24.01.2013 Views

Pierre River Mine Project

Pierre River Mine Project

Pierre River Mine Project

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

WATER AENV SIRS 15 – 43<br />

ii. What was the minimum and maximum predicted rate?<br />

Section 12.1<br />

Response 17b i. The predicted seepage rate from the <strong>Pierre</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Mine</strong> external tailings<br />

disposal area (ETDA) during operations was determined using the <strong>Pierre</strong><br />

<strong>River</strong> <strong>Mine</strong> local groundwater flow model (see EIA, Appendix 4-1, Section<br />

1.2.4, page 93). The hydrogeology modeling information provided in<br />

Appendix 4-1 describes the geological surfaces, model limits, parameters,<br />

boundary conditions and calibration.<br />

ii. During operations, the minimum predicted ETDA seepage rate was 50 L/s,<br />

whereas the maximum predicted ETDA seepage rate was 550 L/s (see EIA,<br />

Volume 4A, Section 6.3.6.2, Table 6.3-18).<br />

Request 17c What is the degree of confidence in the rate of 240 L/s?<br />

Response 17c The degree of confidence in the estimated seepage rate of 240 L/s is considered<br />

moderate. Because of the conservatism built into the prediction of the seepage<br />

rate, as described in the following, the predicted seepage rate of 240 L/s is<br />

expected to be representative of an upper-end estimate.<br />

The seepage rate from the ETDA ultimately depends on:<br />

• the rate at which the ETDA deposits can transmit water vertically<br />

• the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer underlying the ETDA, reflecting the<br />

capacity of the aquifer to transmit the seepage from the ETDA deposits<br />

The ETDA was represented in the model with a general head boundary (GHB).<br />

Vertical tailings water transmission rates were controlled by the conductance (C)<br />

of the GHB (which depends on the thickness and hydraulic conductivity [K] of<br />

the tailings) and specified fluid levels in the tailings, as discussed in the response<br />

to AENV SIR 18fi.<br />

ETDA Thickness for GHB<br />

The thickness of the ETDA was conservatively represented as 5 m, although the<br />

ETDA design thickness is 45 m. In reality, the thickness of the ETDA will<br />

increase with time through the active lifetime of the ETDA. This assumption of a<br />

reduced thickness leads to more conservative seepage rates.<br />

ETDA Hydraulic Conductivity for GHB<br />

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the ETDA deposits was assigned one value<br />

(1 x 10 -8 m/s) for the entire ETDA footprint. The hydraulic conductivity of the<br />

tailings deposits will vary based on the composition and deposition method of the<br />

tailings. The vertical hydraulic conductivity would be about 1 x 10 -10 m/s for<br />

thickened tailings (TT), about 1 x 10 -8 m/s for mature fine tailings (MFT), and<br />

about 2.5 x 10 -6 m/s for tailings sand (Volume 3A, Appendix 3-1, Tables 1-6 and<br />

April 2010 Shell Canada Limited 12-7<br />

CR029

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!