.32 0.07 0.06 139.50 0.05 0.03 0.89 1.59 0.40 22.46 11.23 0.04 0.12 5.48 5.97 29.51 I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Curragh Waste Rock
1 CYCLE 1 II UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
I i AL Sb As Ba Cd Ca Cr Co Cu Fe Pb n9 Un MO Ni K Na Zn II I <0.04 <0.04 <o.z <0.005 <0.005 so.02 <0.015 <O.Ol <0.002 <0.003 <0.05 <O.Ol <O.OOl co.02 so.01 so.01 <O.Ol <0.003 1
II
I : II 4 I
5 Ii 61II ii II 9 II 10 II ‘1 II 12 II '3 II 14 II 15 I
0.16 CD.10 < 0.10.62 0.37 0.580.07 so.04 -z 0.20.40 so.04 ( 0.20.12 <0.04 < 0.20.08 <0.04 < 0.20.15 0.06 ( 0.20.06 co.04 e 0.20.11 <0.04 < 0.20.17 co.04 s 0.20.11 <0.04 ( 0.20.10 co.04 ( 0.20.19 co.04 c 0.20.13 so.04 ( 0.20.24 0.07 < 0.2
0.062 <0.0020.045 0.0150.038 <0.0050.027 <0.0050.063 <0.0050.070 <0.0050.073 0.0050.047 <0.0050.093 <0.0050.035 0.0260.040 0.0060.036 ~0.0050.030 <0.0050.029 <0.0050.041 <0.005
75.40 <O.OlO32.20 0.04040.50 so.01586.30 <0.0'S54.00 0.04531.50 <0.01535.20 0.01634.70 <0.01527.20 0.02530.90 <0.01532.10 0.03621.00 <0.01521.13 0.01425.25 0.01515.90 0.011
<O.Ol0.08
<O.Ol<O.Olx0.01<O.Olgo.01(0.01<O.Ol0.02
so.01go.010.010.010.01
<O.OlO ( 0.0300.099 < 0.0300.005 0.0270.010 0.0260.018 0.1200.006 0.0350.016 0.0210.023 0.0520.011 0.0390.008 0.0140.012 0.0310.012 0.0370.015 0.0500.012 0.0190.008 0.096
<0.05 19.50 0.620.35 7.37 0.21
(0.05 4.81 0.10CO.05 12.10 0.42SO.05 7.31 0.16<0.05 4.17 0.08<0.05 4.20 0.09go.05 4.90 0.10<0.05 3.83 0.08<0.05 4.38 0.12<0.05 5.08 0.160.08 3.19 0.11
go.05 3.82 0.120.11 4.51 0.170.10 1.92 0.05
<0.020.06go.02so.02<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02<0.02so.02<0.02(0.02so.02
0 . 0 40.23
go.01<O.Olso.01go.01so.010.02
go.010.02
so.01
7.65 4.03 0.272.91 2.52 0.172.25 2.60 0.093.23 2.72 0.134.13 5.18 0.232.00 2.52 0.232.00 2.60 0.158.54 16.30 0.031.79 2.74 0.051.70 2.12 0.041.70 2.63 0.05
(0.01 1.12 1.67 0.08 I0.04 1.94 2.48 0.06 10.02 1.73 1.97 0.08 10.03 1.23 1.90 0.03 I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTlNCLEACHATE ANALYSIS
SampLe: Curragh Uaste Rock
ICYCLE 1 CUWUJLATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS m/100 $J Sample)
II
AL Sb AS Be Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb &I Hn HO Ni K Na 2n III_I II I
0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.000.08 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00
I 3 I 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.00
I : I 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00I 6 I 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.03 0.00I 7 I 0.17 0.07 0.17 0.04 0.00I 0 I 0.17 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.00
; 1: I I 0.18 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.23 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01I 11 I 0.21 0.09 0.25 0.06 0.01I 12 I 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.06 0.01I 13 I 0.24 0.10 0.30 0.07 0.01I 14 I 0.26 0.10 0.32 0.07 0.01I 15 I 0.28 0.11 0.34 0.07 0.01
7.9211.3315.0224.1629.0232.0935.7239.4342.1245.4049.0951.3353.6156.8058.19
I0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.42 0.03 I0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 2.83 0.09 0.01 0.03 1.11 0.69 0.05 10.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 3.27 0.10 0.01 0.03 1.32 0.93 0.05 10.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 4.55 0.14 0.01 0.03 1.66 1.22 0.07 10.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 5.21 0.16 0.01 0.03 2.03 1.68 0.09 I0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 5.61 0.16 0.02 0.03 2.23 1.93 0.11 I0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 6.05 0.17 0.02 0.03 2.43 2.19 0.13 I0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 6.54 0.18 0.02 0.04 3.29 3.84 0.13 I0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 6.92 0.19 0.02 0.04 3.47 4.11 0.14 I0.02 0.02 0.0; 0.04 0.08 7.38 0.20 0.02 0.04 3.65 4.34 0.14 I0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.09 7.97 0.22 0.03 0.04 3.85 4.64 0.15 I0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.10 8.31 0.23 0.03 0.04 3.97 4.82 0.15 I0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 8.72 0.25 0.03 0.04 4.18 5.08 0.16 I0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.12 9.29 0.27 0.03 0.05 4.39 5.33 0.17 I0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.12 9.46 0.27 0.04 0.05 4.50 5.50 0.17 I
I_I I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Equity Silver Uaste Rock
I I1 CYCLE 1 UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)
I IAL Sb AS fla Cd Ce Cr co cu Fe Pb no Mn HO Ni K Na 2n I
co.04 <0.04 so.2 ~0.005 <0.005 <0.02 <0.015 <O.Ol go.002 <0.003 <0.05 <O.Ol <O.ool go.02 ~0.015 co.01 <D.Ol x0.003 1I _ I II I
I 2 1 I I 0.10 0.34I 3 I 0.21I 4 I 0.79I 5 I 0.69
I 6 7 I I 0.53 0.71I 8 l 0.74I 9 I 0.78I 10 I 0.52I 11 I 0.101 12 I 0.90I 13 1 0.80I 14 I 0.80I 15 I 1.10
co.100.22
<0.04co.04CO.040.050.08
<0.04<0.04co.04co.40co.40qo.40co.400.80
<O.l 0.044 0.0290.3 0.039 0.063
co.2 0.047 0.063<0.2 0.053 0.290co.2 0.045 0.169<0.2 0.028 0.190co.2 0.075 0.140co.2 0.420 0.170co.2 0.042 0.170co.2 0.035 0.150co.2 0.100 0.0900.4 <0.050 0.150
x0.2 0.050 0.070<0.2 0.090 0.050(0.2 0.140 <0.050
57.10 ~0.010 so.01 <O.OlO <0.03026.40 0.021 0.06 0.067 0.04032.70 <D.OlS 0.02 0.084 0.36077.30 <0.015 0.10 0.240 1.61055.50 0.020 0.06 0.210 2.13040.60 0.021 0.07 0.160 2.38040.70 ~0.015 0.05 0.260 3.21036.60 <0.015 0.07 0.300 4.10045.20 <0.015 0.10 0.310 5.03027.00 <0.015 0.06 0.210 3.47022.40 0.250 0.03 0.170 3.17038.40 so.150 0.02 0.360 7.33024.44 <0.015 0.10 0.290 5.13021.14 0.120 ~0.10 0.210 3.46021.80 0.100 0.10 0.200 3.730
<0.050.20
<0.05so.05<D.OS2.40
<0.050.06
so.05<0.05<0.50so.50<0.500.600.60
8.58 2.27 so.024.47 1.46 0.032.84 1.52 0.039.73 5.79 <0.026.50 3.15 <0.026.50 3.87 so.025.14 3.10 <0.027.00 4.35 <0.028.05 5.95 go.025.25 4.32 <0.024.00 3.57 <0.207.00 7.59 go.205.40 5.37 <0.204.20 4.55 <0.202.50 2.98 <0.20
0.03 4.740.13 2.350.06 1.660.23 2.980.14 4.930.13 2.460.14 1.590.20 6.860.20 1.680.12 1.030.17 0.800.27 1.100.19 1.300.24 1.000.20 0.80
4.26 0.332.36 0.76 I2.40 1.48 I2.96 5.54 I5.58 3.54 I2.89 4.53 I2.53 4.74 I16.10 6.02 I2.48 6.52 I1.62 5.46 I2.10 4.72 I1.90 10.20 I2.60 7.37 11.80 6.65 11.80 4.46 1
HUMIOITY C E L L T E S T I N G
LEACHATE A N A L Y S I S
Sample: Equity Silver Waste Rock
I I1 CYCLE 1 CWIJLATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/ 100 g sasple)I Al Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb no WI MO Ni K Ye h-I II II_ I II
I
I41 : I
0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
0.07 0.16 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05I 5 I 0.22 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.06I 6 I 0.28 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.09I 7 I 0.35 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.10
I 9” f 0.53 0.43 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.18 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.14I '0 I 0.59 0.08 0.23 0.09 0.16I 1' I 0.60 0.12 0.25 0.10 0.17I 12 I 0.71 0.17 0.29 0.11 0.19I '3 I 0.80 0.21 0.32 0.11 0.19I '4 I 0.91 0.27 0.34 0.12 0.20I '5 I 1.01 0.34 0.36 0.14 0.20
7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.07 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.5310.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 1.58 0.45 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.8013.46 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 1.87 0.60 0.01 0.02 1.03 1.0521.96 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.04 2.94 1.24 0.01 0.05 1.36 1.3826.90 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.41 0.04 3.52 1.52 0.01 0.06 1.79 1.8731.61 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.69 0.32 4.27 1.97 0.02 0.08 2.08 2.2135.68 0.01 0.04 0.11 1.01 0.33 4.78 2.28 0.02 0.09 2.24 2.4639.70 0.01 0.05 0.14 1.46 0.33 5.56 2.76 0.02 0.11 2.99 4.2345.17 0.02 0.06 0.18 2.07 0.34 6.54 3.48 0.02 0.14 3.20 4.5348.53 0.02 0.07 0.20 2.50 0.35 7.19 4.02 0.02 0.15 3.32 4.7450.91 0.04 0.07 0.22 2.84 0.40 7.61 4.39 0.05 0.17 3.41 4.9655.42 0.06 0.07 0.26 3.70 0.46 8.44 5.29 0.07 0.20 3.54 5.1850.24 0.06 0.08 0.30 4.29 0.52 9.06 5.91 0.09 0.22 3.69 5.4860.99 0.08 0.10 0.32 4.74 0.59 9.61 6.50 0.12 0.26 3.82 5.7262.98 0.09 0.11 0.34 5.08 0.65 9.83 6.77 0.14 0.27 3.89 5.88
I0.04 I0.13 10.28 I0.89 [1.20 I1.73 I2.20 12.86 I3.65 I4.33 14.83 I6.03 16.88 I7.75 I8.15 1
HUUIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: Heath Steele Uaste Rock
I I1 CYCLE 1 WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (w/L)
I AL Sb As Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb us Mn HO Ni K Na 2n II co.04 co.04 <0.2 co.005 <0.005 (0.02 (0.015 (0.01 so.002 so.003 co.05 <O.Ol ~0.001 <0.02 go.015 (0.01 <O.Ol <0.003 1
_I
IIIIIII
III
II
1 ; co.10 x0.102 I 0.18 0.093 I 0.14 co.044 I 0.22 co.045 I 0.32 <0.046 I 0.11 <O.D47 I 0.11 <0.048 I 0.14 ~0.049 I 0.12 x0.0410 I 0.08 co.0411 I 0.41 <D.D412 I 0.20 <0.4013 I 0.41 go.0414 I 0.70 co.4015 I 0.70 x0.40
<O.l0.1
co.2<0.2co.2x0.2<0.2<D.2so.2co.2<0.2so.2<0.2co.2co.2
0.052 co.005 106.000.029 0.011 37.600.037 0.014 40.300.042 0.012 66.500.056 0.005 58.900.029 0.025 39.900.130 0.013 36.300.031 0.011 5n.400.050 0.019 45.300.014 0.037 43.200.020 0.005 103.000.026 0.006 41.70
<0.005 <o-o05 35.890.190 <0.050 56.900.150 <0.050 52.31
qo.0100.009
<0.015<o-o150.0220.019<0.015<0.015~0.015<O.D15SO.015go.0150.0110.120co.015
<O.Ol <O.OlO <o-o30 go.05 7.43 1.320.03 0.026 0.030 0.11 3.74 1.140.04 qo.002 0.023 0.13 3.25 1.640.03 0.005 0.042 <0.05 10.50 4.400.04 0.014 0.280 <D.O5 10.00 3.180.03 0.006 0.041 co.05 8.29 3.030.03 0.029 0.033 0.09 7.04 2.410.05 0.033 0.043 0.08 10.10 3.200.06 0.006 0.023 ~0.05 12.70 4.160.04 0.006 0.018 <0.05 12.30 4.10
go.01 0.010 0.120 so.05 18.20 6.79co.01 0.007 0.061 <0.05 6.33 2.40co.01 so.002 <0.003 1.31 6.00 2.160.10 0.050 0.040 <0.50 10.00 3.760.10 co.002 0.110 0.50 7.70 2.86
~0.02 0.01 4.46 2.30 0.250.01 0.07 2.79 1.98 0.48 Iso.02 ( 0.02 1.71 2.02 1.23 I<O.D2 0.03 2.77 2.06 1.38 I<0.02 0.02 4.89 4.86 1.46 I<0.02 0.05 2.06 2.42 1.44 I<0.02 < 0.02 1.80 2.40 1.40 I<0.02 0.02 8.76 14.00 1.49 I<0.02 0.02 2.34 2.35 1.33 1SO.02 0.04 1.72 1.60 0.94 ICO.02 0.03 2.64 2.45 1.00 Iso.02 0.02 1.34 1.30 0.64 I<0.02 0.12 1.90 2.47 0.63 I<0.02 0.28 1.90 1.90 0.74 Iso.02 0.32 1.60 1.50 0.68 I
HUHlDlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample : Heath Steele Uaste Rock
I I1 CYCLE 1 CMJLATIVE UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/ 100 g sample)
I I AL Sb As Ba Cd C8 Cr co cu Fe Pb no Hn MO Ni K N8 Zn II I I
I 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
I : I 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02
I51 4 I 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02
I 6 I
I91 i I
0.11 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.04
0.14 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.05I ‘0 I 0.16 0.06 0.19 0.05I ‘1 I 0.21 0.06 0.21 0.05I ‘2 I 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.06I '3 I 0.27 0.11 0.25 0.06I '4 I 0.36 0.16 0.28 0.08I 15 I 0.43 0.20 0.30 0.10
0.000.000.000.000.000.010.010.010.010.020.020.020.020.020.03
I18.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.28 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.40 0.04 I22.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 1.67 0.35 0.00 0.01 1.06 0.60 0.09 I25.86 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 1.97 0.50 0.01 0.01 1.22 0.79 0.20 I32.78 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 3.06 0.95 0.01 0.01 1.50 1.00 0.35 I38.19 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 3.98 1.25 0.01 0.02 1.95 1.45 0.48 I42.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 4.70 1.54 0.01 0.02 2.15 1.68 0.6245.42 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 5.43 1.76 0.01 0.02 2.32 1.90 0.75se.32 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.06 6.41 2.07 0.02 0.02 3.17 3.26 0.9055.43 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 7.04 2.54 0.02 0.03 3.43 3.53 1.0559.96 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.07 9.13 2.97 0.02 0.03 3.61 3.69 1.1473.10 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.08 11.45 3.84 0.02 0.03 3.95 4.01 1.27
II
77.68 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.09 12.15 4.10 0.03 0.03 4.10 4.15 1.34 181.18 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.21 12.74 4.31 0.03 0.05 4.20 4.39 1.40 I88.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.27 13.94 4.76 0.03 0.08 4.51 4.62 1.49 193.87 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.33 14.80 5.08 0.03 0.12 4.69 4.79 1.57 I
I _ I I
HUMIDITY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample: lnco Uaste Rock
I UATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/L)CYCLE 1 I
I AL Sb AS Ea Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb Ma Iln MO Ni K Na Zn II <0.04 <0.04 <0.2 <0.005 <0.005 <0.02 <0.015 co.01 <0.002 so.003 so.05 (0.01 <O.OOl <0.02 <0.015 so.01 <O.Ol so.003 I
1 I <O.lOI 2 I 0.22I 3 I 0.08I 4 I 0.25I 5 I 0.23I 6 I 0.03
I 8 7 I I 0.16 0.06I 9 I 0.17I 10 I 0.181 11 I 0.05I 12 1 0.13I 13 I 0.16I 14 I 0.211 15 I 0.12
co.100.10<0.04co.04co.04co.040.06
<0.04x0.04<0.04<0.04<0.04co.04GO.04<0.04
co.10.1
<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2x0.2co.2<0.2<0.2co.2<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2
0.0660.0340.0420.0630.0350.0430.0760.0380.0540.0240.0370.0260.0360.0430.046
0.007<o.oos<0.005<0.005<0.0050.0120.0090.0060.0170.0170.0090.007<0.005~0.0050.007
56.20 <0.015 <O.Ol <O.OlO so.03044.50 0.010 0.04 0.025 10.03024.30 so.015 0.05 0.004 0.04440.40 go.015 0.13 0.008 0.04253.80 0.029 0.23 0.007 0.07232.00 0.027 0.19 0.005 0.04329.70 ~0.015 0.22 0.012 0.04434.50 0.016 0.33 0.032 0.07239.90 0.040 0.48 0.030 0.12034.80 <0.015 0.46 0.027 0.08828.60 0.049 0.26 0.026 0.17019.10 0.016 0.18 0.034 0.15025.57 0.028 0.35 0.027 0.26125.63 0.022 0.41 0.046 0.36617.04 0.011 0.17 0.019 0.208
<0.05 13.30 0.300.11 8.81 0.260.08 2.90 0.28
(0.05 4.25 0.56<0.05 6.01 0.91so.05 2.77 0.60co.05 2.85 0.61<0.05 3.61 0.83so.05 4.89 1.18<0.05 4.79 1.04<0.05 3.76 0.880.06 3.03 0.620.08 4.50 0.890.10 5.21 0.920.12 1.96 0.36
<0.02 0.97 12.300.02 1.16 8.94so.02 1.70 4.68so.02 3.55 5.41<0.02 6.15 12.60<0.02 4.22 6.12so.02 4.86 5.21(0.02 6.33 23.80<0.02 8.75 6.64<0.02 8.09 6.54<0.20 6.29 5.03so.02 4.36 3.63so.02 5.90 6.25so.02 6.70 6.55<0.02 2.64 3.02
5.25 0.203.60 0.07 I2.63 0.08 I2.75 0.17 I6.42 0.21 13.02 0.262.68 0.2617.20 0.173.53 0.252.24 0.032.58 0.221.82 0.25 I3.01 0.23 I2.38 0.34 I2.05 0.18 I
I_ I I
HlJMlDlTY CELL TESTINGLEACHATE ANALYSIS
Sample : lnco Uaste Rock
I I1 CYCLE 1 CUMJLATIVE WATER EXTRACT ICP ANALYSIS (mg/lOO g sample)
I I Al Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cl- co cu Fe Pb MB Mn MO Ni K Na 2n II II_...___ I
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00I 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00II
1 I 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.000.07 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.00
II
i ; 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.000 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0
I 7 I 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.01I i I 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.01I 0.14 0.05 0.17 0.05 0.01I 10 I 0.16 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.01I 11 I 0.17 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.01I 12 I 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.01I 13 I 0.20 0.07 0.27 0.06 0.01I 14 I 0.23 0.08 0.30 0.07 0.01I 15 I 0.24 0.08 0.32 0.07 0.01
6.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.65 0.04 0.00 0.12 1.53 0.65 0.0211.86 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 2.62 0.07 0.00 0.25 2.51 1.05 0.0314.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 2.92 0.10 0.01 0.43 3.00 1.32 0.0418.66 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 3.37 0.15 0.01 0.80 3.57 1.61 0.0623.39 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 3.90 0.23 0.01 1.34 4.68 2.18 0.0826.59 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 4.17 0.29 0.01 1.76 5.29 2.48 0.10
IIII
29.81 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.05 4.48 0.36 0.01 2.29 5.85 2.77 0.13 I33.26 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.05 4.85 0.44 0.02 2.92 8.23 4.49 0.15 I37.87 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 5.41 0.58 0.02 3.93 9.00 4.90 0.18 I42.19 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.06 0.06 6.00 0.71 0.02 4.94 9.81 5.18 0.18 I
I
II
45.58 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.08 0.07 6.45 0.81 0.05 5.68 10.41 5.48 0.2147.71 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.10 0.08 6.79 0.88 0.05 6.17 10.81 5.68 0.24rn ‘7_"._ 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.13 0.09 7.31 0.99 0.05 6.85 11.54 6.03 0.2654.26 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.18 0.10 8.04 1.11 0.05 7.79 12.45 6.37 0.3155.85 0.04 0.40 0.04 0.20 0.11 8.22 1.15 0.05 8.04 12.74 6.56 0.33
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Curragh Tailing
IFLASK UEEK pH REDOX C O N D U C T I V I T Y S U L P H A T E S U L P H A T E A C I D I T Y CUM. I
A C I D I T Y I
(mV SCE) (mS/cln3) (mg/L) (mg/lOO g) (mg CaC03/L) (tmg CaCO3/100g)j__________~~____~___-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___
I
II 1II 2III 3
II/
1 3.79 338 3250 660.0 450.3 135.1
1 3.79 3322 3.57 353 4620 930.0 543.4 163.0
1 3.78 3182 3.39 3383 4.08 276 6930 1350 302.1 90.6
I f+IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIII/ 7
III
II
I
1 3.72 3022 3.49 3403 4.18 3054 4.14 314 7300 1470 592.5 177.8
1 3.70 3252 3.40 3393 4.12 3034 3.75 3085 3.75 323 6030 5900 1770 1180.8 354.2
1 4.25 2922 3.74 3183 3.84 3094 4.14 3105 4.09 3426 3.77 378 5470 4600 1380 66.6 20.0
1 3.99 3032 3.62 3363 NA NA4 NA NA5 3.83 3386 3.28 3737 2.95 368 6990 6250 1875 1255.1 376.5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Curragh Tailing (cont'd)
I I1 FLASK UEEK ptl REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mS/Cln3) (mg/L) (mg/lOO 9) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)l
/---- ________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~---~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~
I1 aIIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIII1I
1 3.58 3242 3.70 3223 3.57 3184 NA NA5 NA NA6 3.20 3597 2.52 403a 2.36 408 11490
9730
12020
5400 4714.4
1815.8
4377.3
1414.3
1 4.82 2192 3.78 3133 3.93 3134 3.78 3225 NA HA6 NA NA7 3.65 357a 2.48 3839 2.80 367 9500 2850 544.7
1 4.69 2132 3.74 3183 3.84 3094 3.63 3345 HA NA6 NA NA7 3.30 353a NA NA9 2.51 396
10 2.45 402 16500 4950 1313.2
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I I
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: ELLiot Lake Tailing
I( FLASK
III------lI 1II 2III 3IIII 4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIIi 7/I,III
IWEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE AClDITY CUM. I
ACIDITY I(mV SCE) (mwCm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOO g) 0ng CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)1
_________________~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~__
1 7.32 242 2040 1700
1 7.19 2112 6.76 428 1960 1800
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
4.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1 7.19 2162 6.92 3583 6.84 257 2040 1800 0.1
1 7.22 2112 7.04 3333 6.94 2454 6.82 295 2240
1 7.24 2132 7.08 3083 7.04 2394 6.88 2645 6.64 280 2260
1 7.32 2352 7.07 2683 6.59 2394 7.35 3375 6.95 4056 7.05 40s 2180
1 6.93 2322 7.16 2833 NA NA4 NA NA5 7.1s 3366 6.47 4047 6.70 340 2150
1900
2200
1900
1700
0.6
570
510
1.4
0.0
0.3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Elliot Lake Tailing (cont'd)
FLASK WEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. IACIDITY I
(mV SCE) (ms/cm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOO g) (rw CaCO3/L) (mg CaC03/1DOg)(_____________________________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I1 aIIIIIIIII 9IIIIIII
II ‘0IIIIIIIII
1 7.24 2582 6.88 2303 7.02 2884 HA NA5 NA NA6 6.48 3327 5.69 4008 6.38 490
1 7.37 2322 7.17 2633 6.74 2334 6.90 2955 NA NA6 NA NA7 6.02 3318 5.31 3969 5.12 535
1 7.32 2352 7.07 2683 6.59 2394 6.56 3015 NA NA6 NA NA7 6.69 3268 NA NA9 5.77 395
10 4.90 376
2200
2120
2200
2000
1800
1850
600
540
555
1.0
6.4
9.6
0.3
1.9
2.9
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Equity Silver Tailing
FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. IACIDITY I
(mV SCE) (mS/cm3) W/L) 0ng/lDD g) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/10Dg)l________________________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___l
II 1II 2III 3III
4IIIII5IIIIII 6IIIIIII7IIIIII
1
12
123
1234
12345
123456
1234567
7.44 216 1350 1100 330 0.0
7.55 2617.10 331 1450 1300 390
7.61 2457.42 2987.39 238 1550 1400 420
7.63 2207.54 2827.70 2447.52 251 1584 1600 480
7.64 2167.56 2707.72 2367.48 2787.47 264 1790 420
7.76 2147.58 2i77.57 218a.03 3187.74 3477.64 397 1721
7.82 1967.75 231NA HANA NA
a.02 3207.73 3517.14 285 1708
1400
1300
1300
390
390
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: E q u i t y S i l v e r T a i l i n g (cont’d)
I I1 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX C O N D U C T I V I T Y S U L P H A T E S U L P H A T E A C I D I T Y CUM. I
I A C I D I T Y I
I (mV SCE) hwcm3) (mg/L) (mg/lDO g) (mg CaCO3/L) (mg CaCO3/100g)l,_________________________ ____________________________-_-______________ ____ __________ ______________,
It aIIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII 10IIIIIIIII
1 7.63 2552 7.78 1983 7.74 2424 NA NA5 NA NA6 a.02 3237 7.76 359a 6.67 370 1 7 7 9 1500 450
1 7.80 2082 7.60 2623 7.74 2064 7.70 2525 NA HA6 NA HA7 a.01 320a 7.43 3779 6.94 408 1782 1450 435
1 7.79 2222 7.58 2n3 7.57 2184 7.59 2705 NA NA6 NA HA7 7.95 324a NA NA9 7.47 410
10 7.52 242 1828 1400 420
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I 1
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: H e a t h S t e e l e T a i l i n g
FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. IACIDITY I
(mV SCE) (mS/Cd) (mg/L) (mg/lOO 9) (m!3 CaC03/L) (mg CaCD3/1009)1____________________~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~_~_____~_________________
II 1II 2III3III
4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIII 7I
1 3.30 348 10700 6500 1950 MA HA
1 3.24 3482 3.07 369 9570 17500 5250 4054.1 1216.2
1 3.23 3532 2.95 3533 3.16 356 15200 28000 a400 5318.0 1595.4
1 3.28 3482 2.93 3593 2.95 3704 2.83 377 17400 22000 8989.0 2696.7
1 3.25 3492 2.97 3623 2.93 3714 NA HA5 2.44 385 13870 20500 6150 12102.0 3630.6
1 3.13 3442 NA MA3 3.18 3644 2.71 3915 2.35 3986 2.15 402 15510
1 3.24 3462 3.03 3493 NA NA
4 NA NA
5 2.62 3916 2.30 3997 2.12 410 15960
19000
22000
5700
6600
11209.0 3362.7
13168.2 3950.5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Heath Steele Tailing (cont'd)
I Ij FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY WM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwCm3) (WL) (mg/lOO g) fmg CaC03/L) (mg CaCO3/1009)1,______________________________ __~~__~~~~~_________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________ ____ _____I
I1 aIIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIII
1 HA NA
2 3.15 3653 2.85 3724 NA NA5 NA HA6 2.29 4017 2.15 406a 2.03 408 18600 33000 9900 17614.2 5284.3
1 3.14 3532 NA NA3 3.16 3664 2.83 3725 HA NA6 NA NA7 2.33 405a 2.18 4099 2.13 409 17960 30000 9000 16953.6 5086.1
1 3.132 NA3 3.184 2.825 NA6 NA7 2.20a HA9 2.05
10 2.05
354NA364371HANA399NA406407
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII19430 7800 13752.2 4125.6
I/ I
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Key Lake Tailing
I I1 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. ]I ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwCm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOO 9) (mg CaCO3/L) (mg CaC03/100g)I
I - - ____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_____________
II 1II 2III 3IIII 4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIII 7/IIIII,I
1 8.14 257 2970
1 8.26 2242 7.81 316 2750
1 8.27 2082 7.84 2373 7.33 268 2160
1 8.29 2052 7.95 2213 8.03 2244 7.73 265 2150
1 8.35 1992 7.92 2093 8.02 2134 NA NA5 7.85 244 2420
1 8.71 1952 HA NA3 NA HA4 8.35 2345 8.00 3436 7.83 366 2290
1 8.65 1802 8.18 2153 NA NA4 NA NA5 8.25 2346 7.97 3327 7.90 338 2260
1500
1700
1900
2000
2200
1900
1900
450
510
570
600
660
570
570
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Key Lake laiting (cont'd)
I I1 FLASK WEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY cun. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwCm3) (W/L) (mUlO 9) (my CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/1DOg)l
I-- ______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___~_~~~_~~~~~~~_____________
I1 aIIIIIIII19IIIIIIIIII 10IIIIIIIII
1 NA NA
2 a.22 2023 7.96 2264 NA NA5 NA NA6 a.10 2457 7.81 352a 7.21 496
1 a.91 1692 HA NA3 a.03 219G 7.95 2325 NA NA6 HA NA7 a.17 248a 7.86 3Ll9 7.87 501
1 8.62 1742 HA NA3 7.85 2234 7.88 2285 HA NA6 NA NA7 a.10 247a NA HA9 7.83 371
10 7.11 323
1581 2000 600 0.0
2390 1900 570 0.0
2370 2000 600 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Noranda Bell Tailing
IFLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. I
ACIDITY I(mV SCE) (mwCm3) (n&l/L) (m9/100 9) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)1
,____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~________________
II 1II 2III3IIII 4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIII
7IIIIIII
1 7.43 310
12
7.647.22
272355
1 7.65 2592 7.18 3093 7.76 245
1 7.61 24s2 7.36 2813 7.61 1764 7.22 246
1 7.60 2422 7.46 2713 7.71 1744 NA NA5 7.67 245
1 7.75 2352 NA NA3 NA NA4 8.11 2285 7.84 3466 7.84 377
1 7.70 1882 7.78 2393 NA NA4 NA NA5 8.09 2276 7.82 3567 7.83 328
1210
1240
1230
1360
1559
1413
1454
1200
1200
1300
1400
1300
1200
1300
360 0.0
360 0.0
390 0.0
420 0.0
390 0.0
360 0.0
390 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Noranda B e l l T a i l i n g (cont’d)
I I1 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. I
I ACIDITY I
/ ____(mV SCE) unS/cln3) (w/L) (mg/lOO g) (mg CaCO3/L) (mg CaC03/100g) 1
_______________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~___
II 8IIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIIIII
1 MA MA
2 7.67 1923 7.75 2424 MA MA5 MA MA6 8.06 2257 7.80 3498 6.26 398
1 7.71 1732 MA MA3 7.60 1884 7.73 2525 MA MA6 NA MA7 8.10 2248 7.78 3659 6.49 406
1 7.722 HA3 7.484 7.565 HA6 MA7 8.108 NA9 7.6510 7.50
169MA185280MAMA223MA360251
2320 1550 465
1505 1050
360
315
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I I
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Mite Amulet Tailing
I I1 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SIJLPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUU. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwCm3) ow/L) (mg/lDOg) (mg CaCO3/L) (mg CaCWlOOg)(
I- ~~~~_____~__________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~________
II 1II 2III3IIII 4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIII7IIIIII1
1 3.30 291 3630 2000 600.0 798.7 239.6
1 3.26 2962 2.86 338 3630 3000 900.0 1176.0 352.8
1 3.30 2902 2.83 3133 3.62 268 6930 5100 1530.0 1011.0 303.3
1 3.31 2862 2.89 3083 3.10 3244 2.84 341 7150 4600 1380.0 1793.5 538.0
1 3.33 2892 2.91 3083 3.09 3274 NA NA5 2.69 351 5570 5300 1590.0 2696.2 808.9
1 3.14 3042 NA HA3 NA NA4 3.22 3445 * 2.82 3606 2.84 350 5390 1380.0 2202.2
1 3.37 2812 3.01 3023 NA NA4 NA NA5 3.09 3496 l 2.80 3637 2.66 375 6050 1410.0 2937.6
660.7
881.3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I I
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Ueite Amulet Tailing (cont'd)
I I/ FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CWDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SIJLPHATE ACIDITY CLM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwcm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOOg) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)),_______ ___________________~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
II aIIIIIIII19IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIIIII
1 NA NA
2' 3.11 3163 2.77 3334 NA NA5 NA NA6 2.68 3677 l 2.64 375a 2.59 382
1 3.49 3022 NA HA3 3.17 2944 2.77 3305 NA NA6 NA NA7 2.63 363a l 2.61 3709 2.58 387
1 3.102 NAa 3.204 2.88'j NAj NA7 2.71a NA9 2.62IO 2.78
324NA306323NANA360NA370378
a000
8080 9000
2400.0
2250.0
2700.0
2620.8
2591.5
3647.6
786.2
777.5
1094.3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE : Uestmin Tailing
I I/ FLASK UEEK pH REDOX C O N D U C T I V I T Y S U L P H A T E SULPHATE A C I D I T Y CUM. II A C I D I T Y I
II 1II 2III 3
IIII 4IIIII 5IIII1I 6IIIIIIi 7
I/
1
12
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5 . 4 7 3 7 3 3850 2100.0 630.0 32.6 9.8
5 . 4 5 3223 . 0 0 363 5830 4100.0 1230.0 1537.2 461.1
5 . 5 5 2982 . 8 7 3613 . 1 5 352 7700 5100.0 1530.0 1454.2 436.3
5 . 5 4 2892.87 3612 . 9 3 3792 . 6 5 384 9240 6500.0 1950.0 1521.2 456.4
5 . 5 4 2752 . 8 3 3632 . 8 5 381
NA NA2 . 4 4 385 6750
6 . 1 0 312NA NANA NA
2 . 7 1 389* 2 . 5 6 390
2 . 4 7 390
6800.0
5900.0
5400.0
2040.0 4115.5 1234.6
7740 1770.0 3003.0
5 . 7 8 2863 . 4 9 293
NA NA
NA NA
2 . 5 3 393l 2 . 5 1 391
2 . 4 0 399 a130 1620.0 3471.6
900.9
1041.5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE : Uestmin Tailing (cont'd)
I I/ FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY cun. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwCm3) m/L) 0WlDDg) 0ng CaCO3/L) (mg CaC03/1DDg))
I-- ________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IIi aIIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIII
1 NA HA
2 3.15 3473 2.63 3TI4 NA NA5 NA NA6 2.42 3957 * 2.44 395a 2.41 395
1 6.83 1942 NA NA3 3.18 3654 2.65 3745 NA NA6 HA NA7 2.43 395a * 2.45 3959 2.43 396
1 6.742 NA3 3.204 2.645 NA6 NA7 2.43a NA9 2.46IO 2.48
303NA363370NAHA396NA394394
9090
a870
8760
14000.0
9000.0
12500.0
4200.0
2700.0
3750.0
3666.9
2973.6
4000.4
1100.1
892.1
1200.1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Curragh Uaste Rock
I I/ FLASK WEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) 0nS/cm3) (mg/L) (mg/lDDg) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)l,_______________________________________________________________--________________________________l
II 1II 2II13IIII :IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIII 7I/IIII
1 7.37 296 715 330.0 99.0
1 7.65 2692 6.65 220 al4 900.0 270.0
1 7.63 2502 6.85 3293 5.06 216 1770 1300.0
1 7.65 2332 7.06 2983 7.51 2084 7.52 267 980 1900.0
1 7.64 2202 7.22 2783 7.64 1994 NA NA5 7.06 272 1215 1300.0
1 7.69 2732 NA NA3 NA NA4 7.89 2825 l 7.67 3146 7.68 304 1250.0
1 7.38 1952 7.66 2883 NA NA4 NA NA5 7.83 2856 * 7.63 3257 7.64 337
1317
1434 1650.0
390.0
570.0
390.0
375.0
495.0
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE : Curragh Uaste Rock (cont'd)
I I/ FLASK UEEK pH REDOX C O N D U C T I V I T Y S U L P H A T E SULPHATE A C I D I T Y CUM. I
I A C I D I T Y I
I (mV SCE) owcm3) W/L) mg/lOOg) (mg CeC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)I,_____________________________ ______________________--________________---_________-_______________ 1
I1 aIIIIIIII19IIII1IIIII ‘0IIIII
1 WA NA
2 7.19 2083 7 . 5 7 3014 NA HA5 NA NA6 7.86 2887 * 7 . 6 4 326a 7 . 3 6 371 1363 1350.0
1 7 . 8 7 1742 NA NA3 7 . 1 0 2084 7 . 5 6 3145 NA NA6 NA NA7 7 . 8 4 294a * 7 . 6 1 3249 7 . 4 8 500 1222 1100.0
1 7 . 8 4
2 NA3 6.874 7.205 NA6 NA7 7.69a NA9 7 . 3 8
10 7 . 0 3
la6NA235334NANA308NA353269 1417
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1250.0 375.0 0.0 0.0
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Equity Silver Uaste Rock
I 71 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwun3) (WL) (mg/lDDg) (mg CaCOUL) (mg CaC03/100g)(
II 1II 2III3IIII 4IIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIII 7IIIII
1 4.01 328 1360 800.0 240.0 94.1 28.2
12
4.003.73
317330 1617 1500.0 450.0 224.1 67.2
1 4.05 3142 3.62 3173 3.72 312 1790 1600.0 480.0 356.7 107.0
1 3.99 3162 3.62 3183 3.49 3244 3.34 339 2134 2300.0 690.0 464.8 139.4
1 3.99 3162 3.67 3253 3.51 3374 NA NA5 3.29 339 2570 690.0 590.4 177.1
1 4.35 2952 NA NA3 NA NA4 3.55 3525 3.42 3546 3.36 351 2140
1 4.90 2892 3.91 3273 NA HA4 NA NA5 3.46 3566 3.38 3577 3.34 NA 2190
2300.0
1700.0
1500.0
510.0
450.0
624.8 187.4
611.5 183.4
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Equity Silver Uaste Rock (cont'd)
I1 FLASK WEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM.
I ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwcm3) (mg/L) m9/1009) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/1009)~, ________ ____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
II 8IIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIIIII
1 NA HA
2 3.74 3243 3.33 3384 NA NA5 NA NA6 3.18 3597 3.11 372a 3.07 383
1 5.002 NA3 3.584 3.215 NA6 NA7 3.148 3.159 3.18
276NA331343NANA362362382 NA
1 5.012 NA3 3.654 3.18S NA6 NA7 3.11a NA9 3.07
10 3.18
296NA328340NANA360NA365367 3140
3130 2700.0
1900.0
2500.0
810.0
570.0
750.0
1363.7
1150.3
1801.3
409.1
345.1
540.4
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Heath Steele Uaste Rock
Ij FLASK
III-------lI ’II 2III 3IIII L+IIIIi 5/
IIIII 6IIIII
7I/
II
II
IUEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SOLPHATE ACIDITY CUM. I
1
12
123
1234
12345
123456
1234567
6.89 293
7.32 2276.76 336
7.29 2307.03 2846.92 259
7.31 2227.25 2336.72 2056.49 266
7.38 2107.53 2147.04 204NA NA
6.72 303
7.33 223NA NANA NA
7.15 2426.81 2826.84 330
6.88 la47.10 243NA NANA HA
6.98 2556.71 2876.87 346
979
1170
1570
1790
1775
2240
2450
540.0
1200.0
1400.0
1500.0
1550.0
1900.0
2000.0
162.0 0.5 0.1
360.0 2.5 0.7
420.0 0.5 0.1
450.0 19.7 5.9
465.0 49.1 14.7
570.0 0.6 0.2
600.0 6.1 1.8
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
I1 aIIIIIIIII 9IIIIIIIIII 10IIIIIIIII/
1 NA NA
2 6.54 1983 7.03 2644 NA NA5 NA NA6 6.89 2767 6.60 309a 6.55 455
1 7.662 NA3 6.364 6.865 NA6 NA7 6 . 7 8a 6 . 5 29 6.87
la3HA222315NANA271301417 2760
1 7 . 5 12 NA3 6 . 2 84 6.795 NA6 NA7 6.74a NA9 6.25IO 5.82
la5NA238327NANA305NA302328
2570
2940
2200.0
2300.0
2000.0
SAMPLE : Heath Steele Uaste Rock (ccnt’d)
IFLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. I
ACIDITY I(mV SCE) onS/cm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOOg) (mg CaC03/L) 0~ CaCWlOOg)~
____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~--------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
690.0
600.0
0.5
0.2
5.1
0.2
0.1
1.5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: Into Uaste Rock
I I1 FLASK UEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY SULPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. II
~___________II 1II 2III 3IIII LIIIII 5IIIIII 6IIIIIII 7IIIIII
1
12
123
1234
12345
123456
1234567
7.37 292 528 250.0 7 5 . 0
7.596.91
252335 638
7.61 2367.54 2446.92 259
7.63 2247.60 2317.54 2327.25 2.89
7.67 2137.60 2247.61 194NA NA
7.30 294
7.87 268NA NANA NA
7.69 2347.20 2967.19 314
7.50 1727.80 275NA NANA NA
7.63 2367.04 3006.90 412
737
870
1020
1018
1040
330.0
900.0
1100.0
1150.0
1000.0
1100.0
9 9 . 0
270.0
330.0
345.0
300.0
330.0
SHAKE FLASK TEST
SAMPLE: lnco Uaste Rock (cont'd)
I I1 FLASK WEEK pH REDOX CONDUCTIVITY WLPHATE SULPHATE ACIDITY CUM. II ACIDITY II (mV SCE) (mwcm3) (mg/L) (mg/lOOg) (mg CaC03/L) (mg CaC03/100g)l____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~______
I1 aIIIIIIIII9IIIIIIIIII ‘0IIIIIII/II
1 NA NA
2 7.30 1893 7.59 2924 NA NA5 NA NA6 7.13 2387 6.41 303a 5.91 492 1219
1 7 .87
2 HA
3 7.104 7.555 NA6 NA7 7.30a 6.529 6.77
190NA198301NANA238300&12 1191
1 7.902 NA3 7.064 7.625 NA6 NA7 7.44a NA9 6.67
10 6.37
195NA202312NANA238NA293267 1187
1150.0
1200.0
1100.0
345.0 39.3 11.8
360.0 1.1 0.3
330.0 2.0 0.6
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
/ I
II
II
IP
II
I
aCD
dcv
0
0
m
Q
t t
SHAKE FLASK TESTEQUITY SILVER TAILINQ
C U M . S U L P H A T E (~1100~) C U M . A C I D I T Y (0 CacOS/lOOg)
1
0.8 .- 0 . 8
0.6
I
0 . 4 I
0 . 2 -
1
0 . 6
0 . 4
0 . 2
0
- SULPHATE
- ACIDITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10TIME (weeks)
t
t t
--
,o 0
t t
II
I
t 4cr!
c9T
nl
00
0d
00
APPENDIX 9
SHAKE FLASK TEST DATA
t t
I!
II
00
t t
OO
l-
v!0
SHAKE FLASK TESTEQUITY SILVER WASTE FiOCK
PH REDOX5
4
3
2
1
0
I I
I II 1I
I 1 I I I I 1 1
4 0 0
3 0 0
2 0 0
1 0 0
0
- PH
+ REDOXw
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10TIME (weeke)
SHAKE FLASK TESTHEATH STEELE WASTE ROCK
PH REDOX
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1c
L
............ ......
..... .................
...... ... ......... ........... ... .... ........
I I I 1 I I I
5 0 0
4 0 0
3 0 0
2 0 0
1 0 0
0
(-1+ REDOX I
1 I
1 ‘2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10TIME (weeks)
t 4
SHAKE FLASK TESTINCO WASTE ROCK
PH REDOX
8 6 0 0
6 _
- 1 0 0
0 I I I I I I I I 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10
TIME (weeks)
- PH
+ REDOXI I
0d
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
S A M P L E : C u r r a g h T a i l i n g
___-.
WEEKA l
__________.
1 9.6
2 13.0
3 9.0
4 3-i
5 0.4
6 5.7
7 38.8
8 159.0
9 91.3
10 120.0
___
Sb
_____.
< 0 . 4
< 0 . 4
( 0 . 4
0.7
< 0.4
( 0.4
0.7
0.6
< 0.4
( 0.4
ISOLUTION ANALYSIS @g/L) I
AS B e Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb ns Hll MO Ni K Na Zn II
________________________________________.________________________________________~_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~------~-~-------~~~~------~~-~ II
< 2.0 < 0.05 0.75 379 ( 0.15 1.28 23.1 65 2.95 152 95 ( 0.2 1.40 6.25 13.4 705 I
0.2 0.013 0.85 356 0.36 2.15 5.14 74 1.69 213 134 ( 0.02 1.66 6.92 14.7 437 I
( 2.0 < 0.05 1.07 559 0.47 1.9 0.57 168 2.1 419 204 ( 0.2 1.74 10.3 15.6 A 9 I
< 2.0 0.55 0.82 605 0.48 2 2.16 18.2 1.5 639 274 4 0.2 1.63 11.1 16 586 I
< 2.0 < 0.05 0.96 702 0.65 2.7 6.41 44.2 0.9 848 375 < 0.2 1.91 34.9 47.2 702 II
( 2.0 0.09 0.76 615 0.43 2 2.54 29.7 2.1 688 310 ( 0.2 1.82 5.65 15.1 401 I
-z 2.0 0.07 1.06 470 0.6 2.6 8.77 479 0.9 723 347 < 0.2 2.21 12.3 17.5 641 I
3.0 0.11 2.17 557 1.71 4.8 16 4040 2 1040 433 ( 0.2 3.01 5.48 20.5 1150 I
( 2.0 0.13 1.54 543 1.05 3.2 15.9 3040 2.1 955 413 ( 0.2 2.69 11.6 21.6 a24 II
< 2.0 < 0.05 1.56 431 1.35 3.5 16.2 3420 1 751 317 ( 0.2 2.78 3.45 20.4 759 I
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
S A M P L E : ElLiot Lake Tailing
IIII
IIIII
II
IIII
IIIII
_____
WEEKAL
1 2.0
2 1.8
3 1.3
4 3.1
5 1.4
6 1.7
7 3.4
8 4.0
9 3.4
10 2.3
_-.
Sb
_______
< 0 . 4
0.05
< 0.4
( 0.4
< 0.4
0.7
0.6
< 0.4
0.4
0.7
ISOLUTloll ANALYSIS @g/L) I
Cr co cu Fe Pb no Hn MO Ni K Ye Zn iAS 88 Cd Ca
-z 2.0
0.8
s 2.0
( 2.0
s 2.0
( 2.0
+z 2.0
s 2.0
( 2.0
s 2.0
.t 0.2 0.011
0.035 < 0.005
( 0.05 ( 0.05
0.05 -z 0.05
( 2.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.05 < 0.05
0.06 0.05
0.08 -G 0.05
0.06 0.05
178
1000
778
715
703
510
629
758
725
585
so.015 < 0.01
0.16 0.02
0.22 ( 0.1
0.17 ( 0.1
0.27 < 0.1
0.16 < 0.1
0.31 ( 0.1
0.29 0.1
0.27 0.3
0.26 0.3
0.083
0.013
0.03
0.02
* 0.02
( 0.02
0.02
0.07
0.1
0.07
0.12 0.08
0.3 ( 0.05
0.14 ( 0.5
( 0.03 < 0.5
0.79 * 0.5
-z 0.03 ( 0.5
( 0.03 ( 0.5
0.67 < 0.5
0.41 0.9
1.11 s 0.5
3.48
15.4
18.3
19.7
20.8
14.8
16.6
22.5
26
18
0.23 0.03 0.06
0.31 0.03 0.03
0.55 < 0.2 ( 0.15
0.53 ( 0.2 0.17
0.54 ( 0.2 ( 0.15
0.42 * 0.2 0.27
0.79 ( 0.2 0.39
1.74 c 0.2 0.55
2.29 ( 0.2 0.62
1.37 ( 0.2 0.21
20.2 6.44
19.8 6.84
25.4 6.62
21.2 6.7
60.8 28.1
19.8 5.15
20.4 5.2
22.8 5.8
27 6.18
24.8 6.55
I5.29 1
0.32 I
0.27 1I
0.42 I
0.42 1I
0.04 I
0 . 0 8 I
0 . 7 9 I
1.21 I
0 . 5 6
SHAKE FLASK TESIS
SAMPLE : E q u i t y S i l v e r T a i l i n g
IWEEK SOLUTION ANALYSIS (mg/L)
A l Sb A s Be Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb Me Mn MO N i K We Zn 1
__________________________________________________________________________________________~_____~~~~~~~~~-~--~~~~~~----~~~~~~-~-~~~~~~~--~~~-~~---~~~~~~---~~~~~-~~--~~~~
1 1.2
2 2.1
3 0.6
4 1.5
5 1.4
6 1.6
7 1.6
8 2.5
9 1.6
10 1.7
0.04
co.04
-z 0.4
0.6
0.07
0.8
( 0.4
( 0.4
( 0.4
0.8
< 0.2
0.6
( 2.0
( 2.0
0.3
4 2.0
( 2.0
( 2.0
< 2.0
( 2.0
0.049 (0.005
0.048 0.005
< 0.05 ( 0.05
0.06 ( 0.05
0.92 0.025
0.06 ( 0.05
0.14 ( 0.05
0.12 ( 0.05
0.14 < 0.05
0.09 < 0.05
341
378
416
370
485
350
413
411
413
312
<0.015
0.11
( 0.15
0.16
0.041
0.17
0.28
0.21
0.28
0.3
‘ 0.01 0.043 0.11 t 0.05
( 0.01. 0.018 0.23 0.1
‘ 0.1 -z 0.02 0.31 ( 0.5
‘ 0.1 0.03 0.03 ( 0.5
0.038 0.51 0.82 0.1
‘ 0.1 0.04 ‘ 0.03 ( 0.5
0.1 0.15 1.31 0.6
‘ 0.1 0.07 0.57 ( 0.5
0.1 0.15 1.3 0.6
‘ 0.1 0.02 0.26 ( 0.5
32.1
34.6
49.9
43.7
65.3
45.3
58.8
58.8
58.8
46.8
0.38 0.04
0.49 0.03
0.73 ( 0.2
0.76 ‘ 0.2
0.96 0.04
1.19 ‘ 0.2
0.85 ‘ 0.2
0-w ‘ 0.2
0.85 ( 0.2
0.68 ( 0.2
‘0.015
‘0.015
0.33
( 0.15
0.054
0.38
0.19
‘ 0.15
0.19
‘ 0.15
46 .52.6 0.2 I
48.2 54 0.45 II
48.9 55 0.65 1
49 57.2 0.89 II
91.9 77.1 1.48 1
41.6 52.7 0.53 I
46 54.1 1.4 I
43.5 52.9 0.53 II
46 54.1 1.4 I
48.3 53.5 0.2
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAt4PLE: Heath Steele Tailing
__---
I
IIIIII
IIIII
III
II
II
UEEKAl sb AS ga
_____________________________________------
1 389.0
2 341.0
3 405.0
4 330.0
5 370.0
6 381.0
7 377.0
8 454.0
9
10
419.0
423.0
< 0.4 3.0 t 0.05
< 0.4 3.7 0.07
< 0.4 2.9 ( 0.05
s 0.4 8.0 0.13
< 0.4 22 0.13
1.1 75 0.06
1.6 106 0.2
2.2 256 0.06
1.6 258 0.13
1.9 218 0.08
Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb no ml MO Ni
_____- _____- __________________ _____
15 641 1370
14.2 616
< 0.15 115
3.62 90.6 1400
19.1 609 5.0 110
4.75 78
8.3 90.8
2320
13 495 2080
15.9 522 2200
16.1 518 8.31 84.5 2240
17.5 548 9.29 86.2 2070
18.9 583 12.4 100
12.1 102
11.7 94.1
2840
19.6 622
17.4 545 2230
SOLUTION ANALYSIS (w/L)
709 < 0.5 119 73.4 ( 0.2
1103 < 0.5 111 71.9 ( 0.2
2450 -z 0.5 135 80.2 ( 0.2
2680 .z 0.5 105 60.4 ( 0.2
3320 e 0.5 123 68 g 0.2
3930 c 0.5 125 ?3 ( 0.2
4420 ( 0.5 120 ?3 c 0.2
6930 ( 0.5 149 76.3 ( 0.2
7090 ( 0.5 143 78.6 ( 0.2
6170 ( 0.5 147 TJ.2 ( 0.2
__---
3.3
2.31
2.63
1.52
1.7
2.51
2.19
2.2
2.22
2.26
K Na
______________.
0 . 0 9 3.13
0.09 3.12
0.09 2.62
0.1 2.7
1.6 29.8
0.16 3.18
0.1 3.5
0.12 4.44
1.7 10.5
0.17 5.8
2n II_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
3220 1I
4550 1
5710 I
5060 I
5550 fI
4980 I
5270 II
6750 II
6610 I
5200
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAMPLE : Key Lake Tail ing
IIIII
1I
IIIIIIIII
IIII
_-___
UEEK SOLUTION ANALYSIS (w/L)AL Sb AS Ba Cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb us mll I40 Ni
-__-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
_ __ ____
3.1 1.88
2.4 0.037
2.4 0.16
2.1 0.11
1.4 0.02
4.4 0.3
2.6
4.0
0.32 30.8 0.073 0.018 1220 0.19 0.18
0.16 27.1 0.027 < 0.005 1160 0.13 0.02
( 0.4 36.2 0.7 0.08 836 0.23 ( 0.1
( 0.4 33 0.05 0.05 720 0.17 ( 0.1
< 0.4 47 -z 0.05 < 0.05 643 0.3 4 0.1
0.5 44 0.13 < 0.05 A 4 0.28 < 0.1
( 0.4 49 0.05 < 0.05 736 0.36 s 0.1
< 0.4 63 0.11 ( 0.05 685 0.34 ( 0.1
( 0.4 67 0.12 ( 0.05 150 0.34 ( 0.1
0.4 47 0.08 < 0.05 665 0.4 0.2
0.47
0.44
4.0 0.31
2.6 2.03
1.25 < 0.05 9.56 0.14 2.13 0.26
0.29 0.05 11.7 0.063 1.58 0.51
0.56 ( 0.5 23.3 0.02 1.8 0.89
0.41 ( 0.5 23.4 0.01 1.43 0.78
0.39 < 0.5 31.3 0.03 1.8 t.ca
s 0.03 0.6 31.2 <O.Ol 1.5 1.29
3.07 0.6 29.5 <O.Ol 1.3 1.64
3.28 < 0.5 53.9 0.06 1.8 2.94
1.87 ( 0.5 47.2 0.03 2 2.45
3.32 ( 0.5 43.1 0.13 0.84 2.4
-__-
II
K We 2n I
________________________
8 30.5
7.95 32.9
9.22 32.9
9.6 31.4
29.2 64
7.73 30.7
7.5 32
7.35 31.8
7.66 34.9
9.1 33.3
I6.55 l
I0.4 1
1.01 I
0.94 I
0.56 fI
0.13 I
0.5 1
1.3 I
1.28 II
4.22 I
A---_
_-_
__
_----
__
---_
_---
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAMPLE: Uaite Amulet Tailing
I
I
WEEKAL
~___.__________.
II 1 23.8II 2 28 .7
1 3 25.6
II 4 48.4
I 5 66.2II 6 81.6II 7 74.2
I a 158.0
1 9 140.0II 10 138.0
.___
Sb AS
___--_____----___.
< 0.4 ( 2.0
<0.04 0.2
-c 0.4 < 2.0
< 0.4 -z 2.0
< 0.4 ( 2.0
0.9 -z 2.0
0.8 ( 2.0
0.9 < 2.0
0.5 2.0
0.6 < 2.0
Be
.___--__
0.07
0.038
< 0.05
0.15
s 0.05
( 0.05
( 0.05
0.09
0.12
0.1
Cd
._____
0.49
0.3
0.71
0.79
1.15
1.03
0.77
1.28
1.34
1.07
Ca Cr
_____ ____----‘._ ___
co cu
__-_____-_-_-______-
235 0.24 4.65 1.17
146 0.18 4.24 5.97
263 0.41 7.04 < 0.02
233 0.31 9.9 24.8
237 0.57 13.2 45.9
331 0.58 11.3 46
221 0.47 9.0 43.6
332 0.81 14.1 94.4
323 1.01 13.5 100
276 0.77 14.7 98.8
SOLUTION ANALYSIS (f&L)Fe Pb
______ _____
914 1.14
731 1.21
1650 1.3
1770 1.9
2230 1.1
2140 1.6
1570
3180
3100
3340
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.1
no Hn H O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
70.1 19 < 0.2
65 13.8 ( 0.02
89.2 22.9 ( 0.2
93.2 21 ( 0.2
102 21.8 < 0.2
125 28.5 < 0.2
93.5 20 ( 0.2
150.9 30.6 ( 0.2
141 26.1 ( 0.2
148 24.3 ( 0.2
I
Ni K We Zn II_-_____-_-_________----~-~----__ I
3.52
3.05
5.01
6.17
6.23
7.62
5.63
8.41
8.56
7.17
i12.2 5.12 269 1
I9.89 5.62 195 1
16 6.92 321 I
10.5 7.8 301 I
24.6 33.6 372 II
9.25 6.8 476 1
5.38 7.6 327 I
3.55 12 498 fI
7.35 14.2 521 1
5.88 13.1 457 I
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAHPLE:Uestmin T a i l i n g
--__
UEEKAl Sb
____-____----__-_--.
1 1.1
2 55.5
3 66.7
4 77.9
5 70.6
6 106.0
7 81.7
8 116.0
9 101.0
10 112.0
co.04
0.13
( 0.4
< 0.4
< 0.4
1.0
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.6
__
AS Be
__________________-_
( 0.2 0.039
< 2.0 0.055
s 2.0 < 0.05
( 2.0 0.06
( 2.0 0.38
( 2.0 0.07
( 2.0 < 0.05
< 2.0 -G 0.05
( 2.0 0.11
( 2.0 0.07
Cd Ca Cr co
_______________.__________-____---__ _____
cu Fe
________.______.
0.58 1210 ( 0.015 0.07 0.48 0.096
2.94 576 ( 0.15 ( 0.1 133 697
4.12 608 1.25 s 0.1 191 1030
4 543 2 < 0.1 199 1140
4.49 474 2.09 0.2 186 1430
5.38 569 2.75 0.3 213 2470
3.52 441 1.94 0.1 152 1950
5.21 531 3.32 0.5 221 3220
5.01 520 3.42 0.1 189 2960
4.51 440 2.64 0.4 197 2600
SOlUlION A N A L Y S I S (ntg/L)
Pb
(0.05 62.3 46.4
0.26 66.5
2.9 78.9
3.2 67.8
5.1 63'.8
4.3
164
191
183
168
184
138
185
168
191
75
2.6 52.2
3.3 69.9
5.2 67
4.2 63.4
--____---
MO
____-_-__--
0.03
< 0.2
< 0.2
( 0.2
( 0.2
( 0.2
( 0.2
( 0.2
x 0.2
< 0.2
Ni K
______ -_-_-
0.33 15.5
1.25 19.5
1.35 24.9
1.45 20
1.73 49.7
2.3 5.18
1.85 4.15
2.27 1.98
2.28 16.2
1.86 16.6
____
IYe Zn 1
______________ II
8.7 144 II
9.42 735 1I
9.0 1130 II
10.4 1120 lI
36.1 1130 lI
7.52 1290 I
8.3 667 1I
11.6 1270 1I
12.4 1210 I
12 1290
I
I ‘f’o t&-L 9’22
I Lf’O s-9 s-02II 22’0 9-L s-02II 12’0 22‘9 3’12II ZI’O f’s 2’61II s-0 or f’fSIl 85-O 29-L 8’02Il 6’1 f9’L s-22II 7-o u-9 S’LIIl 27’0 f2’9 2’91I
520’0
610’0
870’0
f20’0
LLO’O
510’0,
SLO’O,
510-o>
510-o>
510’0,
20’0 ’ 35’0
20’0 B SS’O
20’0 > 67’0
20’0 B 27’0
20’0 > 52-o
20’0 ’ 97’0
20’0 N 17’0
20’0 N 9’0
20’0 ’ 22’0
20’0 ’ SZ’O
f-97
2’7f
s-77
7’f7
9f
9’9f
12’Of
2’7f
L-92
f’s2
80’0 If’0
so-o ’ 61’0
1’0 21’0
60’0 fOO’0,
SO’0 ’ fOO.0,
so-o > Lf’O
SO’0 s 1’0
fO’0 77’ 1
so-o ’ u-0
so-o ’ B70’0
6fO’0
f20’0
810’0
600’0
600’0
910’0
900’0
LZ’O
220’0
LOO’0
10’0 ’ SO’0 SZf
1 0 ’0 ’ LSO’O fl2
10’0 970’0 72f
10’0 950’0 Slf
1 0 ‘0 ’ PSO’O SOf
10’0 ’ f90’0 2f2
10’0 ’ so-o fL2
1 0 ’0 ’ 70’0 LIZ
10’0 ’ 2fO’0 551
1 0 ’0 ’ SlO’O ’ 291
500-O B 6 2 0 ’0
SOO’O > 20’0
ZOO-0 p 9 2 0 ’0
SOO’O > LZO’O
SOO’O > 7fO’0
SOO‘O > ZLO’O
LOO’0 91’0
210’0 9fO.O
600’0 270’0
SOO’O ’ f70’0
2’0 ’
2’0 s
2’0 >
2’0 ’
2’0 ’
2’0 B
2’0 ’
2’0 ’
2’0 >
2’0 ’
70’0,
70-o>
60’0
70’0,
SO’0
70’0’
70’0,
70-o>
70-o>
70-o>
0-0
8’0
0'1
2’2
f’l
9‘0
e-o
7’0
9’0
S’O
I________________________________________________________________________________________
II w en Id !N OH W4 &I 9d ej n3
____ ______________________________-_----_________---------
03 J3 P3 03 sv(i/6w SISA~VWV fmrnios
___. ._____________
9s I V
01 I
6 II
0 I
L II
9 II
s I
7 II
f II
2 II
1 II
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
Ix33n I
I
1~0~ alsen @eJJn3:3ldwvs
SlS31 xv14 3NHS
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAMPLE:Equity Silver Uaste R o c k
WEEKAl Sb
_______-_____---____-
1 8 . 0 qo.04
2 16.9 co.04
3 33.0 <0.04
4 48.0 ( 0.4
5 57.7 < 0.4
6 41.6 < 0.4
7 47.8 0.8
8 90.7 0.6
9 80.6 ( 0.4
10 83.3 ( 0.4
__
AS Be
________________
cd Ca Cr co
_____________________---_____----.
0.4 0.027 0.5 292 ( 0.015 0.24
0.6 0.023 0.8 382 0.1 0.29
* 0.2 < 0.05 1.08 393 0.17 0.4
( 2.0 0.09 1.13 364 0.15 0.3
< 2.0 ( 0.05 1.16 389 0.22 0.7
2.2 0.07 1.03 326 0.31 0.5
( 2.0 ( 0.05 0.86 303 0.22 0.5
e 2.0 < 0.05 1.32 375 0.42 0.6
( 2.0 0.18 1.38 375 0.57 0.6
< 2.0 ( 0.05 1.02 311 0.3 0.7
SOLUTION ANALYSIS (tnR/L) tCU
._____
0.2
0.65
1.24
1.9
2.42
8.2
8.87
2.5
2.55
2.63
Fe Pb no IIll HO Ni K We Zn lI
________________________________________________________-_______----___--~---~I
22 i 0.05 32.1 11.9 ( 0.02 0.71
75.8 0.3 39 16.4 < 0.02 0.97
178 0.5 46.4 22.1 ( 0.2 1.47
MS ( 0.5 47 23.7 ( 0.2 1.55
352 < 0.5 50.6 26.2 < 0.2 1.6_
186 1.3 40.9 30 ( 0.2 1.29
203 0.5 41.5 30.4 ( 0.2 1.19
573 0.6 53.9 35.9 ( 0.2 2.21
614 0.6 49.4 35 ( 0.2 1.81
510 0.8 49.9 31.6 ( 0.2 1.72
i22.4 8.73 7.48 1
25.7 10 13.1 II
31.9 10.8 20.7 ,I
I27.7 10 24.7 I
I61.4 37.4 29.1 I
17.9 7.52 40.7 I
16 7.55 40.7 I
2.15 12.3 42.8 I
1.93 12.6 44.4 II
2.15 12.5 30.9 II I
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAHPLE:Heath Steele Uaste Rock
____
UEEK SOLUTION ANALYSIS (n&#/L)A l Sb AS Be Cd Ca Cr co
1 1.3 0.04
2 0.6 co.04
3 1.2 co.04
4 1.7 ( 0.4
5 1.1 0.4
6 3.0 0.5
7 5.1 0.5
8 3.7 ( 0.4
9 4.0 0.5
10 3.2 0.9
-z 0.2
< 0.2
4 0.2
< 2.0
< 2.0
s 2.0
c 2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
.G 2.0
0.057 0.000 233 < 0.015 0.02
0.07 0.015 295 0.07 0.03
0.055 0.035 419 0.085 0.06
0.02 < 0.05 440 0.17 < 0.1
0.09 0.12 432 < 0.15 0.1
0.15 0.13 562 0.33 0.2
.z 0.05 0.06 619 0.25 0.3
0.06 0.07 65% 0.3 0.3
0.12 0.19 813 0.35 0.5
0.12 0.18 779 0.22 0.7
.___-
cu
__--_--_
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.04
Fe Pb
________-__-----_-~
0.03 < 0.05
0.039 < 0.05
0.012 -z 0.05
I 0.03 ( 0.5
0.62 4 0.5
( 0.03 -z 0.5
0.15 0.9
c 0.03 0.8
0.1 1.3
0.42 2.0
__ ______
20
24.9
28.1
30.3
35.1
44.9
56.7
63.5
89.2
102
I
Hn HO Ni K We Zn iI
.____________~______~__~~__~__~~_~~~_~~~~~~~~-~~-~~~ I
2.97 -z 0.02
4.04 ( 0.02
a.43 < 0.02
9.79 ( 0.2
6.43 -x 0.2
19 ( 0.2
26.1 ( 0.2
24.5 ( 0.2
41.2 < 0.2
44 ( 0.2
<0.015
0.03
<O.OlS
0.23
( 0.15
0.47
0.27
0.27
0.31
0.27
I14.5 4.78 0.91 1
16.6 4.91 0.98 I
22.7 5.29 2.92 I
19.6 5.1 3.11 I
50.8 25.6 1.86 II
19.6 3.64 0.79 1
21.4 4.36 11.5 I
21.8 5.35 12.3 I
23.4 4.55 20.5 I
25.3 5.56 41.1I I
SHAKE FLASK TESTS
SAHPLE:lnco Uaste Rock
UEEKAL
____ ___ .______.
SOLUTION ANALYSIS @g/L)sb AS Be cd Ca Cr co cu Fe Pb
_________________________________________________________-------________________________-_--.
1 0 . 3 <o-o4
2 0.3 co.04
3 0.9 <o.oc
4 0.6 0.05
5 0.5
0.7
1.4
0.9
1.9
1.2
<o.oc
6 0.06
7
8
9
10
0.08
0.1
CO.04
<0.04
< 0.2 0.066 < 0.005
s 0.2 0.075 ( 0.005
.z 0.2 0.046 0.017
( 0.2 0.12 ( 0.005
< 0.2 0.15 ( 0.005
< 0.02 0.084 ( 0.005
< 0.02 0.11 < 0.005
s 0.02 0.081 < 0.005
4 0.02 0.082 0.018
< 0.02 0.096 0.009
84.7 ( 0.015
171 0.045
156 0.036
162 0.033
188 0.059
163 0.07
182 0.044
196 0.066
216 0.079
259 0.065
0.01
0.01
< 0.01
s 0.01
( 0.01
0.03
0.02
0.21
0.1
0.08
0.005
0.003
0.01
0.007
0.011
0.003
0.003
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.047 < 0.05
0.015 ( 0.05
0.022 0.03
0.045 < 0.05
0.14 < 0.05
<0.003 ( 0.05
0.01 ( 0.05
0.039 ( 0.05
0.044 c 0.05
0.08 ( 0.05
II
no Nn I40 Ni K Ye Zn lI
_______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~--- I
12.9 0.069 ( 0.02
< 0.02
( 0.02
( 0.02
( 0.02
* 0.02
( 0.02
< 0.02
( 0.02
( 0.02
0.15I
23.1 8.27 0.21 II
15.3 0.097
17.8 0.12
17.4 0.11
18 0.12
16.2 0.14
22.3 0.23
28.9 1.32
24.4
28.5
0.77
0.75
0.21
0.25
0.2
0.25
0.43
0.8
7.14
4.12
2.85
27.2 9.08 0.12 II
30.9 10.4 0.24 II
44.4 9.0 0.41 1
72.2 34.9 0.5 II
29.5 7.02 0.033 I
33.2 7.6 0.036 I
40 9.8 0.068 II
41 9.98 0.068 I
YA NA 0.069
APPENDIX 10
SOXHLET EXTR?CTION TEST DATA
LEACHING OF MINE WASTES: SOXHLET EXTRACTION TEST METHOD
DATE : August 22, 1988
BY: Dr. L.M. Lavkullch and Bill PriceDepartment of Soil Science, UBC
REPORT TO: Coastech Research Inc.80 Niobe StreetNorth Vancouver, B.C.V7J 2C9
ATTENTION: Linda Broughton
1. SOXHLET METHODS TESTED
METHOD I: Acetlc Acid in Singleton and Lavkulich (1978) soxhlet with freedraining chamber.
Leachate - 0.05 m Acetic Acid, pH 2.49- 200 ml replaced weekly- leaching rate 1 litre/day- temperature in extraction chamber 135'F
Run for 3 weeks
METHOD II: Distilled Water in Singleton and Lavkulich (1978) soxhlet with freedraining chamber.
Leachate - distilled water, pH 8.2- 200 ml replaced weekly- leaching rate 1 litre/day- temperature in extraction chamber 135'F.
Run for 3 weeks
METHOD III: Distilled Water in Sullivan and Sobek (1982) soxhlet
Leachate - distilled water, pH 8.2- 200 ml replaced weekly- leaching rate 1 litre/day- temperature in extraction chamber 8O'F
Run for 3 weeks
SAMPLE PRETREATMENT
Leachate:
Cool to room temperature and measure pH and electrical conductivity.Add 4 ml HF to soxhlet flask. Leave until all precipitated material iseither in suspension or solution. Shake well and take 20 ml subsample.Add 4 ml HF and 2 ml aqua regia (4 parts HC:l part HN03). Heat at 8O'C for2 hours in water bath. Add 4.6 g boric acid. Heat at 8O'C for 1 hour oruntil clears, in a water bath. Cool and make up to 100 ml. Ship toA.S.L. for analysis. Measure volume of leachate remaining in soxhletflask.
Residue:
Air dry (approximately 1 week), weigh and then sieve to remove teflonbeads. Store in plastic viles for shipping.
RESULTS
Weight of material recovered In leachate equals
ASL lnltlal 100 ml{mg/litre in - mg/litre } x dilution x leachate x
sample In control factor volune 20 ml
NOTE: controls were labeled blank or 13
e.g. for I 1.1 Aluminum
{122 a - 0 m} x 10 x 163 ml x 5 x 10-3 L = 994.3 mgL L ml
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
1. precipitation of material from leachate prior to it reaching collectionflask, and disolution of the same in subsequent weeks.
2. getting precipitate in collection flask into suspension in order totake a representative subsample.
3. maintaining a constant leaching rate.
5 C : : I-1 i tI1- t 1-!1 i-,e waste- Stud‘/
ACETIC ACID Si nal eton
WEEk.# 1VOL. pH ECml mhos
16.2 4 . 4 1 1 . 3187 7.9 8. t:,I. 52 2.3 1 3 . 4i&0 7.7 6 . 11ztz 4 . 4 1 2 . 7177; 7\.tj 2 . 7
WEEk:.#ZV O L . PHmlz!j(j 3199 z2(ji:i 7199 3
ior Zoastech
+ Lavkul lch 1’978
EC;G$t::+G
. pH ECmhos ml mhos
1981 90192192
155 4 _ t:, 7 . 9lo6 4 . 0 7.8166 2. 9 7 . 4155 z.7 6 . 4156 4 . 0 7 . 2 198 3 . 4173 4 . 7 - z (j (j 3 . 4
2. 5 cj. 9
3.3 196 5 . 3 4 . 72. 0 3 . 0 2 . 7.j.7 5
::21 . 9 5. (j
2.0 196 2. 1 3 . 53. tj 196 3 . 2 3 . 44 . 8 1 9 0 2. 8 4 . 2
D I S T I L L E D W A T E R S i n a l e t o n + Lavkulich 1 9 7 8
WEEK# 1 ;A:“::“’ WEEKS)3‘JOL. pH EC . pH EC VOL. pH ECml mhos ml mhos ml mhos
3.2 1943 . !j 1 9 8
12.8 1964 . 4 1984 . 0 196? ji. l??
2 . tj9 . 41.33. z2 . 27 . 2
z. 1ij . 87 . 01 . 63 . 31 . ij
Zrjtj 2. i)1?7 9 . 41961981?7199
1 . 52 . 51 .74 . 1.:)
3. 20.67.02.4.:2. 1
153 9.5 2. c:, 1 9 8 9 . 4 0 . 9 2!j(j 9. 2 i3. 9156 9 . 1 1 . 4 194 5 . 5 ::; - 196 4 . 5 ij.5158 4 . 0 2 . 8 198 -$1; 197 $12 5. i!147 9 . 2 1 . 7 197 0 . 8 196 0. 91 4 9 9 . 3 2.3 198 9 . 4 0. ? 196 3 . 7 1.Q159 8 . 5 1.9 197 3.2 ij. 3 ‘Z!j(j 2 . 5 0 . a
8 . 2 i:, . 1:, i3 . rj !I) . i:)
D I S T I L L E D W A T E R Sull ivan * S o b e k 1 9 8 2
WEEK++ 1:JOL. pH EC
,A:,::#, WEE;:::#)3. PH EC VOL. oH EC
ml mhos ml mhos ml mhos
124 9 . 1 1 . 1 170 8 . 4 !j . 3 196 6 . 2 0 . 5122 6.6 3 . 0 192 3 . 9 2’36 2 . 5 1.8lb4 a . 7 1 . 5 ::’ 8=5
89 T
1:s73’ i&O 4 .3 iI1
9 3 2.5 5 . 416;
2 . 4 270 2.k ‘41 05 8. a 2. 1 9 . 4 ij.6 -A336 9.; g:(;
1 i:)3 9 . 5 3. i] 1 9 5 9 . 2 1 . 8 225 9.4 (_) . 5
96 9.1 2.0 158 9 . 4 (1. 8 21s 9 . 1 0 . 9i.25 2.i:) 13.5 156 1 . 9 3.8 21z 1 . 9 0 . 6
9 y, 2. 1 7 .2, 1z;3 2. 1 7. rj112.4 9.2 i:,.tJ If32 8 . 9 ;.7ill 2.4 i.a 162 2 . 7 ._’ 2.d cliZ O.5 1 . 6 151 9 . z lj.6 177
APPENDIX 11
CARBONATE PRESSURE ANALYSIS REPORT
b-4.
t- f
mx
l-30
a rn
Results of the manometric analysis of the tailingsamples and waste rock samples
V. P. Evangelou
The results of the manometric analysis of the tailing samples and
waste rock samples are shown in detail in Table 1. Some additional
clarification of these analyses are needed.
The manometric analysis does not directly identify calcite,
dolomite and siderite. This direct identification can only be carried
out by x-ray diffraction. The manometric technique simply demonstrates
the rate constants for the carbonate dissolution in 5 8 HCl. These rate
constants are then compared to the rate constants of the reference
minerals. As is shown in Table 1, some of the samples exhibit rate
constants very close to those of the reference minerals while other
samples are not in close agreement.
The manometric analysis demonstrates the reactivity of the
carbonates present in these samples. The rate constants of the geologic
samples shown in Table 1 may or may not represent the pure minerals.
For example, iron oxide, manganese oxide and clay mineral coatings may
inhibit the reactivity of calcite and its kinetics may resemble kinetics
of dolomite or siderite (FeC03). In any case, one may argue that the
most important information in terms of environmental issues is knowledge
of the kind of reactivity (rate constants, kn) the residual carbonates
display and not necessarily the identity of each carbonate in the
sample(s). For example, the manometric technique might identify a
sample as being siderite (FeC05) when in fact it may be calcite coated
with manganese oxide. However, coated calcite would have limited if any
neutralization value. This would not differ from true siderite, which
based on its acid-base stoichiometry would have no neutralization value
either.
Table 1. Results of the manometric analysis of the tailing samples and waste rock samples.
Samole Dissolution rate constantsl
identification Calcite in Dolomite in Siderite inCaCOJ equivalents C&Q ea&alents QC03 eauiw A2TDolomt&
___Referenceminerals1 HSWR2 ELT3 CUWR4 EST5 NBT6 CUT7 WMT8 KLT9 ESWR10 WAT11 HST12 INWR
_ _ - _ _ _ - grams/kilogram of sample - - - - - - - - - - rate constants, K, (min)-I -
00
17.520.143.5
1505
:*;0
306
32.0
80
26.025.9
8
:2.30
x35.0
00
82.02
81.6
80
2.13
0.801.530.71
31041.962.0
1177
0.220.55
0.230.11
0.14
13-Siderite
0.099
0.08
0106
0.04
. . .
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 Calcite Calcite cystals
2,13X+4-33
1 .o 1.5Time Cminutss>
c--
4.0Ti
6.0 8.0 lU.Ll 1z.u 14.0me (minutes>
.
3.0A
F 25c ’--
s 2.0al
0.I 1.53K
CT 1.0Q3g 0.5r-
m Sideri te
S idw i te crysta IS
Y=-o_oggx+2_2
R ---9Q52
n-n 1I I I I I I I I I I
“‘-0.0 LO 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 LnTime (minutes)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Oe.
+ HSWR Y=-0-55X+3,522R =_,9g82
Time (minutes>
4.0,
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1 .5
1 .0
05,
0 CUWR SFplpLE CUM?
=-O..O8X+3-52
I I I I IAP A M
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 au ALOTime (minutes>
4
3[
2
1
n
o EST SRMPLE EST
I I I I I I I
KOCI 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00Time (minutes>
“‘LO 2.0 4.0 6.0 8 . 0 IU.U I L . 0Time (minutes>
-,s.DIE 'r_-
5 3.00
I 00
Y-- 0_11x+4:,70-SpdylpLEaJT
Y =-0-056X+4,43
FF=.9956
! I I I I I I ._ .-- --__ - a_o*wkl 5.ucl. 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.m 30.00 35.00 4u.00
T i m e Cminuted
-7.25
-9.75_!I 30a.25d.00$0.75c30.50'd50.25
y===- 3_04X+2-70
FF-_,a934
70.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 cl.,TimeCminutesI
0.1
c
2.00
p 1.75c-- 1 a
k 1.25
.F 1.00&cJ 0.75
y 0.25I
\
o KLT SFlkii’LE KLT
‘1‘s Y--l Aa3xtr -4s
\1
o*“lI 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1 .dFTl . . . . . . . .
TimeiminutesI
2.00
.F 1 .ooi+
Q3 0.75r)
6 0.50n
AE%R SRMPLEESWR
c h ~_
yc- 0~04X+0~57
2R-- 923 1iO oil 0
I I I I I I I
. . 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.unTimdminutesI
c 0.80_-
3 0.70
b 0.K0’ 0.x_-1&IjJ 0.4c
LIJ 0.3cS
7 0.1
0 01’ I
I-
I-
I-
)-
I-
I-
j-.(
Y=-o- 14X+0 - 99 cl
FF-,BO36o HST SIWLE HST
, I I I I
3 0.5 1 .0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Timdminutesl
2.3
1.5(
I .o
0.5
3
o INWR SRMPLE INWR
‘\. Y-- 1_77x+134
a\
0
\
I I I I I I I I In nLu%o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 h
TimeCminutes!
APPENDIX 12
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO, AND FIELD DATA FRO&PARTICIPATING HXNING COMPANIES
-I-HE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADEPT. OF MINING AND MINUUL PROCESS ENGINERING
6350 STORES ROADVANCOUVER. B.C. CANADA
v6T lW5
Telephone: (604) 228 - 3981 Fax: (604) 228 - 5599
June 7, 1988
Dear Participant:
Re: Acid Mine Drainane Prediction Contract. NO. 23440-7-9+78
General Objective: To investigate advantages and disadvantages of currenttechniques used for the prediction of acid mine drainage.
Research on the subject contract involving sample(s) that you submittedto Gilles Tremblay of CANKET in Ottawa is well underway. Enclosed pleasefind a short summary of the predictive tests being evaluated on yoursamples and samples received from eight other operating mines acrossCanada.
One objective of this project is to learn from you, relevant field-operating data and experiences to compare with the predictive lab-testresults.
Your supply of field data on these samples would greatly contribute to thesuccess and meaning of this research project. We will ensure that, inreturn, you will each receive copies of the final report.
To assist in your supplying relevant information on your waste/tailingsample behavior, we have included a short questionnaire for you to fillout. We ask that you also supply any additional information (publicationsetc.) that you perceive to be relevant to this research effort.
If you have questions prior to supplying this information please telephoneme at (604) 228 - 3981 or Dr. R.W. Lawrence or Ms. Linda Broughton atCoastech Research Inc. (604) 980 - 5992.
Thank you for your assistance! We hope this project will be verymeaningful for those of us attempting to deal successfully with theproblem of acid drainage.
Sincerely,
George W. PolingProfessor of Mineral Process Engineering
Encls.
cc: Dr. R.W. Lawrence, Coastech Research Inc.3s. L. Broughton, Coastech Research Inc.
ws2:3gwp-72
ACID MINE DBUNACE PREDICTION CONTMCTNO. 23440-7-9+78
PARTICIPATING HINES QUESTIONNAIRE
TAILING/WASTE ROCK SAMpLE DES-
1. Where was sampla taken from?
1.1 Supply Site map,if available,showing sampling location(s).
1.2 Type of sample - surface
- pit (size and depth)
- subaqueous
1.3 Describe detail of any sample preparation and handling forsending to CANMET, i.e., was it filtered or dried etc.
June 7/88ws2:3gwp-71
- l-
2. History of sample:
2.1 Date sampled.
2.2 How long was sample exposed to weathering? Under whatconditions?
2.3 Have any overbasing or neutralizing ingredients been added?Detail condition of tailings at discharge.
2.4 For tailing - does sample represent whole tailing or cycloned orbeach - classified fraction or slime fraction?
2.5 For tailing sample, please supply a flowsheet of concentratorgenerating this tailing - including reagents used, dosages andtheir expected dispositions [to concentrate or to tailing(solids and liquids) or to air].
2.6 What was the lag time between initial deposition and appearance(if any) of acid drainage?
June 7/88ws2:3gwp-71
- 2 -
3. Can sample be related directly to existing pond or seepage or porewater conditions?
3.1 What are those conditions?
3.2 Details of pond, seepage or prewater chemistry and bio-chemistq, i.e., dissolved SO&, heavy metals, alkalinity, pH,flow rates versus tim8, etc.
June 7/88ws2:3gwp-71
- 3 -
4. Can you supply detailed mineralogy on tha sample(s) supplied orexpected approximate mineralogy of the sample supplied?
4.1 Has the extent of sulphide particle oxidation been establishedmicroscopically on your tailing/waste material?
June 7/88ws2:3gwp-71
-4 -
5. Has your tailing/waste sample or seepage problem been subjected to anywaste management in an attempt to stop or to minimize acid generation?i.e., has the sample been blended in any way?
6. Have any prediction methods been previously applied to the material?If so, by what methods and what were the results?
June 7/88ws2:3gwp-71
- 5 -
SUMMARY OF REPLIES FROMFIELD DATA QUESTIONNAIRE
CURRAGE RESOURCES
Location: 20 km N.W. of Faro, YukonMine Type: Open pit - Pb/Zn, 9200 tpd, 1969 - 1982 as
Tailings Ponds:
Cypress Anvil Mining Corp; restarted1986 as Curragh Resources.see Figure
May
1969 original pond : 27 ha, 6 x lo6 m31974 second pond : 40 ha, 5 x lo6 m31981 down valley scheme : 128 ha, 42 Xm3 capacity
Tailing (CUT):
106
Cut from tailing discharge June 8, 1987.Sulphides : 50% of tailing, pyrite andpyrrhotite, mainly free, 5 - 200 um.Host Rock: Quartz, feldspar, sericite,chlorite with minor carbonate.
Tailing surface generated AMD in few warmsummer months due to chemical oxidation. Noevidence of biological catalysis.
Waste Rock (CUWR): Sulphides : 11% of waste rock, pyrite, 50-1oooum.Host Rock: Crystalline schist, quartz,plagioclase, biotite, muscovite, minorcarbonate.
Waste rock generates some AMD.
EQ?X?l'Y SILVER MIZS LTD
Location:Mine Type:Tailing Pond:
Tailing (EST):
37 km SE of Houston, B.C.Open Pit, Ag/Cusee figure
sampled directly from spigotted beach:coarse fraction, 1 month oldSulphides: 7% of sample, pyrite, free, 5-75urn.Host Rock: primarily sericitized schists.
No sign of AMD generation at site. Reclaimwater quality : pH 7.3.
Equity Silver continued:
Waste Rock (ESWR): fresh from south end of main zone pit @1270m.Sulphides: >50% pyrite and pyrrhotite,
Location:Mine Type:Tailing Pond:
Tailing (HST):
HEATH STEELE MINES
Waste Rock (HSWR ) :
mostly massive, 100 - 3000 um laths; some 5- 50 um disseminated.
Host Rock: Sericitized felsite, trace ofcarbonate.
Waste rock generates AMD after 6 months to1 year.
LTD
Newcastle, New BrunswickUnderground and open pitSee Figure
taken .from approx. 6" under existinghardpan in tailing pond, Nov 1987, 25 Yold.Sulphides: 80% of sample pyrite and alteredpyrrhotite, free, 5 - 50 um.
Tailings generate AND on site.
Taken from waste rock dump next to #lshaft.Sulphides: '7% of waste rock, pyrite,pyrrhotite and sphalerite (intergrowths), 5- 100 um.Host Rock: plagioclase, felsite, quartz,sericite, and chlorite.
Waste rock 30 y old, generates AMD.
K E Y LAKE MINING CORP
Location: Key Lake, Saskatchewan, 57ON Lat.Mine Type: Open Pit, uranium, since Oct. 1983Tailing Pond: '800 m x 500 m
Tailings (KLT): Sample taken from tailing pipeline, last
Key Lake continued:
week of July, 1987. Tailing limed to pH 10as neutralized product from acid leachprocess.Sulphides: '1% of sample, Ni arsenides andpyrite.Host Rock: mainly quartz and 4YPSUprecipitate.
No evidence of AMD at site
NORANDA MINERAX INc
Location: Granisle, British ColumbiaMine Type: Open pit, CuTailing Pond: on island in Babine Lake
Tailing Sample: taken directly from tailing pump box, Ott20-22, 1987. Mill feed is limed to pH 9.0,grind 55% -200 mesh.Sulphides: -4% of sample pyrite + tracechalcopyrite, bornite, free, 5 - 120 um.Host Rock: mainly quartz, sericite,plagioclase, with '5% carbonate content.Reclaim water pH = 7.5.
No AMD generated at site.
Location:Mine Type:
Tailing Pond:
Tailing (WAT):
29 km N of Noranda, Quebec.Underground, Cu/Zn. Began 1928, ceased1962.41 ha with 5.9 x lo6 tonnes in elevatedimpoundment. See figures.
Sample taken from old tailing pond earlyJuly, 1987.Sulphides: '21% pyrite + pyrrhotite, free,30 - 250 um.Host Rock: mainly quartz, feldspar,amphibole, muscovite, epidote, andchlorite.
Tailing produces AMD at site above watertable. Minimal sulphate reducing bacteriabelow water table.
wlwrM33 REsouRcEs LTD
Location:
Mine Type:
Southern end of Buttle Lake, VancouverIsland, British Columbia.Underground, Cu/Zn
Tailing (WMT): Sample taken mid November, 1987, fromrelatively fresh area (< 1 month old) ofbeach in S.W. comer of tailing depositionarea II.Sulphides: '40% of sample pyrite, free, 2-70 um.Host Rock: mostly quartz, feldspar, andsericite with '2% carbonate.
Tailings develop AMD at surface -1 yearafter deposition.
mco L!rD
Location: Sudbury, OntarioMine Type: Underground, Ni
Waste Rock: Sample taken Auq 6, 1987Sulphides: '2% as pyrrhotite, pyrite,chalcopyrite, free, 10 - 300 urn.Host Rock: mainly plagioclase, quartz,pyroxene, hornblend, and biotite.
Waste rock does generate AMD.