EXHIBIT 99.1
|
Pebble Project
Preliminary Economic Assessment
NI 43-101 Technical Report Update
Pebble Project, Alaska, USA
Effective Date: October 1, 2022
Prepared for: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
1040 W. Georgia St. Vancouver, BC, V6E 4H1 Canada
Prepared by: Ausenco Engineering Canada
1050 West Pender, Suite 1200 Vancouver, BC, Canada
List of Qualified Persons:
· Robin Kalanchey P.Eng., Ausenco, Engineering Canada Inc. · Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng., Tetra Tech Canada Inc., · Sabry Abdel Hafez, P.Eng., Tetra Tech Canada Inc., · Les Galbraith, P.Eng., P.E., Knight Piésold Ltd., · J. David Gaunt, P.Geo., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., · Eric Titley, P.Geo., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., · Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., · James Lang, P.Geo., J M Lang Professional Consulting Inc. |
Important Notice
This report was prepared as National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NDM) by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc. (Ausenco), Tetra Tech Canada Inc., Knight Piésold Ltd., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., and J M Lang Professional Consulting Inc., collectively the “Report Authors”. The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in the Report Authors’ services, based on i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by NDM subject to the terms and conditions of its contracts with each of the Report Authors. Except for the purpose legislated under Canadian provincial and territorial securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.
|
Table of Contents
1 | SUMMARY |
| 21 |
| ||
| 1.1 | Introduction |
| 21 |
| |
| 1.2 | Forward Looking Information and Other Cautionary Factors |
| 22 |
| |
| 1.3 | Project Setting |
| 24 |
| |
| 1.4 | Property Description |
| 25 |
| |
| 1.5 | Project Description |
| 26 |
| |
| 1.6 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements |
| 28 |
| |
| 1.7 | Geological Setting and Mineralization |
| 29 |
| |
| 1.8 | History |
| 30 |
| |
| 1.9 | Exploration |
| 31 |
| |
| 1.10 | Drilling and Sampling |
| 31 |
| |
| 1.11 | Metallurgical Testwork |
| 32 |
| |
| 1.12 | Mineral Resource Estimation |
| 33 |
| |
| 1.13 | Mining Methods |
| 35 |
| |
| 1.14 | Recovery Methods |
| 35 |
| |
| 1.15 | Project Infrastructure |
| 37 |
| |
| 1.16 | Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations |
| 38 |
| |
| 1.16.1 | Environmental Considerations |
| 38 |
| |
| 1.16.2 | Closure and Reclamation Considerations |
| 39 |
| |
| 1.16.3 | Permitting Considerations |
| 39 |
| |
| 1.17 | Markets and Contracts |
| 41 |
| |
| 1.18 | Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates |
| 41 |
| |
| 1.18.1 | Capital Cost Estimates |
| 41 |
| |
| 1.18.2 | Operating Cost Estimates |
| 42 |
| |
| 1.19 | Economic Analysis and Sensitivities |
| 43 |
| |
| 1.19.1 | Economic Analysis |
| 43 |
| |
| 1.19.2 | Sensitivity Analysis |
| 45 |
| |
| 1.20 | Potential Expansion Scenarios |
| 46 |
| |
| 1.21 | Risks and Opportunities |
| 51 |
| |
| 1.21.1 | Opportunities |
| 51 |
| |
|
| 1.21.1.1 | Resource |
| 51 |
|
|
| 1.21.1.2 | Mining |
| 51 |
|
|
| 1.21.1.3 | Processing |
| 52 |
|
|
| 1.21.1.4 | Infrastructure |
| 52 |
|
|
| 1.21.1.5 | Environment |
| 52 |
|
Pebble Project | Page i |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 1.21.2 | Risks |
| 53 |
| |
|
| 1.21.2.1 | Resource |
| 53 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.2 | Mining |
| 53 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.3 | Process |
| 53 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.4 | Project Execution |
| 54 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.5 | Tailings and Water Management |
| 54 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.6 | Social Issues |
| 54 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.7 | Legal |
| 54 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.8 | Permitting |
| 55 |
|
|
| 1.21.2.9 | Financial Results |
| 55 |
|
| 1.22 | Interpretation and Conclusions |
| 55 |
| |
| 1.23 | Recommendations |
| 56 |
| |
| 1.23.1 | Introduction |
| 56 |
| |
| 1.23.2 | Resource |
| 56 |
| |
|
| 1.23.2.1 | Updating of Inferred Resource |
| 56 |
|
|
| 1.23.2.2 | Block Model Update |
| 56 |
|
|
| 1.23.2.3 | Drill Hole 6348 |
| 56 |
|
|
| 1.23.2.4 | Additional Metals |
| 56 |
|
|
| 1.23.2.5 | Estimated Resource Update Cost |
| 57 |
|
| 1.23.3 | Mining |
| 57 |
| |
| 1.23.4 | Metallurgy and Processing |
| 57 |
| |
|
| 1.23.4.1 | Metallurgy Testwork |
| 57 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.2 | Grinding Circuit SAG Mill Size |
| 57 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.3 | Flotation Circuit Optimization |
| 57 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.4 | Estimated Metallurgical Program Cost |
| 57 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.5 | Infrastructure |
| 58 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.6 | Process Plant and Infrastructure Location |
| 58 |
|
|
| 1.23.4.7 | Access Road |
| 58 |
|
| 1.23.5 | Tailings and Waste Disposal |
| 58 |
| |
2 | INTRODUCTION |
| 60 |
| ||
| 2.1 | Introduction |
| 60 |
| |
| 2.2 | Terms of Reference |
| 61 |
| |
| 2.3 | Sources of Information and Data |
| 61 |
| |
| 2.4 | Qualified Persons |
| 61 |
| |
| 2.5 | Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection |
| 62 |
| |
| 2.6 | Effective Dates |
| 63 |
| |
| 2.7 | Previous Technical Reports |
| 64 |
| |
| 2.8 | Abbreviations |
| 65 |
| |
3 | RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS |
| 71 |
| ||
| 3.1 | Introduction |
| 71 |
| |
| 3.2 | Mineral Tenure |
| 71 |
| |
| 3.3 | Environmental, Permitting, Closure, and Social and Community Impacts |
| 71 |
| |
| 3.4 | Taxation |
| 71 |
|
Pebble Project | Page ii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
4 | PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION |
| 72 |
| ||
| 4.1 | Introduction |
| 72 |
| |
| 4.2 | Mineral Tenure |
| 72 |
| |
| 4.3 | Royalty and Other Agreements |
| 72 |
| |
| 4.4 | Surface Rights |
| 75 |
| |
| 4.5 | Environmental Liabilities |
| 75 |
| |
| 4.6 | Permits |
| 75 |
| |
| 4.7 | Comments on Section 4 |
| 75 |
| |
5 | ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY |
| 76 |
| ||
| 5.1 | Accessibility |
| 76 |
| |
| 5.2 | Climate |
| 77 |
| |
| 5.3 | Infrastructure |
| 77 |
| |
| 5.4 | Local Resources |
| 77 |
| |
| 5.5 | Physiography |
| 78 |
| |
6 | HISTORY |
| 79 |
| ||
| 6.1 | Overview |
| 79 |
| |
| 6.2 | Historical Drilling |
| 81 |
| |
| 6.3 | Ownership History |
| 81 |
| |
| 6.4 | Study History |
| 82 |
| |
| 6.5 | Historical Production |
| 82 |
| |
7 | GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION |
| 83 |
| ||
| 7.1 | Regional Geology |
| 83 |
| |
| 7.2 | Project Geology |
| 84 |
| |
| 7.2.1 | Kahiltna Flysch |
| 84 |
| |
| 7.2.2 | Diorite and Granodiorite Sills |
| 84 |
| |
| 7.2.3 | Alkalic Intrusions and Associated Breccias |
| 86 |
| |
| 7.2.4 | Hornblende Granodiorite Intrusions |
| 86 |
| |
| 7.2.5 | Volcanic Sedimentary cover Sequence |
| 86 |
| |
| 7.2.6 | Hornblende Monzonite Porphyry Intrusions |
| 87 |
| |
| 7.2.7 | Eocene Volcanic Rocks and Intrusions |
| 87 |
| |
| 7.2.8 | Glacial Sediments |
| 87 |
| |
| 7.2.9 | District Structure |
| 87 |
| |
| 7.3 | Deposit Geology |
| 89 |
| |
| 7.3.1 | Rock Types |
| 89 |
| |
| 7.3.2 | Structure |
| 90 |
| |
| 7.3.3 | Deposit Alteration Styles |
| 96 |
| |
|
| 7.3.3.1 | Pre-hydrothermal Hornfels |
| 96 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.2 | Hydrothermal Alteration |
| 96 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.3 | Early Potassic and Sodic-Potassic Alteration |
| 96 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.4 | Vein Types Associated with Early Potassic and Sodic-Potassic Alteration |
| 97 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.5 | Intermediate Illite ± Kaolinite Alteration |
| 99 |
|
Pebble Project | Page iii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.6 | Late Advanced Argillic Alteration |
| 99 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.7 | Propylitic Alteration |
| 99 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.8 | Quartz-Sericite-Pyrite and Quartz-Illite-Pyrite Alteration |
| 100 |
|
|
| 7.3.3.9 | Post-Hydrothermal Alteration |
| 100 |
|
| 7.3.4 | Mineralization Styles |
| 101 |
| |
|
| 7.3.4.1 | Supergene Mineralization and Leached Cap |
| 101 |
|
|
| 7.3.4.2 | Hypogene Mineralization |
| 101 |
|
|
| 7.3.4.3 | Rhenium |
| 102 |
|
|
| 7.3.4.4 | Palladium |
| 103 |
|
8 | DEPOSIT TYPES |
| 105 |
| ||
9 | EXPLORATION |
| 107 |
| ||
| 9.1 | Overview |
| 107 |
| |
| 9.2 | Geological Mapping |
| 107 |
| |
| 9.3 | Geophysical Surveys |
| 107 |
| |
| 9.4 | Geochemical Surveys |
| 108 |
| |
10 | DRILLING |
| 109 |
| ||
| 10.1 | Drill Hole Locations |
| 109 |
| |
| 10.2 | Summary of Drilling 2001 to 2019 |
| 110 |
| |
| 10.2.1 | Northern Dynasty 2002 – 2006 Drilling |
| 115 |
| |
| 10.2.2 | Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2007 Drilling |
| 116 |
| |
| 10.2.3 | Pebble Partnership 2008 – 2014 Drilling |
| 116 |
| |
| 10.2.4 | Pebble Partnership 2018 - 2019 Drilling |
| 116 |
| |
| 10.3 | Bulk Density Results |
| 117 |
| |
| 10.4 | Conclusions |
| 117 |
| |
11 | SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY |
| 118 |
| ||
| 11.1 | Sampling Method and Approach |
| 118 |
| |
| 11.1.1 | Teck 1988 – 1997 Sampling |
| 118 |
| |
| 11.1.2 | Northern Dynasty 2002 – 2006 Sampling |
| 118 |
| |
| 11.1.3 | Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2007 Sampling |
| 119 |
| |
| 11.1.4 | Pebble Partnership 2008 -2014 Sampling |
| 119 |
| |
| 11.2 | Sample Preparation |
| 120 |
| |
| 11.2.1 | Teck 1988 – 1997 Sample Preparation |
| 120 |
| |
| 11.2.2 | Northern Dynasty 2002 Sample Preparation |
| 120 |
| |
| 11.2.3 | Northern Dynasty 2003 Sample Preparation |
| 120 |
| |
| 11.2.4 | Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2004-2013 and 2018 Sample Preparation |
| 120 |
| |
| 11.3 | Sample Analysis | 121 |
| ||
| 11.3.1 | Teck 1988 – 1997 Sample Analysis |
| 121 |
| |
|
| 11.3.2 | Northern Dynasty 2002 Sample Analysis |
| 121 |
|
|
| 11.3.3 | Northern Dynasty 2003 Sample Analysis |
| 123 |
|
|
| 11.3.4 | Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2004-2013 and 2018 Sample Analysis |
| 124 |
|
|
| 11.3.5 | Bulk Density Determinations |
| 130 |
|
Pebble Project | Page iv |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
�� | 11.4 | Quality Control/Quality Assurance |
| 130 |
| |
| 11.4.1 | Quality Assurance and Quality Control |
| 130 |
| |
| 11.4.2 | Standards |
| 132 |
| |
| 11.4.3 | Duplicates |
| 133 |
| |
| 11.4.4 | Blanks |
| 135 |
| |
| 11.4.5 | QA/QC on Other Elements |
| 135 |
| |
| 11.4.6 | Rhenium Study |
| 135 |
| |
| 11.5 | Bulk Density Validation |
| 138 |
| |
| 11.6 | Survey Validation |
| 139 |
| |
| 11.7 | Data Environment |
| 139 |
| |
| 11.7.1 | Error Detection Processes |
| 140 |
| |
| 11.7.2 | Analysis Hierarchies |
| 140 |
| |
| 11.7.3 | Wedges |
| 140 |
| |
| 11.8 | Verification of Drilling Data |
| 141 |
| |
12 | DATA VERIFICATION |
| 143 |
| ||
13 | MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING |
| 146 |
| ||
| 13.1 | Test Programs Summary |
| 146 |
| |
| 13.1.1 | 2003 to 2005 Testwork |
| 146 |
| |
| 13.1.2 | 2006 to 2010 Testwork |
| 146 |
| |
| 13.1.3 | 2011 to 2014 Testwork |
| 149 |
| |
| 13.2 | Comminution Tests |
| 150 |
| |
| 13.2.1 | Bond Grindability Tests |
| 150 |
| |
| 13.2.2 | Bond Low Energy Impact Tests |
| 150 |
| |
| 13.2.3 | SMC Tests |
| 151 |
| |
| 13.2.4 | MacPherson Autogenous Grindability Tests |
| 152 |
| |
| 13.3 | Flotation Concentration Tests |
| 152 |
| |
|
| 13.3.1 | Recovery of Bulk Flotation Concentrate |
| 153 |
|
|
| 13.3.1.1 | Flotation Kinetics and Preliminary Optimization |
| 153 |
|
|
| 13.3.1.2 | Flotation Tests on Variability Samples |
| 154 |
|
|
| 13.3.1.3 | Flotation Tests Optimization |
| 156 |
|
|
| 13.3.1.4 | Flotation Tests on Bulk Composites |
| 157 |
|
|
| 13.3.1.5 | Continuous Flotation Tests on Composites |
| 157 |
|
| 13.3.2 | Separation of Molybdenum and Copper |
| 158 |
| |
|
| 13.3.2.1 | SGS Lakefield Separation Work, 2011 and 2012 |
| 158 |
|
|
| 13.3.2.2 | G&T Separation Work |
| 160 |
|
| 13.3.3 | Rhenium Recovery into Molybdenum Concentrate |
| 161 |
| |
| 13.3.4 | Pyrite Flotation |
| 163 |
| |
| 13.4 | Gold Recovery Tests |
| 163 |
| |
| 13.4.1 | Gravity Recoverable Gold Tests |
| 164 |
| |
| 13.4.2 | Gold Recovered from Leaching |
| 164 |
| |
| 13.5 | SART Process (Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling, Thickening) |
| 166 |
|
Pebble Project | Page v |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 13.6 | Cyanide Destruction |
| 166 |
| |
| 13.7 | Auxiliary Tests |
| 166 |
| |
| 13.7.1 | Concentrate Filtration |
| 166 |
| |
| 13.8 | Quality of Concentrates |
| 166 |
| |
| 13.9 | Geometallurgy |
| 168 |
| |
| 13.9.1 | Introduction |
| 168 |
| |
| 13.9.2 | Description of Geometallurgical Domains |
| 169 |
| |
|
| 13.9.2.1 | Potassic Domain |
| 169 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.2 | Sodic-Potassic Domain |
| 169 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.3 | Illite-Pyrite Domain |
| 169 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.4 | Quartz-Sericite-Pyrite Domain |
| 169 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.5 | Quartz-Pyrophyllite Domain |
| 170 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.6 | Sericite Domain |
| 170 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.7 | 8431M Domain |
| 170 |
|
|
| 13.9.2.8 | Supergene Domains |
| 170 |
|
| 13.10 | Metal Recovery Projection |
| 171 |
| |
| 13.10.1 | Metal Projections of Copper, Gold Silver and Molybdenum – 2014/2018, Tetra Tech |
| 171 |
| |
|
| 13.10.1.1 | Metal Recovery Projection Basis - 2014-2018, Tetra Tech |
| 171 |
|
|
| 13.10.1.2 | Effects of Primary Grind Size on Metal Recoveries |
| 172 |
|
| 13.10.2 | Metal Recovery Projection Results |
| 175 |
| |
14 | MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES |
| 176 |
| ||
| 14.1 | Summary |
| 176 |
| |
| 14.2 | Geological Interpretation for Estimation |
| 179 |
| |
| 14.3 | Inclusion of Rhenium in the Project Database |
| 181 |
| |
| 14.4 | Regression Validation |
| 182 |
| |
| 14.5 | Exploratory Data Analysis |
| 184 |
| |
| 14.5.1 | Assays |
| 184 |
| |
| 14.5.2 | Capping |
| 191 |
| |
| 14.5.3 | Composites |
| 192 |
| |
| 14.6 | Bulk Density |
| 192 |
| |
| 14.7 | Spatial Analysis |
| 192 |
| |
| 14.8 | Resource Block Model |
| 194 |
| |
| 14.9 | Interpolation Plan |
| 195 |
| |
| 14.10 | Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction |
| 196 |
| |
| 14.11 | Mineral Resource Classification |
| 196 |
| |
| 14.12 | Copper Equivalency |
| 196 |
| |
| 14.13 | Block Model Validation |
| 197 |
| |
| 14.14 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimates |
| 201 |
| |
15 | MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES |
| 202 |
|
Pebble Project | Page vi |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16 | MINING METHODS | 203 |
| |||
| 16.1 | Introduction |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.2 | Mine Plan Inputs |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.2.1 | Block Model |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.2.2 | Pit Slope Angle |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.2.3 | Surface Topography |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.2.4 | Pit Optimization Parameters |
| 203 |
| |
| 16.3 | Mine Design |
| 206 |
| |
| 16.3.1 | Minimum Working Area |
| 208 |
| |
| 16.3.1.1 | Haul Road |
| 209 |
| |
| 16.3.2 | Pit Hydrology/Dewatering |
| 209 |
| |
| 16.3.3 | Pit Design Results |
| 209 |
| |
| 16.4 | Mine Plan |
| 211 |
| |
| 16.5 | Blasting |
| 213 |
| |
| 16.6 | Mine Waste Rock Management |
| 214 |
| |
| 16.7 | Mining Equipment |
| 214 |
| |
| 16.7.1 | Mine Equipment Fleet |
| 214 |
| |
| 16.7.2 | Operating Hours |
| 215 |
| |
| 16.7.3 | Primary Equipment |
| 215 |
| |
| 16.7.4 | Support and Ancillary Equipment |
| 216 |
| |
| 16.8 | Mining Labour |
| 218 |
| |
17 | RECOVERY METHODS | 220 |
| |||
| 17.1 | Summary |
| 220 |
| |
| 17.2 | Process Design Criteria |
| 222 |
| |
| 17.3 | Process Plant Description |
| 223 |
| |
| 17.3.1 | Primary Crushing |
| 223 |
| |
| 17.3.2 | Stockpile |
| 223 |
| |
| 17.3.3 | Primary Grinding |
| 223 |
| |
| 17.3.4 | Secondary Grinding |
| 224 |
| |
| 17.3.5 | Bulk Rougher Flotation |
| 224 |
| |
| 17.3.6 | Bulk Concentrate Re-grind |
| 224 |
| |
| 17.3.7 | Bulk Concentrate Cleaner Flotation |
| 225 |
| |
| 17.3.8 | Molybdenum Flotation |
| 225 |
| |
| 17.3.9 | Concentrate Dewatering and Filtration |
| 226 |
| |
| 17.3.10 | Tailings Management and Process Water Supply System |
| 226 |
| |
| 17.3.11 | Reagents Handling and Storage |
| 226 |
| |
| 17.3.12 | Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories |
| 227 |
| |
| 17.3.13 | Power Supply |
| 227 |
| |
| 17.3.14 | Fresh Water Supply |
| 227 |
| |
| 17.3.15 | Air Supply |
| 228 |
| |
| 17.4 | Process Control Philosophy | 228 |
Pebble Project | Page vii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18 | PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE |
| 229 |
| ||
| 18.1 | Introduction |
| 229 |
| |
| 18.2 | Access and Site Roads |
| 231 |
| |
| 18.2.1 | Main Access Road |
| 232 |
| |
| 18.2.2 | Haul Roads |
| 234 |
| |
| 18.2.3 | Service Roads |
| 235 |
| |
| 18.3 | Tailings Storage Facilities |
| 235 |
| |
| 18.3.1 | Introduction |
| 235 |
| |
| 18.3.2 | Tailings Overview |
| 235 |
| |
| 18.3.3 | Site Selection |
| 235 |
| |
| 18.3.4 | Design Criteria |
| 236 |
| |
| 18.3.5 | Tailings Storage Facility Design |
| 237 |
| |
|
| 18.3.5.1 | Seismicity Analyses |
| 237 |
|
|
| 18.3.5.2 | Bulk TSF |
| 238 |
|
|
| 18.3.5.3 | Pyritic TSF |
| 238 |
|
|
| 18.3.5.4 | TSF Closure |
| 239 |
|
| 18.4 | Water Management |
| 239 |
| |
| 18.4.1 | Water Management Systems |
| 239 |
| |
|
| 18.4.1.1 | Diversion Channels |
| 239 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.2 | Sediment Ponds |
| 240 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.3 | Seepage Collection and Recycle Ponds |
| 240 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.4 | Main Water Management Pond |
| 240 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.5 | Open Pit Water Management Pond |
| 240 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.6 | Bulk and Pyritic TSF Reclaim Systems |
| 240 |
|
|
| 18.4.1.7 | Water Treatment Plants |
| 240 |
|
| 18.4.2 | Site Wide Water Balance |
| 241 |
| |
|
| 18.4.2.1 | Watershed Model |
| 241 |
|
|
| 18.4.2.2 | Groundwater Model |
| 242 |
|
|
| 18.4.2.3 | Mine Plan Model |
| 242 |
|
| 18.5 | Water Treatment |
| 242 |
| |
| 18.5.1 | Influent Stream Characteristics |
| 243 |
| |
|
| 18.5.1.1 | Influent Water Quality |
| 243 |
|
|
| 18.5.1.2 | Influent Flow Rate |
| 243 |
|
| 18.5.2 | WTP Processes |
| 244 |
| |
|
| 18.5.2.1 | Base Treatment Train Processes |
| 244 |
|
|
| 18.5.2.2 | WTP Residuals Disposal |
| 245 |
|
|
| 18.5.2.3 | WTP Process Water Heating |
| 245 |
|
| 18.5.3 | WTP Buildings and Appurtenances |
| 245 |
| |
| 18.6 | Mine Site Facilities |
| 245 |
| |
| 18.6.1 | Mine Site Conditions and Design Criteria |
| 245 |
| |
| 18.6.2 | Mine Service Facilities |
| 247 |
| |
|
| 18.6.2.1 | Truck Shop |
| 247 |
|
|
| 18.6.2.2 | Main Warehouse |
| 248 |
|
|
| 18.6.2.3 | Administration Building |
| 248 |
|
|
| 18.6.2.4 | Process Administration |
| 248 |
|
|
| 18.6.2.5 | Gatehouse Security |
| 248 |
|
Pebble Project | Page viii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 18.6.3 | Water Systems |
| 248 |
| |
|
| 18.6.3.1 | Fresh Water |
| 248 |
|
|
| 18.6.3.2 | Fire Water |
| 248 |
|
|
| 18.6.3.3 | Potable Water |
| 249 |
|
|
| 18.6.3.4 | Process Water Distribution |
| 249 |
|
| 18.6.4 | Medical and First Aid |
| 249 |
| |
| 18.6.5 | Camp |
| 249 |
| |
| 18.6.6 | Cold Storage Building |
| 250 |
| |
| 18.6.7 | Utilities and Services |
| 250 |
| |
|
| 18.6.7.1 | Communications |
| 250 |
|
|
| 18.6.7.2 | Heating, Ventilation and Dust Control |
| 250 |
|
|
| 18.6.7.3 | Solid Waste Disposal |
| 251 |
|
| 18.7 | Gas Line and Power Supply |
| 251 |
| |
| 18.7.1 | Power Supply |
| 251 |
| |
|
| 18.7.1.1 | Power Plant Configuration and Design Details |
| 251 |
|
|
| 18.7.1.2 | Mine Site Power Plant Selection Process |
| 252 |
|
|
| 18.7.1.3 | Plant Efficiency and Electrical Performance |
| 253 |
|
|
| 18.7.1.4 | Dispatch Scenarios and Fuel Usage |
| 253 |
|
|
| 18.7.1.5 | Power Distribution |
| 253 |
|
|
| 18.7.1.6 | Power Plant at Marine Terminal |
| 253 |
|
| 18.7.2 | Natural Gas Supply |
| 253 |
| |
|
| 18.7.2.1 | Source and Pipeline Routing |
| 253 |
|
|
| 18.7.2.2 | Water Crossings |
| 256 |
|
| 18.8 | Concentrate Slurry and Return Water Pipeline |
| 256 |
| |
| 18.9 | Marine Infrastructure |
| 257 |
| |
| 18.9.1 | Marine Barge Handling Facility |
| 258 |
| |
| 18.9.2 | Onshore Terminal Facilities |
| 259 |
| |
| 18.9.3 | Fuel Supply |
| 260 |
| |
19 | MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS |
| 261 |
| ||
| 19.1 | Introduction |
| 261 |
| |
| 19.2 | Metal Prices |
| 261 |
| |
| 19.3 | Smelter Terms |
| 262 |
| |
| 19.4 | Concentrate Logistics |
| 264 |
| |
| 19.5 | Contracts |
| 266 |
| |
| 19.5.1 | Existing Contracts |
| 266 |
| |
| 19.5.2 | Royalties |
| 266 |
| |
20 | ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT |
| 267 |
| ||
| 20.1 | Project Setting |
| 267 |
| |
| 20.1.1 | Jurisdictional Setting |
| 267 |
| |
| 20.1.2 | Environmental and Social Setting |
| 267 |
|
Pebble Project | Page ix |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 20.2 | Baseline Studies – Existing Environment |
| 269 |
| |
| 20.2.1 | Climate and Meteorology |
| 270 |
| |
| 20.2.2 | Surface Water Hydrology and Quality |
| 270 |
| |
|
| 20.2.2.1 | Surface Water Hydrology |
| 270 |
|
|
| 20.2.2.2 | Surface Water Quality |
| 272 |
|
| 20.2.3 | Groundwater Hydrology and Quality |
| 272 |
| |
|
| 20.2.3.1 | Groundwater Hydrology |
| 272 |
|
|
| 20.2.3.2 | Groundwater Quality |
| 273 |
|
| 20.2.4 | Geochemical Characterization |
| 273 |
| |
| 20.2.5 | Wetlands |
| 274 |
| |
| 20.2.6 | Fish, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Invertebrates |
| 274 |
| |
| 20.2.6.1 | Fish and Fish Habitat |
| 275 |
| |
| 20.2.7 | Marine Habitats |
| 275 |
| |
|
| 20.2.7.1 | Marine Nearshore Habitats |
| 275 |
|
|
| 20.2.7.2 | Marine Benthos |
| 276 |
|
|
| 20.2.7.3 | Nearshore Fish and Invertebrates |
| 276 |
|
| 20.3 | Potential Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation Measures |
| 276 |
| |
| 20.4 | Economy and Social Conditions |
| 277 |
| |
| 20.5 | Community Consultation and Stakeholder Relations |
| 278 |
| |
| 20.6 | Permitting |
| 279 |
| |
| 20.7 | Closure |
| 284 |
| |
21 | CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS |
| 286 |
| ||
| 21.1 | Introduction |
| 286 |
| |
| 21.2 | Capital Cost Estimate |
| 286 |
| |
| 21.2.1 | Estimate Responsibility |
| 286 |
| |
| 21.2.2 | Summary |
| 287 |
| |
| 21.2.3 | Direct Costs |
| 287 |
| |
|
| 21.2.3.1 | Site General Capital |
| 288 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.2 | Power Generation and Natural Gas Pipeline |
| 288 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.3 | Open Pit Mine Capital Costs |
| 289 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.4 | Mineralized Material Handling and Process Plant Capital Cost Estimate |
| 289 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.5 | Tailings and Water Management |
| 290 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.6 | Water Treatment Plants |
| 290 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.7 | On-site Infrastructure |
| 291 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.8 | Concentrate Pipeline |
| 291 |
|
|
| 21.2.3.9 | Marine Terminal Site |
| 292 |
|
| 21.2.4 | Indirect Costs |
| 293 |
| |
| 21.2.5 | Owners Costs |
| 293 |
| |
| 21.2.6 | Contingency on Capital |
| 293 |
|
Pebble Project | Page x |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 21.3 | Operating Costs |
| 293 |
| |
| 21.3.1 | Summary |
| 293 |
| |
| 21.3.2 | General & Administrative |
| 294 |
| |
| 21.3.3 | Power Supply Costs |
| 295 |
| |
| 21.3.4 | Mining |
| 295 |
| |
|
| 21.3.4.1 | Power | 296 |
| |
|
| 21.3.4.2 | Consumables | 296 |
| |
|
| 21.3.4.3 | Maintenance Consumables | 297 |
| |
|
| 21.3.4.4 | Labour | 297 |
| |
| 21.3.5 | Tailings Operation & Maintenance |
| 297 |
| |
| 21.3.6 | Water Treatment Plant |
| 298 |
| |
| 21.3.7 | Concentrate Pipeline |
| 298 |
| |
| 21.3.8 | Marine Terminal |
| 298 |
| |
| 21.3.9 | External Access Roads |
| 299 |
| |
| 21.3.10 | Consumables Freight Costs |
| 299 |
| |
22 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |
| 300 |
| ||
| 22.1 | Forward-Looking Information Cautionary Statements |
| 300 |
| |
| 22.2 | Summary |
| 300 |
| |
| 22.3 | Methodology |
| 304 |
| |
| 22.4 | Inputs to the Cash Flow Model |
| 304 |
| |
| 22.5 | Pre-Tax Financial Evaluation |
| 313 |
| |
| 22.5.1 | Pre-Tax Evaluation Basis |
| 313 |
| |
| 22.5.2 | Pre-Tax Financial Results |
| 314 |
| |
| 22.6 | Post-Tax Financial Analysis |
| 316 |
| |
| 22.6.1 | Overview |
| 316 |
| |
| 22.6.2 | U.S. Federal and Alaska State Corporate Income Tax |
| 316 |
| |
| 22.6.3 | Lake and Peninsula Borough Severance Tax |
| 317 |
| |
| 22.6.4 | Alaska State Royalty Tax |
| 317 |
| |
| 22.6.5 | Alaska Mining License Tax |
| 317 |
| |
| 22.6.6 | Post-Tax Financial Results |
| 317 |
| |
| 22.7 | Cash Flow |
| 318 |
| |
| 22.8 | Sensitivity Analysis |
| 320 |
| |
| 22.9 | Copper and Gold Price Scenarios |
| 322 |
| |
23 | ADJACENT PROPERTIES |
| 324 |
| ||
24 | OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION |
| 325 |
| ||
| 24.1 | Project Execution Plan |
| 325 |
| |
| 24.1.1 | Introduction |
| 325 |
| |
| 24.1.2 | Health, Safety and Environment |
| 327 |
| |
|
| 24.1.2.1 | Site Environmental Procedures | 327 |
| |
|
| 24.1.2.2 | Community Engagement | 327 |
| |
| 24.1.3 | Engineering |
| 327 |
| |
| 24.1.4 | Procurement and Contracts |
| 327 |
| |
| 24.1.5 | Logistics and Construction Strategy |
| 328 |
| |
| 24.1.5.1 | Logistics |
| 328 |
| |
| 24.1.5.2 | Construction Strategy |
| 328 |
| |
| 24.1.5.3 | Marine Terminal and Mine Site Access Road |
| 329 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xi |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| 24.1.6 | Construction Camp |
| 329 |
| |
| 24.1.7 | Open Pit Pre-Production |
| 329 |
| |
| 24.1.8 | Tailings Storage Facility Preparation |
| 329 |
| |
| 24.1.9 | Permanent Power |
| 330 |
| |
| 24.2 | Potential Expansion Scenarios |
| 330 |
| |
| 24.2.1 | Mine Life Extension Scenarios |
| 330 |
| |
|
| 24.2.1.1 | Throughput Expansion Scenarios |
| 331 |
|
| 24.2.2 | Gold Plant Scenarios |
| 335 |
| |
25 | INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS |
| 339 |
| ||
| 25.1 | Introduction |
| 339 |
| |
| 25.2 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements |
| 339 |
| |
| 25.3 | Geology and Mineralization |
| 340 |
| |
| 25.4 | Exploration, Drilling, and Analytical Data Collection in Support of Mineral Resource Estimation |
| 340 |
| |
| 25.5 | Metallurgical Testwork |
| 341 |
| |
| 25.6 | Mineral Resource Estimates |
| 341 |
| |
| 25.7 | Mine Plan |
| 341 |
| |
| 25.8 | Recovery Methods |
| 342 |
| |
| 25.9 | Infrastructure |
| 342 |
| |
| 25.10 | Environmental, Permitting, Closure and Social |
| 343 |
| |
| 25.11 | Markets and Contracts |
| 345 |
| |
| 25.12 | Capital and Operating Costs |
| 345 |
| |
| 25.13 | Economic Analysis |
| 345 |
| |
| 25.14 | Potential Expansion Scenarios |
| 346 |
| |
| 25.15 | Risks and Opportunities |
| 346 |
| |
| 25.15.1 | Overview |
| 346 |
| |
| 25.15.2 | Opportunities |
| 346 |
| |
|
| 25.15.2.1 | Resource |
| 346 |
|
|
| 25.15.2.2 | Mining |
| 346 |
|
|
| 25.15.2.3 | Process |
| 347 |
|
|
| 25.15.2.4 | Infrastructure |
| 347 |
|
|
| 25.15.2.5 | Environment |
| 347 |
|
|
| 25.15.3 | Risks |
| 347 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.1 | Resource |
| 347 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.2 | Mining |
| 348 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.3 | Process |
| 348 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.4 | Tailings and water management |
| 348 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.5 | Project Execution |
| 348 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.6 | Social Issues |
| 349 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.7 | Legal |
| 349 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.8 | Permitting |
| 349 |
|
|
| 25.15.3.9 | Financial results |
| 350 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
26 | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| 351 |
| ||
| 26.1 | Introduction |
| 351 |
| |
| 26.2 | Resource |
| 351 |
| |
|
| 26.2.1 | Updating of Inferred Resource | 351 | ||
|
| 26.2.2 | Block Model Update | 351 | ||
|
| 26.2.3 | Drill Hole 6348 | 351 | ||
|
| 26.2.4 | Additional Metals | 351 | ||
|
| 26.2.5 | Estimated Resource Update Cost | 351 | ||
| 26.3 | Mining |
| 352 |
| |
| 26.4 | Metallurgy and Processing |
| 352 |
| |
|
| 26.4.1 | Metallurgy Testwork | 352 | ||
|
| 26.4.2 | Grinding Circuit SAG Mill Size | 352 | ||
|
| 26.4.3 | Flotation Circuit Optimization | 352 | ||
|
| 26.4.4 | Estimated Metallurgical Program Cost | 352 | ||
| 26.5 | Infrastructure |
| 352 |
| |
|
| 26.5.1 | Process Plant and Infrastructure Location | 352 | ||
|
| 26.5.2 | Access Road | 353 | ||
|
| 26.5.3 | Tailings and Waste Disposal | 353 | ||
27 | REFERENCES |
| 354 |
| ||
28 | DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE |
| 362 |
|
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Claims List
Pebble Project | Page xiii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
List of Tables
Table 1‑1: | Projected Metallurgical Recoveries. |
| 33 |
|
Table 1‑2: | Pebble Resource Estimate August 2020. |
| 34 |
|
Table 1‑3: | Proposed Project Production Summary. |
| 37 |
|
Table 1‑4: | Pebble Proposed Project – Initial Capital |
| 42 |
|
Table 1‑5: | Summary of Annual Average Operating Cost Estimate. |
| 42 |
|
Table 1‑6: | Long-term Metal Price Forecast |
| 43 |
|
Table 1‑7: | Proposed Project Cost and Tax Summary. |
| 44 |
|
Table 1‑8: | Proposed Project Forecast Financial Results. |
| 45 |
|
Table 1‑9: | Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Post-Tax Financial Results. |
| 46 |
|
Table 1‑10: | Summary Potential Expansion Case Scenario Production Information. |
| 47 |
|
Table 1‑11: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Estimated Costs. |
| 48 |
|
Table 1‑12: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 5 Expansion) |
| 49 |
|
Table 1‑13: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 10 Expansion) |
| 49 |
|
Table 1‑14: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 21 Expansion) |
| 50 |
|
Table 1‑15: | Summary Gold Plant Potential Expansion Scenarios Information. |
| 50 |
|
Table 1‑16: | Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 |
| 51 |
|
Table 2‑1: | Qualified Persons. |
| 62 |
|
Table 2‑2: | Previous Technical Reports. |
| 64 |
|
Table 2‑3: | Abbreviations and Acronyms. |
| 65 |
|
Table 2‑4: | Unit Abbreviations. |
| 68 |
|
Table 6‑1: | Teck Drilling on the Sill Prospect to the End of 1997. |
| 80 |
|
Table 6‑2: | Teck Drilling on the Pebble Deposit to the End of 1997. |
| 80 |
|
Table 6‑3: | Total Teck Drilling on the Property to the End of 1997. |
| 80 |
|
Table 10‑1: | Summary of Drilling to December 2019. |
| 112 |
|
Table 10‑2: | Summary of All Bulk Density (g/cm3) Results. |
| 117 |
|
Table 10‑3: | Summary of Bulk Density (g/cm3) Results Used for Resource Estimation. |
| 117 |
|
Table 11‑1: | ALS Aqua Regia Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-ICP41. |
| 122 |
|
Table 11‑2: | ALS Additional Analytical Procedures. |
| 122 |
|
Table 11‑3: | ALS Precious Metal Fire Assay Analytical Methods. |
| 123 |
|
Table 11‑4: | SGS Copper Analytical Method ICAY50. |
| 123 |
|
Table 11‑5: | SGS Gold Fire Assay Analytical Methods. |
| 123 |
|
Table 11‑6: | SGS Aqua Regia Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ICP70. |
| 124 |
|
Table 11‑7: | ALS Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-ICP61a. |
| 125 |
|
Table 11‑8: | ALS Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-MS61. |
| 126 |
|
Table 11‑9: | ALS Mercury Aqua Regia Digestion Analytical Methods. |
| 126 |
|
Table 11‑10: | ALS Copper Speciation Analytical Methods. |
| 127 |
|
Table 11‑11: | BVCCL Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method MA270. |
| 128 |
|
Table 11‑12: | BVCCL Precious Metal Fire Assay Analytical Method. |
| 128 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xiv |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑13: | QA/QC Sample Types Used. |
| 131 |
|
Table 13‑1: | Testwork Programs and Reports 2006 to 2010. |
| 147 |
|
Table 13‑2: | Subsequent Testwork Programs and Reports, 2011 to 2014. |
| 149 |
|
Table 13‑3: | Pebble West Rod Mill Data Comparison, SGS January 20122 |
| 150 |
|
Table 13‑4: | Pebble West Ball Mill Data Comparison, SGS January 20122 |
| 150 |
|
Table 13‑5: | Bond Low-Energy Impact Test Results, SGS January 2012. |
| 151 |
|
Table 13‑6: | Major SMC Data Comparison on Pebble West Samples-SGS Test Report Sept. 2014. |
| 151 |
|
Table 13‑7: | Major SMC Data Comparison on Pebble East Samples. |
| 152 |
|
Table 13‑8: | MacPherson Autogenous Grindability Test Results, SGS January 2012. |
| 152 |
|
Table 13‑9: | Summary of Locked-Cycle Test Variability Test Results. |
| 155 |
|
Table 13‑10: | Locked-Cycle Test Results on Pebble Variability Samples, SGS Lakefield, 2014. |
| 156 |
|
Table 13‑11: | Locked-Cycle Test Results of Bulk Samples, SGS Lakefield, 2012. |
| 157 |
|
Table 13‑12: | Locked-Cycle Test Results of Molybdenum Flotation. |
| 160 |
|
Table 13‑13: | Molybdenum Recovery. |
| 161 |
|
Table 13‑14: | Molybdenum Open Cycle Cleaner Flotation Test Results (Mo-F13, SGS Lakefield, 2012) |
| 162 |
|
Table 13‑15: | LCT Cu-Mo Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS Lakefield, 2014. |
| 167 |
|
Table 13‑16: | LCT Cu Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS Lakefield, 2014. |
| 167 |
|
Table 13‑17: | LCT Mo Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS 2014. |
| 167 |
|
Table 13‑18: | Summary of Batch Recovery Change per 10 µm Primary Grind Size Reduction. |
| 174 |
|
Table 13‑19: | Change in Metal Recovery for 101µm Primary Grind Size Reduction, P80 150µm to 300 µm.. |
| 174 |
|
Table 13‑20: | Projected Metallurgical Recoveries Tetra Tech, 2021. |
| 175 |
|
Table 14‑1: | Pebble Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate August 2020. |
| 177 |
|
Table 14‑2: | Pebble Deposit Metal Domains. |
| 180 |
|
Table 14‑3: | Correlation coefficients between rhenium and other elements. |
| 181 |
|
Table 14‑4: | Pebble Deposit Assay Database Descriptive Global Statistics. |
| 184 |
|
Table 14‑5: | Pebble Deposit Capping Values. |
| 191 |
|
Table 14‑6: | Pebble Deposit Composite Mean Values. |
| 192 |
|
Table 14‑7: | Pebble Deposit Variogram Parameters. |
| 193 |
|
Table 14‑8: | Pebble Deposit Search Ellipse Parameters. |
| 194 |
|
Table 14‑9: | Pebble Deposit 2020 Block Model Parameters. |
| 195 |
|
Table 14‑10: | Pebble Deposit Domain Interpolation Data Sources. |
| 195 |
|
Table 14‑11: | Pebble Deposit Conceptual Pit Parameters. |
| 196 |
|
Table 16‑1: | Pit Optimization Parameters. |
| 205 |
|
Table 16‑2: | Haul Road Width. |
| 209 |
|
Table 16‑3: | Open Pit Design Results. |
| 210 |
|
Table 16‑4: | Mined Material – Preproduction Phase. |
| 211 |
|
Table 16‑5: | Mined Material – Production Phase. |
| 211 |
|
Table 16‑6: | Production Forecast |
| 212 |
|
Table 16‑7: | Overburden and Waste Rock mined over the LOM.. |
| 214 |
|
Table 16‑8: | Operational Delays per Shift |
| 215 |
|
Table 16‑9: | Primary Equipment Requirements. |
| 216 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xv |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑10: | Support Equipment Requirements. |
| 217 |
|
Table 16‑11: | Ancillary Equipment Requirements. |
| 217 |
|
Table 16‑12: | LOM Maximum Number of Employees. |
| 218 |
|
Table 16‑13: | Operator and Maintenance Staff on Payroll |
| 219 |
|
Table 17‑1: | Major Process Design Criteria. |
| 222 |
|
Table 18‑1: | Overview of Pebble WTPs during Operations, Closure, and Post-Closure. |
| 243 |
|
Table 18‑2: | Site Parameters and Design Operating Conditions for Proposed Project Power Plant |
| 252 |
|
Table 19‑1: | Metal Prices. |
| 261 |
|
Table 19‑2: | Smelter and Refinery Terms. |
| 263 |
|
Table 20‑1: | Permits Required for the Pebble Project |
| 282 |
|
Table 21‑1: | Summary of Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 287 |
|
Table 21‑2: | Site General Capital |
| 288 |
|
Table 21‑3: | Power Generation and Natural Gas Pipeline Capital Cost Summary. |
| 288 |
|
Table 21‑4: | Mining Direct Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 289 |
|
Table 21‑5: | Ore Handling and Process Plant Capital Cost Summary. |
| 289 |
|
Table 21‑6: | Tailings and Water Management Direct Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 290 |
|
Table 21‑7: | Water Treatment Plants Direct Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 290 |
|
Table 21‑8: | On-Site Infrastructure Direct Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 291 |
|
Table 21‑9: | Concentrate Slurry Pipeline Direct Capital Costs. |
| 291 |
|
Table 21‑10: | Marine Terminal Facilities Direct Capital Costs. |
| 292 |
|
Table 21‑11: | External Access Roads Direct Capital Cost Estimate. |
| 292 |
|
Table 21‑12: | Distribution of Indirect Costs. |
| 293 |
|
Table 21‑13: | Summary of Annual Average Operating Cost Estimate. |
| 294 |
|
Table 21‑14: | Summary of Annual G&A Operating Cost Estimate. |
| 295 |
|
Table 21‑15: | Open Pit Mine Operating Costs. |
| 295 |
|
Table 21‑16: | Mining Consumable Costs. |
| 296 |
|
Table 21‑17: | Processing Costs. |
| 296 |
|
Table 21‑18: | Operating Consumable Costs. |
| 297 |
|
Table 21‑19: | Labour Costs. |
| 297 |
|
Table 21‑20: | WTP Annual Operating Cost Summary. |
| 298 |
|
Table 21‑21: | Marine Terminal Operating Costs. |
| 299 |
|
Table 22‑1: | Forecast of Proposed Project Results at Long Term Metal Prices – Summary. |
| 303 |
|
Table 22‑2: | Forecast Long-Term Metal Price Assumptions. |
| 304 |
|
Table 22‑3: | Proposed Project Production Life of Mine Forecast Summary. |
| 305 |
|
Table 22‑4: | Forecast of Proposed Project LOM Material Tonnages and Payable Metal Production, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty. |
| 305 |
|
Table 22‑5: | Forecast of Proposed Project LOM Material Tonnages and Payable Metal Production, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. |
| 306 |
|
Table 22‑6: | Forecast of Proposed Project Copper-Gold Concentrate Statistics. |
| 307 |
|
Table 22‑7: | Forecast of Proposed Project Molybdenum-Rhenium Concentrate Statistics. |
| 308 |
|
Table 22‑8: | Proposed Project Cost and Tax Summary. |
| 310 |
|
Table 22‑9: | Pebble Project – Initial Capital |
| 311 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xvi |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22‑10: | Forecast Proposed Project Base Case Operating Costs – per Ton and Total LOM.. |
| 312 |
|
Table 22‑11: | Key Smelter Terms and Off-Site Costs. |
| 312 |
|
Table 22‑12: | Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Pre-Tax Financial Results. |
| 314 |
|
Table 22‑13: | Forecast of Proposed Project Full Capital Case Pre-Tax Financial Results. |
| 315 |
|
Table 22‑14: | Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Post-Tax Financial Results. |
| 317 |
|
Table 22‑15: | Full Capital Case Post-Tax Financial Results. |
| 318 |
|
Table 22‑16: | Base Case Annual Production Schedule and Estimated Cash Flow, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. 320 |
| 319 |
|
Table 22‑17: | Metal Price Scenarios, Proposed Project Base Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. |
| 323 |
|
Table 24‑1: | Summary of Potential Expansion Scenario Production Information. |
| 332 |
|
Table 24‑2: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Estimated Costs. |
| 333 |
|
Table 24‑3: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 21) |
| 334 |
|
Table 24‑4: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 10) |
| 335 |
|
Table 24‑5: | Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 5) |
| 335 |
|
Table 24‑6: | Summary of Gold Plant Scenarios Production Information. |
| 337 |
|
Table 24‑7: | Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 |
| 337 |
|
Table 24‑8: | Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 21) |
| 338 |
|
Table 24‑9: | Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 10) |
| 338 |
|
Table 24‑10: | Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 5) |
| 338 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xvii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
List of Figures
Figure 1‑1: | Property Location Map. |
| 25 |
|
Figure 1‑2: | Mine Site Layout |
| 27 |
|
Figure 1‑3: | Simplified Flow Diagram.. |
| 36 |
|
Figure 2‑1: | Project Location Plan. |
| 60 |
|
Figure 4‑1: | Mineral Claim Map with Exploration Lands and Resource Lands. |
| 74 |
|
Figure 5‑1: | Property Location and Access Map. |
| 76 |
|
Figure 7‑1: | Location of the Pebble Deposit & Regional Geological Setting of Southwest Alaska. |
| 85 |
|
Figure 7‑2: | Rock Types in the Pebble District |
| 88 |
|
Figure 7‑3: | Geology of the Pebble Deposit Showing Section Locations. |
| 91 |
|
Figure 7‑4: | Plan View of Alteration and Metal Distribution in the Pebble Deposit |
| 92 |
|
Figure 7‑5: | Geology, Alteration and Distribution of Metals on Section A-A’ |
| 93 |
|
Figure 7‑6: | Geology, Alteration and Metal Distribution on Section B-B’ |
| 94 |
|
Figure 7‑7: | Geology, Alteration and Metal Distribution on Section C-C’ |
| 95 |
|
Figure 7‑8: | Drill Core Photograph Showing Chalcopyrite Mineralization. |
| 103 |
|
Figure 7‑9: | Drill Core Photograph Showing Chalcopyrite and Bornite Mineralization. |
| 104 |
|
Figure 8‑1: | Pebble Deposit Rank by Contained Copper |
| 106 |
|
Figure 8‑2: | Pebble Deposit Rank by Contained Precious Metals. |
| 106 |
|
Figure 10‑1: | Project Drill Hole Location Map. |
| 109 |
|
Figure 10‑2: | Location of Drill Holes – Pebble Deposit Area. |
| 111 |
|
Figure 11‑1: | Pebble Project 2010 to 2013 Drill Core Sampling and Analytical Flow Chart |
| 129 |
|
Figure 11‑2: | Performance of the Copper Standard CGS-16 in 2008. |
| 131 |
|
Figure 11‑3: | Performance of the Gold Standard CGS-16 in 2008. |
| 132 |
|
Figure 11‑4: | Comparison of Gold Duplicate Assay Results for 2004 to 2010. |
| 134 |
|
Figure 11‑5: | Comparison of Copper Duplicate Assay Results for 2004 to 2010. |
| 134 |
|
Figure 11‑6: | Performance of Standard PLP-1 for Rhenium.. |
| 136 |
|
Figure 11‑7: | Performance of Control Sample PLP-2 for Rhenium.. |
| 137 |
|
Figure 11‑8: | Scatterplots in Log Format of Original vs 2020 Re-analysis for Copper and Molybdenum.. |
| 138 |
|
Figure 13‑1: | Basic Testwork Flowsheet |
| 155 |
|
Figure 13‑2: | Basic Testwork Flowsheet |
| 159 |
|
Figure 13‑3: | Rhenium Grade and Recovery Relationship. |
| 162 |
|
Figure 13‑4: | Pyrite Flotation Kinetics Test Results. |
| 163 |
|
Figure 13‑5: | Bulk Cyanidation Silver Extraction Kinetics. |
| 165 |
|
Figure 13‑6: | The Effect of Primary Grind Fineness of Copper Recovery to Rougher Concentrate. |
| 172 |
|
Figure 13‑7: | Effect of Primary Grind Size on Cu, Au and Mo Recovery to Batch Copper Concentrate. |
| 172 |
|
Figure 13‑8: | Cu, Au, and Mo Recovery into a 26% Batch Cu Concentrate. |
| 173 |
|
Figure 14‑1: | Block Model (red line); Drill Hole Collars and Re-analyses: Lacking (grey), Existing (yellow), 2020 Pulps (red) |
| 179 |
|
Figure 14‑2: | Pebble Deposit Plan View of Drill Holes and Block Model Extent (red rectangle) |
| 181 |
|
Figure 14‑3: | Rhenium Versus Molybdenum.. |
| 182 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xviii |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑4: | Rhenium predictions versus actual rhenium assays for withheld validation samples. |
| 183 |
|
Figure 14‑5: | Pebble Deposit Copper Assay Domain Box-and-Whisker Plots. |
| 185 |
|
Figure 14‑6: | Pebble Deposit Gold Assay Domain Box-and-Whisker Plots. |
| 186 |
|
Figure 14‑7: | Pebble Deposit Molybdenum Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots. |
| 187 |
|
Figure 14‑8: | Pebble Deposit Silver Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots. |
| 188 |
|
Figure 14‑9: | Pebble Deposit Rhenium Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots. |
| 189 |
|
Figure 14‑10: | Pebble Deposit Copper Grade Domains. |
| 190 |
|
Figure 14‑11: | Pebble Deposit Vertical Section Showing Block and Composite Copper Grades; Section Line 2158700N. |
| 198 |
|
Figure 14‑12: | Copper Swath Plot at 2157000N. |
| 199 |
|
Figure 14‑13: | Gold Swath Plot at 2157000N. |
| 199 |
|
Figure 14‑14: | Molybdenum Swath Plot at 2157000N. |
| 200 |
|
Figure 14‑15: | Rhenium Swath Plot at 2157000N. |
| 200 |
|
Figure 16‑1: | Proposed Open Pit |
| 204 |
|
Figure 16‑2: | Pit Wall Slope for Cretaceous North West Sector |
| 207 |
|
Figure 16‑3: | Pit Wall Slope for Cretaceous North Sector |
| 208 |
|
Figure 16‑4: | Two-way Haul Road. |
| 209 |
|
Figure 16‑5: | Final Open Pit |
| 210 |
|
Figure 16‑6: | Production Forecast |
| 213 |
|
Figure 17‑1: | Simplified Process Flowsheet |
| 221 |
|
Figure 18‑1: | Mine Site Infrastructure. |
| 230 |
|
Figure 18‑2: | Proposed Infrastructure. |
| 231 |
|
Figure 18‑3: | Overview of Road Alignment from Diamond Point to Mine Site. |
| 233 |
|
Figure 18‑4: | Modelled Annual Precipitation Series. |
| 241 |
|
Figure 18‑5: | Proposed Pebble Pipeline Route – Anchor Point Mine Site. |
| 255 |
|
Figure 18‑6: | Proposed Marine Terminal Facilities Site Plan. |
| 257 |
|
Figure 18‑7: | Schematic Rendering of the Marine Facilities. |
| 258 |
|
Figure 18‑8: | Schematic Rendering of the Onshore Facilities. |
| 259 |
|
Figure 19‑1: | Copper Concentrate Production. |
| 265 |
|
Figure 19‑2: | Molybdenum Concentrate Production. |
| 266 |
|
Figure 20‑1: | Bristol Bay Watersheds. |
| 268 |
|
Figure 20‑2: | Local Watershed Boundaries. |
| 271 |
|
Figure 22‑1: | Forecast Copper-Gold Concentrate Production. |
| 307 |
|
Figure 22‑2: | Forecast Molybdenum-Rhenium Concentrate Production. |
| 308 |
|
Figure 22‑3: | Pebble Project – Initial and Sustaining Capital Phasing. |
| 311 |
|
Figure 22‑4: | Forecast C1 Cash Costs, Base Case. |
| 313 |
|
Figure 22‑5: | Post-Tax Sensitivity Analysis, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. 322 |
| 321 |
|
Figure 22‑6: | Pre-Tax Sensitivity Analysis, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. 322 |
| 321 |
|
Figure 22‑7: | Post-Tax IRR, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. |
| 322 |
|
Figure 22‑8: | Pre-Tax IRR, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty. |
| 322 |
|
Figure 24‑1: | Indicative Project Development Schedule. |
| 326 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xix |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 24‑2: | Proposed Gold Plant Block Flow Diagram.. |
| 336 |
|
Pebble Project | Page xx |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
The Pebble deposit was originally discovered in 1989 and was acquired by Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (Northern Dynasty) in 2001. Since that time, Northern Dynasty and, subsequently, the Pebble Limited Partnership (Pebble Partnership) in which Northern Dynasty currently owns a 100% interest, have conducted significant mineral exploration, environmental baseline data collection, and engineering studies to advance the Pebble Project (the Project).
Since the acquisition by Northern Dynasty, exploration has led to an overall expansion of the Pebble deposit, as well as the discovery of several other mineralized occurrences along an extensive northeast-trending mineralized system underlying the property. Over 1 million feet of drilling has been completed on the property, a large proportion of which has been focused on the Pebble deposit.
Comprehensive deposit delineation, environmental, socioeconomic and engineering studies of the Pebble deposit began in 2004 and continued through 2013. As described in previous technical reports, the estimates indicate that the Pebble deposit contains significant amounts of copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and rhenium.
In December 2017, Pebble Partnership filed an application for permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and River and Harbors Act (RHA), triggering the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS was prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with the Final EIS (FEIS) published in July 2020. The Project Description required under NEPA was updated during the EIS process. The final version, which was submitted with the Revised Project Application in June 2020, is attached to the FEIS. In November 2020, USACE issued its Record of Decision (ROD) denying Pebble Partnership’s application. Pebble Partnership submitted a Request for Appeal (RFA), which was accepted by USACE in February 2021 and the request is currently under adjudication. Even if the appeal is successful, there is no assurance that a positive ROD will ultimately be obtained by the Pebble Partnership or that the required environmental permit for the Proposed Project will be obtained.
In September 2020, Northern Dynasty published a Technical Report on the Project. The purpose of that report was to document recent studies of the occurrence of rhenium and to estimate the rhenium mineral resources in the deposit. Previous work also determined palladium is present, at least in parts of the deposit; however, insufficient analyses have been completed to date to undertake a resource estimate for that metal. The report also updated the proposed plan for the Project as documented in the FEIS. In March 2021, Northern Dynasty published a Technical Report that updated the status of the Appeal of the ROD. Information on closure was added to the Project Description and Permitting Section.
On September 9, 2021, the EPA announced it planned to re-initiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay (the "Revised Proposed Determination"). On May 25, 2022, the EPA published the Revised Proposed Determination that would, if effective, establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project. The Revised Proposed Determination would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction” that encompasses the area of the Pebble Project. If effective, the Proposed Project could not proceed. The Pebble Partnership plans to challenge the Revised Proposed Determination but there is no assurance that its challenge will be successful. The Revised Proposed Determination as presented in the draft would effectively block current and future Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for a mine at the Pebble deposit.
Pebble Project | Page 21 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In September 2021, Northern Dynasty published a Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report (2021 PEA) to present the projected economics of the production plan and a corresponding project configuration which aligns with the June 2020 Revised Project Application (the Proposed Project). The 2021 PEA also explored potential expansion scenarios for the Project. The 2021 PEA was based on, and no changes have been made to, the resource estimate from the September 2020 Technical Report.
The purpose of this Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report Update (the “2022 PEA”) is to provide an update to the 2021 PEA based on events since that report was issued. In July 2022, Northern Dynasty announced the purchase of a royalty for the Pebble Project, giving the Royalty Holder the right to a portion of the gold and silver production from the mine. The 2022 PEA also provides an update on the status of project permitting and discloses a change in the claim holdings for the Project.
Other than these revisions, the technical information, cost estimates, and metal prices have been reviewed and updated by the Qualified Persons as necessary.
1.2 Forward Looking Information and Other Cautionary Factors
The 2022 PEA includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements" under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and under applicable provisions of Canadian provincial securities laws. All statements in the 2022 PEA, other than statements of historical facts, which address permitting, development and production for the Project are forward-looking statements. These include statements regarding:
· | the mine plan for the Project, the financial results of the 2022 PEA, including net present value and internal rates of return, and the ability of the Pebble Partnership to secure the financing to proceed with the development of the Project, including any stream financing and infrastructure outsourcing; |
|
|
· | the social integration of the Project into the Bristol Bay region and benefits for Alaska; |
|
|
· | the political and public support for the permitting process; |
|
|
· | the ability to successfully appeal the negative Record of Decision and ultimately secure the issuance of a positive Record of Decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the ability of the Pebble Project to secure all required Federal and State permits; |
|
|
· | the right-sizing and de-risking of the Project, including any determination to pursue any of the expansion scenarios for the Pebble Project or to incorporate a gold plant; |
|
|
· | the design and operating parameters for the project mine plan, including projected capital and operating costs; |
|
|
· | exploration potential of the Project; |
|
|
· | future demand for copper and gold and the metals prices assumed for the financial projections including the 2022 PEA; |
|
|
· | the ability of the Pebble Partnership to challenge the revised proposed determination process initiated by the EPA under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act; |
|
|
· | the potential addition of partners in the Project; and |
|
|
· | the ability and timetable of Northern Dynasty to develop the Project and become a leading copper, gold and molybdenum producer. |
Pebble Project | Page 22 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Although Northern Dynasty believes the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements should not be in any way be construed as guarantees that the Project will secure all required government permits, establish the commercial feasibility of the Project, achieve the required financing or develop the Project. Such forward-looking statements or information related to the 2022 PEA include but are not limited to statements or information with respect to the mined and processed material estimates; the internal rate of return; the annual production; the net present value; the life of mine (LOM); the capital costs, operating costs estimated for each of the Proposed Project and the potential expansion scenarios for the Project; and other costs and payments for the proposed infrastructure for the Project (including how, when, where and by whom such infrastructure will be constructed or developed); projected metallurgical recoveries; plans for further development, and securing the required permits and licenses for further studies to consider expansion of the operation; and market price of precious and base metals; or other statements that are not statement of fact.
Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of factors and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by Northern Dynasty as of the date of such statements, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Assumptions used by Northern Dynasty to develop forward-looking statements include:
· | the Project will obtain all required environmental and other permits and all land use and other licenses without undue delay; |
|
|
· | any feasibility studies prepared for the development of the Project will be positive; |
|
|
· | Northern Dynasty’s estimates of Mineral Resources will not change, and Northern Dynasty will be successful in converting Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves; |
|
|
· | Northern Dynasty will be able to establish the commercial feasibility of the Project; and |
|
|
· | Northern Dynasty will be able to secure the financing required to develop the Project. |
The likelihood of future mining at the Project is subject to a large number of risks and will require achievement of a number of technical, economic and legal objectives, including:
· | obtaining necessary mining and construction permits, licenses and approvals without undue delay, including without delay due to third party opposition or changes in government policies; |
|
|
· | finalization of the mine plan for the Project; |
|
|
· | the completion of feasibility studies demonstrating that any Pebble Project mineral resources that can be economically mined; |
|
|
· | completion of all necessary engineering for mining and processing facilities; |
|
|
· | the inability of Northern Dynasty to secure a partner for the development of the Project; and |
|
|
· | receipt by Northern Dynasty of significant additional financing to fund these objectives as well as funding mine construction, which financing may not be available to Northern Dynasty on acceptable terms or on any terms at all. |
Pebble Project | Page 23 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Northern Dynasty is also subject to the specific risks inherent in the mining business as well as general economic and business conditions, such as the current uncertainties with regard to COVID-19. Investors should also consider the risk factors identified in its Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed on SEDAR and included in the Company’s annual report on Form 40-F filed by the Company with the SEC on EDGAR.
The NEPA EIS process requires a comprehensive “alternatives assessment” be undertaken to consider a broad range of development alternatives, the final project design and operating parameters for the Project and associated infrastructure may vary significantly from that currently contemplated. As a result, the Company will continue to consider various development options and no final project design has been selected at this time, and no determination has been made to pursue any of the potential expansion scenarios identified in the 2022 PEA.
For more information on Northern Dynasty, investors should review Northern Dynasty’s filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov and its home jurisdiction filings that are available at www.sedar.com.
1.3 Project Setting
The Pebble deposit is located in southwest Alaska, approximately 200 miles (mi) southwest of Anchorage, 17 mi northwest of the village of Iliamna, 100 mi northeast of Bristol Bay, and approximately 60 mi west of Cook Inlet (Figure 1‑1).
Pebble Project | Page 24 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 1‑1: Property Location Map
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
1.4 Property Description
Northern Dynasty holds, indirectly through Pebble East Claims Corporation and Pebble West Claims Corporation, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pebble Partnership, a 100% interest in a contiguous block of 1,840 mining claims and leasehold locations covering approximately 274 square miles (mi2)(which includes the Pebble deposit).
Pebble Project | Page 25 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.5 Project Description
On December 22, 2017, the Pebble Partnership submitted its permit application under the CWA and RHA. The Project Description in the permit application envisaged the Pebble deposit would be developed as an open pit mine with associated on and off-site infrastructure. Over the course of the subsequent 30 months, additional engineering work completed to support the environmental assessment process, as well as recommendations from USACE in the FEIS, resulted in some modifications to the plan and the Project Description was updated accordingly. The Proposed Project as described in the 2022 PEA corresponds to the Project Description issued with the June 2020 Revised Project Application, which is attached to the FEIS. Project infrastructure includes:
· | a 270-megawatt (MW) power plant located at the mine site; |
|
|
· | a 6-MW power plant located at the marine terminal; |
|
|
· | a 164-mile natural gas pipeline connecting existing supply on the Kenai Peninsula to the power plants at the marine terminal and mine sites, respectively; |
|
|
· | an 82-mile transportation corridor from the mine site to the marine terminal, located north of Diamond Point in Iliamna Bay on Cook Inlet, consisting of: |
| o | a private two-lane unpaved road that also connects to the existing Iliamna/Newhalen road system; |
|
|
|
| o | the onshore portion of the natural gas pipeline, buried adjacent to the road; |
|
|
|
| o | a concentrate pipeline to transport copper-gold concentrate from the mine site to the port with a return water pipeline to the mine site, both buried adjacent to the road; |
· | a marine terminal incorporating: |
| o | concentrate dewatering, storage and handling; |
| ||
| o | fuel and supply storage; and |
| ||
| o | barge docks for receiving supplies and to facilitate bulk transhipment of concentrate to an offshore location in Iniskin Bay for loading onto bulk carriers. |
Pebble Project | Page 26 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The mine site layout is shown in Figure 1‑2.
Figure 1‑2: Mine Site Layout
Source: NDM, 2021
Following four and a half years of construction activity, the Proposed Project would operate for 20 years, with conventional drill-blast-shovel-truck operations in an open pit feeding a conventional copper porphyry flotation process plant. The mining rate would average approximately 70 million tons per year, with 66 million tons of mineralized material processed through the process plant each year (180,000 tons per day), for an extremely low life-of-mine waste to mineralized material ratio (strip ratio) of 0.12:1.
The development proposed in Pebble Partnership’s Project Description is substantially smaller than previous iterations, and presents significant new environmental safeguards, including:
· | a development footprint less than half the size previously envisaged; |
|
|
· | the consolidation of most major site infrastructure in a single drainage (the North Fork Koktuli River) and the absence of any primary mine operations in the Upper Talarik Creek drainage; |
|
|
· | more conservative tailings storage facility (TSF) designs, including enhanced buttresses, flatter slope angles and improved factors of safety; |
|
|
· | separation of pyritic tailings, which are potentially acid generating (PAG), from bulk tailings (non-PAG), with the pyritic tailings stored in a fully-lined TSF; |
|
|
· | a comprehensive tailings and water management plan including a flow through design for the bulk TSF main embankment; |
|
|
· | no permanent waste rock piles; and |
|
|
· | no secondary gold recovery plant. |
Pebble Project | Page 27 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The development plan outlined in the Proposed Project uses a portion of the currently estimated Pebble mineral resources. This does not preclude future development of additional resources, but such development would require additional evaluation and would be subject to separate permitting processes.
1.6 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
Northern Dynasty currently does not own any surface rights associated with the mineral claims that comprise the Pebble property. All mineral claims are on lands held by the State of Alaska and surface rights may be acquired from the State once areas required for mine development have been determined and permits awarded.
The access corridor is owned by a number of landowners, including the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Village Corporations, and private individuals. Pebble Partnership has completed access agreements with two Native Village Corporations and a private individual. Under the terms of these agreements, the Native Village Corporations could receive significant sums over the life of the mine. Negotiations have advanced with other Native Village Corporations and individuals, but no agreements are in place. In June 2021, one of the Native Village Corporations announced they had signed an agreement whereby a fund has obtained an option to buy portions of their land to create a conservation easement. The fund must exercise its option by the end of 2022. If the fund closes this agreement with the Native Village Corporation, Pebble Partnership would be required to identify an alternate route to the proposed marine terminal on Cook Inlet.
A portion of the mineral claims are subject to a Net Profits Interest (NPI) royalty payable to Teck Resources Limited (Teck). However, the portion of the deposit to be mined by the Proposed Project lies outside the portion subject to the NPI and is therefore not subject to the Teck royalty. The Project is subject to a State of Alaska royalty.
In July 2022, the Pebble Partnership entered into a Royalty Agreement whereby the Royalty Holder has the right to receive a portion of the gold and silver production from the proposed Pebble Project for the life of the mine. The Royalty Holder has the option to acquire up to 10% of the payable gold production and up to 30% of the payable silver production, in five separate tranches of $12 million, each. The payment for the first tranche has been received by the Pebble Partnership with the Royalty Holder having the option to increase its interest over the next two years. Each tranche entitles the Royalty Holder to 2% of the payable gold production and 6% of the payable silver production, after accounting for a notional payment by the Royalty Holder of $1,500 per ounce of gold and $10 per ounce of silver, respectively, for the life of the mine. The Pebble Partnership will share in 20% of excess prices above $4,000 per ounce for gold and $50 per ounce for silver and will retain a portion of the metal produced for recovery rates in excess of 60% for gold and 65% for silver. Both the currently paid first tranche and all five tranches are shown in the report to demonstrate the impact of the Royalty at the current and full payment levels.
The Pebble Performance Dividend LLP will distribute a 3% Net Profits Royalty Interest in the Project to adult residents of Bristol Bay villages that have subscribed as participants. The Pebble Performance Dividend will distribute a guaranteed minimum annual payment of US$3 million each year the Pebble mine operates beginning at the outset of construction. Total life of mine payments for the Proposed Project could total approximately $200 million to $240 million and could range as high as almost $3.7 billion for the life of the Potential Expansion Scenarios with a gold plant.
Pebble Project | Page 28 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The Pebble property is within the Lake and Peninsula Borough and is subject to a 1.5% severance tax. The life of mine severance tax payments for the Proposed Project could total approximately $480 million and range as high as $4.5 billion for the life of the Potential Expansion Scenarios with a gold plant.
Accordingly, the Project could potentially provide more than $8 billion to the Southwest Alaska region through the Pebble Performance Dividend and the Lake and Peninsula Borough severance tax over the life of the potential expansion scenarios. This is in addition to the other significant benefits that could flow from the existing and possible future agreements with Alaska Native Village Corporations.
1.7 Geological Setting and Mineralization
Pebble is a porphyry-style copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium deposit that comprises the Pebble East and Pebble West zones of approximately equal size, with slightly lower-grade mineralization in the center of the deposit where the two zones merge. The Pebble deposit is located at the intersection of crustal-scale structures that are oriented both parallel and obliquely to a magmatic arc which was active in the mid-Cretaceous and which developed in response to the northward subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Wrangellia Superterrane.
The oldest rock within the Pebble district is the Jurassic-Cretaceous age Kahiltna flysch, composed of turbiditic clastic sedimentary rocks, interbedded basalt flows and associated gabbro intrusions. During the mid-Cretaceous (99 to 96 Ma), the Kahiltna assemblage was intruded first by approximately coeval granodiorite and diorite sills and slightly later by alkalic monzonite intrusions. At approximately 90 Ma, hornblende diorite porphyry plutons of the Kaskanak batholith were emplaced. Copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium mineralization is related to smaller granodiorite plutons and dykes that are similar in composition to, and emplaced near and above the margins of, the Kaskanak batholith.
The Pebble East and Pebble West zones are coeval hydrothermal centers within a single magmatic-hydrothermal system. The movement of mineralizing fluids was constrained by a broadly vertical fracture system acting in conjunction with a hornfels aquitard that induced extensive lateral fluid migration. The large size of the deposit, as well as variations in metal grade and ratios, may be the result of multiple stages of metal introduction and redistribution.
Mineralization in the Pebble West zone extends from surface to approximately 3,000 ft deep and is centered on four small granodiorite plutons. Mineralization is hosted by flysch, diorite and granodiorite sills, and alkalic intrusions and breccias. The Pebble East zone is of higher grade and extends to a depth of at least 5,810 ft; mineralization on the eastern side of the zone was later dropped 1,970 to 2,950 ft by normal faults which bound the northeast-trending East Graben. The Pebble East zone mineralization is hosted by granodiorite plutons and dykes, and by adjacent granodiorite sills and flysch. The Pebble East and West zone granodiorite plutons merge at depth.
Mineralization at Pebble is predominantly hypogene, although the Pebble West zone contains a thin zone of variably developed supergene mineralization overlain by a thin leached cap. Disseminated and vein-hosted copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium mineralization, dominated by chalcopyrite and locally accompanied by bornite, is associated with early potassic alteration in the shallow part of the Pebble East zone and with early sodic-potassic alteration in the Pebble West zone and deeper portions of the Pebble East zone. Rhenium occurs in molybdenite and high rhenium concentrations are present in molybdenite concentrates. Elevated palladium concentrations occur in many parts of the deposit but are highest in rocks affected by advanced argillic alteration. High-grade copper-gold mineralization also is associated with younger advanced argillic alteration that overprinted potassic and sodic-potassic alteration and was controlled by a syn-hydrothermal, brittle-ductile fault zone located near the eastern margin of the Pebble East zone. Late quartz veins introduced additional molybdenum into several parts of the deposit.
Pebble Project | Page 29 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.8 History
Cominco Alaska, a division of Cominco Ltd., now Teck, began reconnaissance exploration in the Pebble region in the mid-1980s, and in 1984 discovered the Sharp Mountain gold prospect near the southern margin of the current property. Teck staked their first mineral claims on the Property during reconnaissance mapping and sampling programs in the Cone and Sharp Mountain areas in August and September 1984. In November 1987, Teck staked claims on the newly-discovered Sill and Pebble prospects and added claims to these two areas in July 1988. This staking, along with additional claims added in the 1990s, led to the formation of a large continuous claim group. Teck completed a two-part purchase option with Hunter Dickinson Group Inc. (HDGI), which in turn assigned 80% of that option to Northern Dynasty in October 2001.
The first part of the option agreement covered that portion of the property which had previously been drilled and on which the majority of the then known copper mineralization occurred (the Resource Lands Option) and the remaining area outside the Resource Lands (the Exploration Lands). In November 2004, Northern Dynasty exercised the Resource Lands Option and acquired 80% of the Resource Lands. In February 2005, Teck elected to sell its residual 50% interest in the Exploration Lands to Northern Dynasty for US$4 million. Teck still retains a 4% pre-payback advance net profits royalty interest (after debt service) and 5% after-payback net profits interest royalty in any mine production from the Exploration Lands portion of the Pebble property.
In June 2006, Northern Dynasty acquired, through its Alaska subsidiaries, the remaining HDGI 20% interest in the Resource Lands and Exploration Lands by acquiring HDGI from its shareholders and through its various subsidiaries had thereby acquired an aggregate 100% interest in the Pebble Property, subject only to the Teck net-profits royalties on the Exploration Lands.
In July 2007, the Pebble Partnership was created and an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo American plc (Anglo American) subscribed for 50% of the Pebble Partnership's equity effective July 31, 2007. In December 2013, Northern Dynasty exercised its right to acquire Anglo American’s interest in the Pebble Partnership and now holds a 100% interest in the Pebble Partnership.
On June 29, 2010, Northern Dynasty entered into an agreement with Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corp. and its subsidiary, Big Chunk Corp. (together, Liberty Star), pursuant to which Liberty Star sold 23.8 mi2 of claims (the 95 Purchased Claims) to a U.S. subsidiary of Northern Dynasty in consideration for both a $1 million cash payment and a secured convertible loan from Northern Dynasty in the amount of $3 million. Northern Dynasty later agreed to accept transfer of 199 claims (the Settlement Claims) located north of the ground held 100% by the Pebble Partnership in settlement of the loan, and subsequently both the Purchased Claims and the Settlement Claims were transferred to a Northern Dynasty subsidiary and ultimately to Pebble West Claims Corporation, a subsidiary of the Pebble Partnership.
On January 31, 2012, the Pebble Partnership entered into a Limited Liability Company Agreement with Full Metal Minerals (USA) Inc. (FMMUSA), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Full Metal Minerals Corp., to form Kaskanak Copper LLC. On May 8, 2013, the Pebble Partnership purchased FMMUSA’s entire ownership interest in the LLC for a cash consideration of $750,000. As a result, the Pebble Partnership gained a 100% ownership interest in the LLC, the indirect owner of a 100% interest in a group of 464 claims located south and west of other ground held by the Pebble Partnership. In 2014 the LLC was merged into Pebble East Claims Corporation, a subsidiary of the Pebble Partnership, which now holds title to these claims.
On December 15, 2017, Northern Dynasty entered into a Framework Agreement with First Quantum Minerals Ltd. (First Quantum) that contemplated that an affiliate of First Quantum would subsequently execute an option agreement with Northern Dynasty with an option payment of US$150 million staged over four years. This option would entitle First Quantum to acquire the right to earn a 50% interest in the Pebble Partnership for US$1.35 billion. First Quantum made an early option payment of US$37.5 million to Northern Dynasty, applied solely for the purposes of progressing the permitting of the Proposed Project but withdrew from the Project in 2018.
Pebble Project | Page 30 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.9 Exploration
Geological, geochemical and geophysical surveys were conducted in the Project area from 2001 to 2007 by Northern Dynasty and since mid-2007 by the Pebble Partnership.
Geological mapping for rock type, structure and alteration was done between 2001 and 2006 at the entire Project area. This work provided an important geological framework for interpretation of other exploration data and drilling programs.
Geophysical surveys were completed between 2001 and 2010. In 2001, dipole-dipole IP surveys totalling 19.3 line-mi were completed by Zonge Geosciences for Northern Dynasty, following up on and augmenting similar surveys completed by Teck. During 2002, a ground magnetometer survey totalling 11.6 line-mi was completed at Pebble. The principal objective of this survey was to obtain a higher resolution map of magnetic patterns than was available from existing regional government magnetic maps. During 2007, a limited magnetotelluric survey was completed by GSY-USA Inc., under the supervision of Northern Dynasty geologists. The survey focused on the area of drilling in the Pebble East zone and comprised 196 stations on nine east-west lines and one north-south line, at a nominal station spacing of 656 ft. In July 2009, Spectrem Air Limited completed an airborne electromagnetic, magnetic and radiometric survey over the Pebble area. The objectives of this work included provision of geophysical constraints for structural and geological interpretation in areas with significant glacial cover. Between the second half of 2009 and mid-2010, a total of 120.5 line-mi of IP chargeability and resistivity data were collected by Zonge Engineering and Research Organization Inc. The objective of this survey was to extend the area of IP coverage completed prior to 2001 by Teck and during 2001 by Northern Dynasty. During 2010, an airborne electromagnetic (EM) and magnetometer geophysical survey was completed on the Pebble property totalling 4,009 line-mi.
Geochemical surveys were completed between 2001 and 2012. Between 2001 and 2003, Northern Dynasty collected 1,026 soil samples (Rebagliati and Lang, 2009). Samples were more widely spaced near the north, west and southwest margins of the grid. Three very limited surficial geochemical surveys were completed by the Pebble Partnership in 2010 and 2011; no significant geochemical anomalies were identified. A total of 126 samples, comprising 113 till and 13 soil samples, were collected on the KAS claims located in the southern end of the property; samples were on lines spaced approximately 8,000 ft apart with a sample spacing of approximately 1,300 ft. Additional surveys were completed between 2007 and 2012 by researchers from the USGS and the University of Alaska Anchorage. The results of these surveys were largely consistent with the results obtained by earlier soil sampling programs.
1.10 Drilling and Sampling
Samples from the 2002 through 2012 core drilling programs completed by Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership provide 91% of the assays used in the Mineral Resource estimate. These drilling and sampling programs were carried out in a proficient manner consistent with industry standard practices at the time of the programs. Core recovery was typically very good and averaged over 98%; two-thirds of all measured intervals have 100% core recovery. No significant factors of drilling, sampling, or recovery that impact the accuracy and reliability of the results were observed.
The remaining 9% of assays used in the Mineral Resource estimate derive from historical 1988 to 1992 and 1997 Teck core drill programs. Northern Dynasty expended considerable effort to assess the veracity of the Teck drilling over several years. This included: re-survey of drill hole locations, review of remaining half core, extensive re-drilling of areas targeted by Teck, and plotting and comparison of Teck drill holes with nearby Northern Dynasty drill holes. No significant factors of the drilling, sampling or recovery of the Teck program that impact the accuracy and reliability of the results were observed.
QP Eric Titley considers the drill programs to be reasonable and adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.
Pebble Project | Page 31 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.11 Metallurgical Testwork
Metallurgical testwork for the Project was initiated by Northern Dynasty in 2003 and continued under the direction of Northern Dynasty until 2008. From 2008 to 2013, metallurgical testwork progressed under the direction of the Pebble Partnership.
Geometallurgical studies were initiated by the Pebble Partnership in 2008 and continued through 2012. The principal objective of this work was to quantify significant differences in metal deportment that may result in variations in metal recoveries during mineral processing. The results of the geometallurgical studies indicate that the deposit comprises several geometallurgical (or material type) domains. These domains are defined by distinct, internally consistent copper and gold deportment characteristics that correspond spatially with changes in silicate and sulphide alteration mineralogy.
Metallurgical testwork and associated analytical procedures were performed by recognized testing facilities with extensive experience with these tests and analyses, with this type of deposit, and with the Project. The samples selected for the comminution, copper-gold-molybdenum bulk flotation, and copper-molybdenum separation testing were considered to be representative of the various types and styles of mineralization at the Pebble deposit.
A conventional flotation process is proposed to produce saleable copper-gold and molybdenum concentrates. The flotation test results on variability samples derived from the 103 locked cycle flotation and the subsequent copper-molybdenum separation flotation tests indicate that marketable copper and molybdenum concentrates can be produced. The copper concentrate will also contain gold and silver contents that meet or exceed payable levels in representative smelter contracts; the molybdenum concentrate will contain significant rhenium (Re), with a reported grade range from 791 to 832 g/t Re observed in the locked cycle test (LCT) results of the copper-molybdenum separation.
Gravity gold recovery tests were completed on three composite samples in 2010 and on four composite samples from the continuous testwork program. These demonstrated gold was recoverable by gravity and accordingly treatment of a side stream from the regrind circuit, with 1% overall gold recovery to a gravity concentrate. In the flowsheet for the Proposed Project, the gravity concentrate would be bagged and shipped off-site to a refinery. In the potential expansion scenarios with a secondary gold plant, the gravity concentrate would comprise a portion of the secondary gold plant feed.
A preliminary hydrometallurgical test program was performed on rougher and cleaner molybdenum concentrates to investigate the production of the marketable products of molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) and ammonium perrhenate (NH4ReO4). The test program included pressure oxidation leach, a series of metal extractions/purifications from the pregnant leach solution, and a calcination process. The tested methods were found technically feasible. Satisfactory dissolution rates of molybdenum and rhenium were obtained from the rougher molybdenum concentrate samples while additional alkaline leach is required on the pressure oxidation leach residues for the cleaner molybdenum concentrate samples.
In the 2022 PEA, the overall metal recovery projections of copper, gold, silver and molybdenum to concentrate are identical to those in the 2021 PEA. Those values were adjusted to an increased primary grind size (from 125 µm to 135 µm) from those published in the 2018 technical report. A rhenium recovery estimate at a high level has been completed and included. Table 1‑1 provides projected metals recoveries via flotation concentration. The recovery estimate bases are summarized as follows:
· | The initial metal recovery projections of copper, gold, silver and molybdenum were published in 2014 based on a combined flotation and cyanide leach method. A total of 111 LCTs on the 103 samples representing 8 geometallurgical domains across the east and west of Pebble deposit were reviewed to establish the copper, gold and molybdenum distributions to the bulk copper-molybdenum concentrate. Ten of the 111 LCTs with silver assay results were utilized to estimate the silver recovery to the bulk flotation concentrate. |
Pebble Project | Page 32 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | The 2018 metal recoveries were updated to reflect the changes of the proposed processing methods, including the exclusion of the cyanide leach process and the implementation of a coarser primary grind particle size. |
|
|
· | The 2020 metal recovery projections were further updated to include rhenium recovery from the molybdenum concentrate. The estimated rhenium recovery was 70.8%, based on the 10 LCT results of the rhenium recovery to the bulk concentrate, a one LCT stage recovery result in the subsequent separation of copper and molybdenum, as well as a recovery adjustment due to the change of primary grind size. |
Table 1‑1: Projected Metallurgical Recoveries
Domain | Flotation Recovery % | |||||
Cu Con, 26% Cu | Mo Con, 50% Mo | |||||
Cu | Au | Ag | Mo | Re | ||
Supergene: | ||||||
Sodic Potassic | 74.7 | 60.4 | 64.1 | 51.2 | 70.8 | |
Illite Pyrite | 68.1 | 43.9 | 64.1 | 62.6 | 70.8 | |
Hypogene: | ||||||
Illite Pyrite | 91.0 | 46.2 | 67.5 | 77.1 | 70.8 | |
Sodic Potassic | 91.0 | 63.8 | 67.7 | 80.9 | 70.8 | |
Potassic | 93.0 | 63.1 | 66.0 | 84.8 | 70.8 | |
Quartz Pyrophyllite | 95.0 | 65.5 | 64.6 | 80.7 | 70.8 | |
Sericite | 91.0 | 41.3 | 67.5 | 77.1 | 70.8 | |
Quartz Sericite Pyrite | 90.5 | 33.3 | 67.5 | 86.8 | 70.8 | |
LOM Average | 87 | 60 | 67 | 75 | 71 |
Note: prepared by Tetra Tech, 2021. An additional 1% Au recovery to the gravity concentrate is expected. LOM average per financial model.
1.12 Mineral Resource Estimation
The current resource estimate is based on approximately 59,000 assays obtained from 699 drill holes. The resource was estimated by ordinary kriging and is presented in Table 1‑2. The tabulation is based on copper equivalency (CuEq) that incorporates the contribution of copper, gold and molybdenum. Although the estimate includes silver and rhenium, neither were used as part of the copper equivalency calculation in order to facilitate comparison with previous estimates which did not consider the minor economic contribution of either of these metals. The highlighted 0.3% CuEq cut off is considered appropriate for deposits of this type in the Americas.
Pebble Project | Page 33 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑2: Pebble Resource Estimate August 2020
Measured | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cut-off CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.64 | 531,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 177 | 1.7 | 0.31 | 3.87 | 5.96 | 0.21 | 28.4 | 167,000 |
0.2 | 0.64 | 530,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 177 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.87 | 5.96 | 0.21 | 28.4 | 167,000 |
0.3 | 0.65 | 527,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 178 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.83 | 5.93 | 0.21 | 28.1 | 167,000 |
0.4 | 0.66 | 508,000,000 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 180 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.81 | 5.88 | 0.20 | 27.4 | 163,000 |
0.6 | 0.77 | 279,000,000 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 203 | 1.8 | 0.36 | 2.46 | 3.77 | 0.12 | 16.5 | 100,000 |
1.0 | 1.16 | 28,000,000 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 302 | 2.3 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.56 | 0.02 | 2.0 | 14,000 |
Indicated | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cu-toff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.73 | 6,409,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 233 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 54.38 | 66.56 | 3.29 | 328.5 | 2,500,000 |
0.2 | 0.73 | 6,305,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 236 | 1.6 | 0.40 | 54.20 | 66.08 | 3.28 | 326.0 | 2,497,000 |
0.3 | 0.77 | 5,929,000,000 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 246 | 1.7 | 0.41 | 53.58 | 64.81 | 3.21 | 316.4 | 2,443,000 |
0.4 | 0.82 | 5,185,000,000 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 261 | 1.8 | 0.44 | 51.42 | 58.35 | 2.98 | 291.7 | 2,271,000 |
0.6 | 0.99 | 3,455,000,000 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 299 | 2.0 | 0.51 | 41.88 | 45.54 | 2.27 | 221.1 | 1,748,000 |
1.0 | 1.29 | 1,412,000,000 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 343 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 23.96 | 23.15 | 1.07 | 109.9 | 853,000 |
Measured+Indicated | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cutoff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.72 | 6,941,000,000 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 228 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 58.29 | 72.53 | 3.49 | 357.1 | 2,672,000 |
0.2 | 0.73 | 6,835,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 231 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 58.15 | 72.08 | 3.49 | 354.5 | 2,666,000 |
0.3 | 0.76 | 6,456,000,000 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 240 | 1.7 | 0.41 | 56.92 | 70.57 | 3.42 | 344.6 | 2,615,000 |
0.4 | 0.81 | 5,693,000,000 | 0.44 | 0.35 | 253 | 1.8 | 0.43 | 55.21 | 64.06 | 3.18 | 320.3 | 2,431,000 |
0.6 | 0.97 | 3,734,000,000 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 291 | 2.0 | 0.50 | 44.44 | 49.22 | 2.40 | 237.7 | 1,848,000 |
1.0 | 1.29 | 1,440,000,000 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 342 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 24.12 | 23.61 | 1.08 | 112.0 | 867,000 |
Inferred | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cutoff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.45 | 6,435,000,000 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 174 | 1.1 | 0.28 | 28.22 | 47.38 | 2.47 | 232.1 | 1,789,000 |
0.2 | 0.48 | 5,819,000,000 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 190 | 1.1 | 0.30 | 27.57 | 44.34 | 2.44 | 212.2 | 1,763,000 |
0.3 | 0.55 | 4,454,000,000 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 226 | 1.2 | 0.36 | 24.54 | 35.80 | 2.22 | 170.4 | 1,603,000 |
0.4 | 0.68 | 2,646,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 269 | 1.4 | 0.44 | 19.24 | 25.52 | 1.57 | 119.1 | 1,154,000 |
0.6 | 0.89 | 1,314,000,000 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 292 | 1.8 | 0.51 | 13.90 | 15.63 | 0.85 | 75.6 | 673,000 |
1.0 | 1.20 | 361,000,000 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 377 | 2.3 | 0.69 | 5.41 | 5.22 | 0.30 | 26.3 | 251,000 |
Pebble Project | Page 34 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Note:
· | David Gaunt, P. Geo, a qualified person who is not independent of Northern Dynasty is responsible for the estimate. |
|
|
· | Copper equivalent (CuEq) calculations use the following metal prices: US$1.85 /lb for Cu, US$902 /oz for Au and US$12.50 /lb |
|
|
· | for Mo, and recoveries: 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone). |
|
|
· | Contained metal calculations are based on 100% recoveries. |
|
|
· | The base case Mineral Resource estimate (bolded) is reported above a 0.30% CuEq cut-off. |
|
|
· | The Mineral Resource estimate is constrained by a conceptual pit shell that was developed using a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm and is based in the following parameters: 42 degree pit slope; metal prices and recoveries for gold of US$1,540.00/oz and 61% Au, for copper of US$3.63/lb and 91% Cu, for silver of US$20.00/oz and 67% Ag and for molybdenum of US$12.36/lb and 81% Mo, respectively; a mining cost of US$1.01/ton with a US$0.03/ton/bench increment and other costs (including processing, G&A and transport) of US$6.74/ton. |
|
|
· | The terms "Measured Resources", "Indicated Resources" and “Inferred Resources” are recognized and required by Canadian regulations under 43-101. The SEC has adopted amendments to its disclosure rules to modernize the mineral property disclosure required for issuers whose securities are registered with the SEC under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, effective February 25, 2019, that adopt definitions of the terms and categories of resources which are "substantially similar" to the corresponding terms under Canadian Regulations in 43-101. Accordingly, there is no assurance any mineral resources that we may report as Measured Resources, Indicated Resources and Inferred Resources under 43-101 would be the same had we prepared the resource estimates under the standards adopted under the SEC Modernization Rules. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves or be legally or economically mineable. In addition, Inferred Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies, or economic studies except for a Preliminary Economic Assessment as defined under 43-101. |
|
|
· | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. |
|
|
· | The Mineral Resource estimates contained herein have not been adjusted for any risk that the required environmental permits may not be obtained for the Project. The risk associated with the ability of the Project to obtain required environmental permits is a risk to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the mineralization and the classification of the estimate as a Mineral Resource. |
1.13 Mining Methods
The 2022 PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The mining operations are planned to use conventional open pit mining methods and equipment. The proposed Pebble mine would be a conventional drill, blast, truck, and shovel operation with an average mining rate of approximately 70 million tons per year and an overall strip ratio of 0.12 ton of waste per ton of mineralized material.
The open pit would be developed in stages, with each stage expanding the area and deepening the previous stage. The final dimensions of the open pit would be approximately 6,800 ft long and 5,600 ft wide, with depths to 1,950 ft.
The projected mining schedule was generated using five pushbacks and was based on a maximum processing capacity of 180,000 ton/d. Based on the selected ultimate pit, final pit design and the generated production schedule, the Project’s total LOM is 21 years, including 1 year of pre-stripping followed by 20 years of production.
1.14 Recovery Methods
The proposed processing plant is designed to process mineralized feed material at a rate of 180,000 tons per day. The designed process to treat feed material contemplates methods that are conventional and well-proven in the industry. The comminution and recovery processes proposed are used widely in commercial practice, with no significant elements of technological innovation.
Pebble Project | Page 35 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The following unit operations would be employed to produce three final products: a copper-gold flotation concentrate, a molybdenum flotation concentrate and a gravity gold concentrate:
· | Primary crushing; |
· | Grinding with semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) and ball mills; |
· | Bulk copper-gold-molybdenum flotation; |
· | Molybdenum flotation to separate a copper-gold flotation concentrate and a molybdenum flotation concentrate; and |
· | Gravity concentration to produce a gravity gold concentrate. |
Figure 1‑3 shows a simplified process flow diagram of the entire process route.
Figure 1‑3: Simplified Flow Diagram
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
The process plant flowsheet design was based on testwork results, previous study designs and industry standard practices. Further, the testwork results support the recovery projections used in the economic analysis.
Pebble Project | Page 36 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The production summary for the Proposed Project is shown in Table 1‑3. Production data includes all production whether payable in the spot market, under the Royalty Agreement, to third party metal stream partners or payable as a smelter deduction.
Table 1‑3: Proposed Project Production Summary
Proposed Project | Units |
|
Mineralized Material | B tons | 1.3 |
Copper Equivalent1 | % | 0.58 |
Copper | % | 0.29 |
Gold | oz/ton | 0.009 |
Molybdenum | ppm | 154 |
Silver | oz/ton | 0.042 |
Rhenium | ppm | 0.28 |
Waste | B tons | 0.2 |
Open Pit Strip Ratio |
| 0.12 |
Open Pit Life | Years | 20 |
Life of Mine | Years | 20 |
Metal Production (LOM) |
|
|
Copper | M lb | 6,400 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 7,300 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 37,000 |
Gold (in Gravity Concentrate) | k oz | 110 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 300 |
Rhenium | k kg | 230 |
Metal Production (Annual2) |
|
|
Copper | M lb | 320 |
Copper Concentrate | k tons | 559 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 363 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 1,800 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 15 |
Molybdenum Concentrate | k tons | 14 |
Rhenium | k kg | 12 |
Note:
| 1. | Copper equivalent (CuEq) calculations use metal prices: US$1.85/lb for Cu, US$902/oz for Au and US$12.50/lb for Mo, and recoveries of 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone). |
| 2. | Life of mine volumes ÷ life of mine years. |
1.15 Project Infrastructure
The Project is located in an area of Alaska that has minimal development and would require construction of both on-site and off-site infrastructure to support construction and operations of the Proposed Project.
The primary off-site infrastructure would incorporate a natural gas pipeline, marine terminal, access road between the marine terminal and mine site, and a pipeline system to transport concentrate to the marine terminal. The marine terminal facility would include facilities capable of handling barges for concentrate bulk transhipment as well as large ocean barges (400 x 100 ft) for transport of construction materials and operating supplies by container. The access road would provide year-round access between the marine terminal and the mine site for construction and operations. The natural gas and concentrate pipelines would be buried adjacent to the access road.
Pebble Project | Page 37 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The onsite facilities would provide all necessary support for construction and operation. These include temporary and permanent worker accommodations, power reticulation, site roads, administration buildings, truck shop, warehouse, maintenance facilities.
The Proposed Project site would also include tailings storage facilities, water management ponds, and water treatment plants (WTPs). Waste and water management at the Project would be an integrated system designed to safely contain these materials, to facilitate water treatment and discharge, and to provide adequate process water to support the operations. The design of these facilities would incorporate a significant climate record, extensive site investigation, and several features intended to ensure safe operation.
The Proposed Project would incorporate a sophisticated water management plan with water collection, treatment, and discharge. That plan requires attention to the annual and seasonal variability of the incoming and receiving flows and achieving very specific water quality standards for the released water. Temporary water treatment facilities would be in place during construction, followed by three WTPs during the operations and closure phases.
Natural gas-fired power plants would be constructed at both the mine site and the marine terminal.
1.16 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
1.16.1 Environmental Considerations
The Pebble deposit is located on State land that has been specifically designated for mineral exploration and development. The Pebble area has been the subject of two comprehensive land-use planning exercises conducted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), the first in the 1980s and the second completed in 2005 and subsequently revised in 2013. ADNR identified five land parcels (including Pebble) within the Bristol Bay planning area as having “significant mineral potential,” and where the planning intent is to accommodate mineral exploration and development. These parcels total 2.7% of the total planning area (ADNR, 2013).
Environmental standards and permitting requirements in Alaska are stable, objective, rigorous and science driven. These features are an asset to projects like Pebble that are being designed to meet U.S. and international best practice standards of design and performance.
Northern Dynasty began an extensive field study program in 2004 to characterize the existing physical, chemical, biological, and social environments in the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas where the Project might occur. The Pebble Partnership compiled the data for the 2004-2008 study period into a multi-volume Environmental Baseline Document (EBD, PLP, 2012). These studies have been designed to:
· | fully characterize the existing biophysical and socioeconomic environment; |
|
|
· | support environmental analyses required for effective input into project design; |
|
|
· | provide a strong foundation for internal environmental and social impact assessment to support corporate decision-making; |
|
|
· | provide the information required for stakeholder consultation and eventual mine permitting in Alaska; and |
|
|
· | provide a baseline for long-term monitoring of potential changes associated with mine development. |
Pebble Project | Page 38 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Additional data collected from the 2009-2013 period was compiled into the Supplemental EBD (PLP, 2018) and transmitted to USACE. In 2017, select environmental baseline studies were re-initiated and expanded. Monitoring data collected through 2019 has been provided to USACE.
The baseline study program includes:
· | surface water hydrology | · | wildlife |
· | groundwater hydrology | · | air quality |
· | surface and groundwater quality | · | cultural resources |
· | geochemistry | · | subsistence |
· | snow surveys | · | land use |
· | fish and aquatic resources | · | recreation |
· | noise | · | socioeconomics |
· | wetlands | · | visual aesthetics |
· | trace elements | · | climate and meteorology |
· | fish habitat – stream flow modelling | · | Iliamna Lake |
· | marine |
|
|
1.16.2 Closure and Reclamation Considerations
The Pebble Partnership’s core operating principles are governed by a commitment to conduct all mining operations, including reclamation and closure, in a manner that adheres to socially and environmentally responsible stewardship while maximizing benefits to state and local stakeholders.
Reclamation and closure of the Proposed Project falls under the jurisdiction of the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water, and the ADEC. A miner may not engage in a mining operation until the ADNR has approved a reclamation plan for the operation. The Pebble Partnership submitted a preliminary closure plan to USACE in support of the EIS analysis. Four phases of closure are envisioned for the Proposed Project.
1.16.3 Permitting Considerations
To prepare its CWA permit application, the Pebble Partnership developed a mine plan of smaller scale and footprint and shorter mine life than had been included in previous analyses. The application under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the RHA was submitted to USACE on December 22, 2017. On January 8, 2018, USACE deemed the permit application complete and confirmed that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) level of analysis was required to comply with its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the Proposed Project. The EIS process progressed through the scoping phase in 2018. USACE delivered the Draft EIS in the first quarter of 2019 and completed a public comment period from March to July 2019. In the latter part of 2019 and early 2020, USACE advanced toward a Final EIS. The preliminary Final EIS was circulated to cooperating agencies for review in February 2020. As part of the EIS preparation process, USACE had undertaken a comprehensive alternatives assessment to consider a broad range of development alternatives and announced the conclusions of the draft Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in May 2020. USACE published the Final EIS (FEIS) on July 24, 2020.
The Department of the Army Permit Application was submitted in December 2017 and the permitting process over the next three years involved the Pebble Partnership being actively engaged with USACE on the evaluation of the Proposed Project. There were numerous meetings between representatives of USACE and the Pebble Partnership regarding, among other things, compensatory mitigation for the Proposed Project. The Pebble Partnership submitted several draft compensatory mitigation plans to the USACE, each refined to address comments from the USACE and that the Pebble Partnership believed was consistent with mitigation proposed and approved for other major development projects in Alaska.
Pebble Project | Page 39 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The FEIS published by USACE on July 24, 2020, was the culmination of a 2½ year long, intensive review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Led by USACE, the Pebble FEIS also involved eight federal cooperating agencies (including the US Environmental Protection Agency and US Fish & Wildlife Service), three State cooperating agencies (including the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), the Lake & Peninsula Borough and two federally recognized tribes.
The FEIS was viewed by Pebble Partnership as positive in that it found impacts to fish and wildlife would not be expected to affect subsistence harvest levels, there would be no measurable change to the commercial fishing industry including prices, and there would be a number of positive socioeconomic impacts on local communities.
In late June 2020, USACE verbally identified a preliminary finding of “significant degradation” of certain aquatic resources, with the requirement of new compensatory mitigation. The Pebble Partnership understood from these discussions that the new compensatory mitigation plan for the Proposed Project would include in-kind, in-watershed mitigation and continued its work to meet these new USACE requirements. USACE formally advised the Pebble Partnership by letter dated August 20, 2020, that it had made preliminary factual determinations under Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA that the Proposed Project would result in significant degradation to aquatic resources. In connection with this preliminary finding of significant degradation, USACE formally informed the Pebble Partnership that in-kind compensatory mitigation within the Koktuli River Watershed would be required to compensate for all direct and indirect impacts caused by discharges into aquatic resources at the mine site. USACE requested the submission of a new compensatory mitigation plan to address this finding within 90 days of its letter.
In response, the Pebble Partnership developed a compensatory mitigation plan (CMP) to align with the requirements outlined by the USACE. This plan envisioned creation of a 112,445-acre Koktuli Conservation Area on land belonging to the State of Alaska in the Koktuli River Watershed downstream of the Project. The plan was submitted to the USACE on November 4, 2020.
On November 25, 2020, USACE issued a ROD rejecting the Pebble Partnership’s permit application, finding concerns with the proposed CMP and determining that the Proposed Project would cause significant degradation and be contrary to the public interest. USACE concluded the proposed CMP was not compliant with USACE regulations.
The Pebble Partnership submitted its request for appeal of the ROD to USACE Pacific Ocean Division on January 19, 2021. The request for appeal reflects the Pebble Partnership’s position that USACE's ROD and permitting decision – including its “Significant Degradation” finding, its “public interest review” findings, and its rejection of the Pebble Partnership's CMP – are contrary to law, unprecedented in Alaska, and fundamentally unsupported by the administrative record, including the Proposed Project FEIS. In a letter dated February 24, 2021, USACE confirmed the Pebble Partnership’s RFA is "complete and meets the criteria for appeal." While federal guidelines suggest the appeal should conclude within 90 days, USACE has indicated the complexity of issues and volume of materials associated with Pebble’s case means the review will likely take additional time.
On January 22, 2021, the State of Alaska, acting in its role as owner of the Pebble deposit, also submitted a request for appeal. The State appeal was rejected on the basis that the State did not have standing to pursue an administrative appeal with USACE.
The Project will require additional Federal permits, in addition to those issued under the CWA and RHA permits, as well as a range of permits issued by the State of Alaska.
Pebble Project | Page 40 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.17 Markets and Contracts
No market studies were completed, but consensus long term metals pricing and industry typical refining terms have been used for the purposes of the economic assessment. The anticipated concentrate analyses suggest there will be no significant penalty elements in the copper or gravity gold concentrates. Copper in the molybdenum concentrate will be at penalty levels, but there is an opportunity at some future phase of the Project to incorporate secondary processing at site to maximize molybdenum payables. Logistics and transportation costs based on Alaskan norms have been used. At this time no contracts have been entered for supply of materials or for off-take of products.
1.18 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates
1.18.1 Capital Cost Estimates
The total initial capital cost for the design, construction, installation, and commissioning of the Proposed Project is estimated to be $6.05 billion, which includes all direct, indirect, and Owner’s costs, as well as a contingency. Northern Dynasty believes it is most likely that, if approved, the Proposed Project would be developed with partners who will provide the primary infrastructure (marine terminal, access road, natural gas pipeline, mine site power plant) in return for lease payments or tolls at rates which provide a return on investment to the providers of the infrastructure. The capital cost of this infrastructure which may be provided by third parties is estimated at $1.68 billion, which reduces the cash outlay required for construction. In addition, precious metal streaming is considered a viable project financing alternative and the 2022 PEA assumes $1.14 billion would be available to the Proposed Project in the form of various streaming agreements. The combination of third-party infrastructure financing and precious metal streaming would reduce the required capital investment for the Proposed Project to $3.44 billion; this scenario was evaluated in the economic model as the Base Case. A Full Capital Case, without the benefit of the precious metal stream financing and third-party infrastructure participation, was also evaluated.
Sustaining capital investment in the Proposed Project over the 20-year mine life is limited to TSF improvements, and replacement of mobile equipment for mining and road maintenance. These life cycle costs are applied in the financial model on a year-by-year basis, with a cumulative total of $1.52 billion including indirect and Owner’s costs as well as contingency costs.
Initial reclamation trust funding and letter of credit premiums during construction would total $179 million. The remaining mine closure and reclamation costs are not included in the capital or operating costs but are factored into the financial model to account for long term closure and water treatment plant requirements. A reclamation fund of $1,396 million would be accumulated over the mine life comprising $831 million in contributions and $565 million in accrued interest.
Pebble Project | Page 41 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑4 provides the capital cost estimates.
Table 1‑4: Pebble Proposed Project – Initial Capital
Description | Cost ($M) |
Mining | 321 |
Process | 736 |
Other Infrastructure | 345 |
Tailings | 1,278 |
Pipelines | 189 |
Access Road | 296 |
Port Infrastructure | 246 |
Power Generation | 779 |
Indirect Costs | 1,182 |
Contingency | 678 |
Total Capital Cost Estimate | 6,049 |
Add: Reclamation and other funding during construction | 211 |
Initial Capital Investment – Full Capital Case | 6,259 |
Less: Outsourced Infrastructure | (1,680) |
Less: Pre-production proceeds from gold stream partners | (1,142) |
Initial Capital Investment - Base Case | 3,439 |
1.18.2 Operating Cost Estimates
The average life of mine operating costs for the Proposed Project Base Case, based on the 180,000 ton/day plant capacity, and both 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty and 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty tranches, are as shown in the table below.
Table 1‑5: Summary of Annual Average Operating Cost Estimate
Operating Area | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | ||
Annual Cost (US$M) | Unit Cost (US$/ton milled) | Annual Cost (US$M) | Unit Cost (US$/ton milled) | |
General & Administrative | 56.8 | 0.88 | 56.8 | 0.88 |
Open Pit Mining | 112.7 | 1.75 | 112.7 | 1.75 |
Mineralized Material Handling & Process Plant | 269.0 | 4.17 | 269.0 | 4.17 |
Tailings Operation & Maintenance | 10.0 | 0.16 | 10.0 | 0.16 |
Water Treatment Plant | 21.5 | 0.33 | 21.5 | 0.33 |
Concentrate Pipeline | 1.9 | 0.03 | 1.9 | 0.03 |
Marine Terminal | 15.7 | 0.24 | 15.7 | 0.24 |
External Access Roads | 27.8 | 0.45 | 26.9 | 0.44 |
Consumables Freight Costs | 10.2 | 0.16 | 10.2 | 0.16 |
Infrastructure Leases | 180.8 | 2.80 | 180.8 | 2.80 |
Total | 706.4 | 10.97 | 705.5 | 10.96 |
Pebble Project | Page 42 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.19 Economic Analysis and Sensitivities
1.19.1 Economic Analysis
An economic model was developed to estimate annual pre-tax and post-tax cash flows and sensitivities of the Proposed Project based on a 7% discount rate. By convention, a discount rate of 8% is typically applied to copper and other base metal projects, while 5% is applied to gold and other precious metal projects. Given the polymetallic nature of the Pebble deposit and the large contribution of gold to total revenues, a 7% blended discount rate was selected and is considered appropriate for the purposes of discounted cash flow analyses. The net present value (NPV) is calculated by discounting cash flows to start of construction. The combination of third-party infrastructure financing and precious metal streaming was evaluated in the economic model as the Base Case. A Full Capital Case, without the benefit of the precious metal stream financing and third-party infrastructure participation, was also evaluated.
Calendar years used in the economic analysis are provided for conceptual purposes only. Permits still must be obtained in support of operations and approval to proceed is still required from Northern Dynasty’s Board of Directors.
The Proposed Project and the potential alternative scenarios in Section 1.20 in the 2022 PEA are preliminary in nature and include Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The results were estimated with the forecast long-term prices shown in Table 1‑6.
Table 1‑6: Long-term Metal Price Forecast
Metal | Unit | Long-term ($) |
Copper | lb | 3.50 |
Gold | Oz | 1,600 |
Molybdenum | lb | 10 |
Silver | Oz | 22 |
Rhenium | kg | 1,500 |
The cost and taxes summary for the proposed Project, both Base Case and Full Capital Case, are shown in Table 1‑7. The results of the economic analysis are shown in Table 1‑8.
Pebble Project | Page 43 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑7: Proposed Project Cost and Tax Summary
Description | Unit | Base Case | Full Capital | ||
2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Costs | |||||
Total Initial Capital Cost | $B | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Infrastructure Lease | $B | 1.68 | 1.68 | - | - |
Net Initial Capital Cost | $B | 4.37 | 4.37 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Sustaining Capital Cost | $B | 1.52 | 1.52 | 1.54 | 1.54 |
Life of Mine Operating Cost1 | $/ton | 10.98 | 10.96 | 8.31 | 8.29 |
Copper C1 Cost2 | $/lb CuEq | 1.65 | 1.67 | 1.33 | 1.34 |
AISC (Co-Product Basis) | $/lb CuEq | 1.889 | 1.92 | 1.57 | 1.59 |
Gold C1 Cost | $/oz AuEq | 755 | 765 | 607 | 615 |
Closure Funding | |||||
Annual Contribution | $M/yr | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
Life of Mine Contribution | $B | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
Life of Mine Bond Premium | $B | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 |
Closure Fund3 | $B | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
Life of Mine Taxes4 | |||||
Alaska Mining License | $B | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
Alaska Royalty | $B | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
Alaska Income Tax | $B | 0.754 | 0.70 | 0.87 | 0.83 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $B | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.51 |
Federal Income Tax | $B | 1.386 | 1.29 | 1.59 | 1.52 |
Annual Taxes5 | |||||
Alaska Mining License | $M | 34 | 33 | 37 | 36 |
Alaska Royalty | $M | 15 | 14 | 17 | 16 |
Alaska Income Tax | $M | 37 | 35 | 43 | 41 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $M | 24 | 24 | 26 | 26 |
Federal Income Tax | $M | 68 | 64 | 80 | 76 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes cost of infrastructure lease - $2.80/ton milled |
| 2. | C1 costs calculated on co product basis |
| 3. | Maximum value of closure fund during life of mine based on 4% compound interest |
| 4. | Estimated based on current Alaskan statutes |
| 5. | Life of mine taxes ÷ life of mine years |
Pebble Project | Page 44 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑8: Proposed Project Forecast Financial Results
Description | Unit | Base Case | Full Capital | ||
2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue1 | |||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,800 | 1,800 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 35,000 | 34,000 | 37,000 | 36,000 |
Realization Charges | |||||
Annual Charges | $M | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
Net Smelter Return | |||||
Annual NSR | $M | 1,600 | 1,600 | 1,700 | 1,700 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 32,000 | 31,000 | 34,000 | 33,000 |
Financial Model Results | |||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 15.6 | 15.1% | 11.1 | 10.8 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 2,200 | 2,100 | 2,000 | 1,800 |
Payback | Years | 4.8 | 4.9 | 6.2 | 6.3 |
Note:
| 1. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
1.19.2 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity of the Proposed Project’s pre-tax NPV, and IRR to several project variables, as listed below, were evaluated.
· | Copper price; |
|
|
· | Gold price; |
|
|
· | Molybdenum price; |
|
|
· | Initial capital cost; |
|
|
· | Operating Cost; |
|
|
· | Sustaining capital costs (including potential expansion scenarios); and |
|
|
· | Head grade. |
Each variable, except head grade, was changed in increments of 10% between -30% to +30% while holding all other variables constant. The Proposed Project’s NPV at a 7% discount rate is most sensitive to changes in copper price, initial capex, operating costs, gold price, molybdenum price, and sustaining capex. The head grade evaluation tested the sensitivity to a range of ±10%, while holding the other all other variables constant, as variation beyond that range is extremely unlikely given the extent of the drilling defining the Mineral Resource and the methodology used to estimate the Mineral Resource.
Pebble Project | Page 45 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The Project’s NPV at a 7% discount rate is, from most to least, sensitive to changes in head grade, copper price, initial capital costs, on-site operating costs, gold price, molybdenum price and sustaining capital costs.
Table 1‑9 provides the Base Case post-tax financial results and compares those to the equivalent results of the 2021 PEA Base Case to demonstrate the effect of the Royalty Agreement.
Table 1‑9: Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Post-Tax Financial Results
Description | Units | LOM Values No Royalty1 | LOM Values L/T Prices, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | LOM Values L/T Prices, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Financial Summary |
|
|
|
|
Mining Taxes & Government Royalties | US$ M | $1,479 | $1,467 | $1,420 |
Corporate Income Tax | US$ M | $2,125 | $2,098 | $1,988 |
Post-Tax Undiscounted Cash Flow | US$ M | $8,224 | $8,131 | $7,759 |
Post-tax NPV at 7%3 | US$ M | $2,281 | $2,245 | $2,097 |
Post-Tax IRR | % | 15.7 | 15.6 | 15.1% |
Post-Tax Payback Period | years | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.9 |
| 1. | The Life of Mine Values (“LOM Values”), No Royalty are derived from 2021 PEA, now supplanted by 2022 PEA. |
1.20 Potential Expansion Scenarios
The Proposed Project evaluated in the 2022 PEA would extract only a small portion of the total Mineral Resources estimated at Pebble. To evaluate the possible extent of opportunities for the Project, seven potential expansion scenarios were identified for consideration. Six of these potential expansion scenarios contemplate an expansion of the open pit mine and increased mill throughput over a significantly longer mine life. These scenarios were modeled on an expanded scenario outlined in a response to a Request for Information from USACE during the EIS process and which is incorporated in the EIS administrative record. Three of these six scenarios consider the addition of an onsite gold plant. The seventh potential expansion scenario contemplates the addition of the onsite gold plant to the Proposed Project without changes to its throughput or mine life. Each of the potential expansion scenarios would require additional permitting and environmental regulatory review, and there is no certainty that any of the potential expansion scenarios could be pursued. The potential expansion scenarios are designated by the year in which the contemplated expanded process plant would commence operation. They utilize the same life of mine open pit design, with variations based on the year of the expansion and the expanded throughput rate. The Year 21 scenario is based on the scenario outlined in the EIS, with the plant expanded to 250,000 tons per day. The expanded rate in the other two scenarios is 270,000 tons per day.
Table 1‑10 provides the production information from these potential expansion scenarios and compares them to the Proposed Project.
Pebble Project | Page 46 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑10: Summary Potential Expansion Case Scenario Production Information
Description | Unit | Proposed Project | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||
Mineralized Material | B tons | 1.3 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 |
CuEq1 | % | 0.57 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
Copper | % | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
Gold | oz/ton | 0.009 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Molybdenum | ppm | 154 | 208 | 208 | 208 |
Silver | oz/ton | 0.042 | 0.047 | 0.046 | 0.046 |
Rhenium | ppm | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
Waste | B tons | 0.2 | 14.4 | 14.4 | 14.4 |
Open Pit Strip Ratio |
| 0.12 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 1.67 |
Open Pit Life | Years | 20 | 78 | 73 | 68 |
Life of Mine | Years | 20 | 101 | 91 | 90 |
Metal Production (LOM) |
|
|
|
|
|
Copper | M lb | 6,400 | 60,400 | 60,400 | 60,400 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 7,300 | 50,400 | 50,500 | 50,500 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 37,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 |
Gold (in Gravity Concentrate) | k oz | 110 | 782 | 783 | 782 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 300 | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
Rhenium | k kg | 200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
Metal Production (Annual2) |
|
|
|
|
|
Copper | M lb | 320 | 600 | 660 | 670 |
Copper Concentrate | k tonne | 559 | 1,000 | 1,200 | 1,200 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 363 | 500 | 560 | 560 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 1,800 | 2,600 | 2,900 | 3,000 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 15 | 29 | 32 | 32 |
Molybdenum Concentrate | k tonnes | 14 | 26 | 29 | 29 |
Rhenium | k kg | 12 | 20 | 22 | 22 |
Note:
| 1. | CuEQ calculations use metal prices: US$1.85/lb for Cu, US$902/oz for Au and US$12.50/lb for Mo, and recoveries: 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone). |
| 2. | Life of mine volumes ÷ life of mine years. |
The estimated costs for the potential expansion scenarios are shown in Table 1‑11. The economic analysis for all potential expansion scenarios included third party infrastructure and precious metal streaming partners. The results are shown in Table 1‑12 through Table 1‑14,based on long-term metal prices.
Pebble Project | Page 47 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑11: Potential Expansion Scenarios Estimated Costs
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | |||||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||||
2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | ||
Costs | |||||||
Total Initial Capital Cost | $B | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Infrastructure Lease | $B | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 |
Net Initial Capital Cost | $B | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 |
Sustaining Capital Cost | $B | 16.9 | 16.9 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.2 | 17.2 |
Life of Mine Operating Cost1 | $/ton | 12.46 | 12.44 | 12.14 | 12.12 | 12.20 | 12.18 |
Copper C1 Cost2 | $/lb CuEq | 1.56 | 1.58 | 1.53 | 1.56 | 1.54 | 1.56 |
AISC (Co-Product Basis) | $/lb CuEq | 1.77 | 1.80 | 1.74 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 1.77 |
Gold C1 Cost8 | $/oz AuEq | 714 | 724 | 702 | 711 | 704 | 714 |
Closure Funding | |||||||
Annual Contribution | $M/yr | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 |
Life of Mine Contribution | $B | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
Life of Mine Bond Premium | $B | 1.14 | 1.14 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Closure Fund3 | $B | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
Life of Mine Taxes4 | |||||||
Alaska Mining License | $B | 8.09 | 7.80 | 8.26 | 7.98 | 8.25 | 7.97 |
Alaska Royalty | $B | 3.57 | 3.45 | 3.65 | 3.53 | 3.65 | 3.52 |
Alaska Income Tax | $B | 10.11 | 9.73 | 10.37 | 9.99 | 10.31 | 9.94 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $B | 4.32 | 4.24 | 4.31 | 4.23 | 4.32 | 4.24 |
Federal Income Tax | $B | 18.76 | 18.05 | 19.25 | 18.55 | 19.13 | 18.44 |
Annual Taxes5 | |||||||
Alaska Mining License | $M | 80 | 77 | 91 | 88 | 92 | 89 |
Alaska Royalty | $M | 35 | 34 | 40 | 39 | 41 | 39 |
Alaska Income Tax | $M | 100 | 96 | 114 | 110 | 115 | 110 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $M | 43 | 42 | 47 | 47 | 48 | 47 |
Federal Income Tax | $M | 186 | 179 | 211 | 204 | 213 | 205 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes cost of infrastructure lease: |
| Year 21 Expansion - $0.54/ton milled | |
| Year 10 Expansion - $0.53/ton milled | |
| Year 5 Expansion - $0.53/ton milled | |
| 2. | C1 costs calculated on co product basis. |
| 3. | Maximum value of closure fund during life of mine based on 4% compound interest. |
| 4. | Estimated based on current Alaskan statutes. |
| 5. | Life of mine taxes ÷ life of mine years. |
Pebble Project | Page 48 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑12: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 5 Expansion)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 5 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,400 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 310 | 310 | 310 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 3,200 | 3,200 | 3,100 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 284,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 21.5 | 21.4 | 20.9 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 8,500 | 8,400 | 8,000 |
Payback | Years | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
Table 1‑13: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 10 Expansion)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 10 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,400 | 3,100 | 3,000 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 300 | 300 | 300 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 3,100 | 3,100 | 3,100 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 283,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 19.5 | 19.4 | 18.9 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 7,300 | 7,200 | 6,900 |
Payback | Years | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
Pebble Project | Page 49 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑14: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 21 Expansion)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,100 | 3,100 | 3,000 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 270 | 270 | 270 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 283,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 18.1 | 18.0 | 17.5 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 5,700 | 5,700 | 5,400 |
Payback | Years | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
The gold plant included in the potential expansion scenarios was based of metallurgical testwork results for a specific gold recovery technology. However, other technologies may be applicable for the Pebble deposit. Further, the addition of a gold plant under any scenario will require additional testwork and engineering and will require the receipt of pertinent Federal and State permits prior to implementation.
The onsite gold plant would process the pyrite concentrate in conjunction with the gravity concentrate to produce a precious metal doré. In all but the Year 5 scenario, the gold plant capacity would match the 180,000 tons per day process plant capacity. In the Year 5 scenario, it would match the expanded plant capacity while in the Year 10 and Year 21 scenarios, it would be expanded with the process plant.
Table 1‑15 provides the total metal production from these scenarios.
Table 1‑15: Summary Gold Plant Potential Expansion Scenarios Information
Description | Unit | Proposed Project Year 21 | Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 10 | Year 5 | ||||
Concentrate (LOM) | |||||
Copper | M lb | 6,500 | 61,200 | 61,200 | 61,200 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 7,300 | 50,400 | 50,500 | 50,500 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 37,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 300 | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
Rhenium | k kg | 200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
Gold Plant (LOM) | |||||
Gold (as Doré) | k oz | 1,800 | 14,500 | 14,500 | 14,400 |
Silver (as Doré) | k oz | 2,600 | 22,600 | 22,600 | 22,500 |
Total Production (LOM) | |||||
Gold | k oz | 9,000 | 65,000 | 65,100 | 64,900 |
Silver | k oz | 39,000 | 289,000 | 289,000 | 289,000 |
Pebble Project | Page 50 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 1‑16: Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1
Description | Unit | Proposed Project | Expansion Scenarios | ||||||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||||||
2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
IRR | % | 16.3 | 15.8 | 18.7 | 18.2 | 20.2 | 19.7 | 22.5 | 22.0 |
NPV7 | $million | 2,600 | 2,500 | 6,500 | 6,200 | 8,300 | 7.900 | 9,600 | 9,200 |
Payback | Years | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
Note:
| 1. | Proposed Project and Potential Expansion Scenarios include infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
1.21 Risks and Opportunities
A number of risks and opportunities are identified through the 2022 PEA. This section highlights several of these but is not an exhaustive list nor a summary of those contained in the body of the 2022 PEA.
1.21.1 Opportunities
1.21.1.1 Resource
· | The Pebble property includes a number of opportunities to expand the Mineral Resource estimate through future exploration. The most significant opportunity is obtained in drill hole 6348 which intersected 949 ft with an average grade of 1.24% copper, 0.74 g/t gold and 0.042% molybdenum, or 1.92% CuEq. This drill hole lies east of the ZG1 Fault and follow up drilling of the Cretaceous host rocks to this mineralization has not yet been completed, thereby leaving the extent of this high-grade mineralization unknown. |
|
|
· | Geophysical and geochemical surveys and reconnaissance exploration drilling have identified several targets located well outside the current Pebble resource estimate area that warrant future exploration. |
|
|
· | Elevated levels of palladium, vanadium, titanium, and tellurium have been noted in raw analytical data and in metallurgical studies and represent opportunities to further benefit the economics of the Pebble deposit. |
|
|
1.21.1.2 Mining
The Proposed Project mine plan was developed using conventional mining technology. Three areas which could improve the mining results are:
Pebble Project | Page 51 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Use of trolley-assist haulage: Trolley-assist has been shown to improve cycle times and improve engine life at other mines, both of which would reduce operating costs. To accomplish this, additional capacity would likely be required for the power plant. |
|
|
· | In-pit crushing: While the mine plan for the potential expansion scenarios incorporates in-pit crushing, further evaluation for the Proposed Project as well as extending the in-pit crushing for the potential expansion scenarios may prove beneficial. |
|
|
· | Autonomous operation: Mine operations are increasingly moving to autonomous equipment with remote operations centres. These have seen real benefits, particularly in a remote operation such as envisioned at Pebble. |
1.21.1.3 Processing
· | Flotation: A number of measures have been developed recently which could improve flotation performance at Pebble, including advances in coarse particle flotation. Further analysis of these advances could benefit Pebble. |
|
|
· | Supergene flotation performance: The supergene domains at Pebble would contribute a significant portion of the process plant feed during the first several years of operation. Additional testwork and analysis could determine if alternate strategies could be employed to improve recoveries in these zones. |
|
|
· | Pre-sorting: Pre-sorting techniques have become accepted components of many new process plants. A study is warranted to determine if pre-sorting could enhance Pebble outcomes. |
|
|
· | Gold recovery: Analysis of alternate secondary gold recovery technologies could improve the financial results and enhance the permitting process. |
|
|
· | Molybdenum refinery: The molybdenum concentrate production creates the opportunity to add a molybdenum concentrate refinery to produce a value-added product in Alaska and reduce overall carbon footprint by reduced shipping. |
|
|
· | Concentrate pipeline: Optimization of the concentrate pipeline design could improve costs of the proposed concentrate and water return pipelines. |
1.21.1.4 Infrastructure
· | Water treatment: Further detailed analysis of the influent water quality and water treatment schemes could see reductions in complexity and cost. |
1.21.1.5 Environment
· | Carbon footprint: Evaluation of carbon dioxide capture, and sequestration opportunities could reveal an opportunity to reduce the Project’s carbon emissions. |
Pebble Project | Page 52 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.21.2 Risks
1.21.2.1 Resource
· | Inferred Mineral Resources. The 2022 PEA includes the use of Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized. |
|
|
· | The Mineral resources estimates may ultimately be affected by a broad range of environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-economic, marketing and political factors pertaining to the specific characteristics of the Pebble deposit (including its scale, location, orientation and polymetallic nature) as well as its setting (from a natural, social, jurisdictional and political perspective). |
|
|
· | Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource estimate include: |
| o | changes to the geological, geotechnical and geometallurgical models as a result of additional drilling or new studies; |
|
|
|
| o | the discovery of extensions to known mineralization as a result of additional drilling; |
|
|
|
| o | changes to the Re:Mo correlation coefficients and resultant regression equation due to additional drilling; |
|
|
|
| o | changes to commodity prices resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction; and |
|
|
|
| o | changes to the metallurgical recoveries resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. |
· | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. |
|
|
· | The Mineral Resource estimates contained have not been adjusted for any risk that the required environmental permits may not be obtained for the Project. The uncertainty associated with the ability of the Project to obtain required environmental permits is a risk to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the mineralisation and the classification of the estimate as a Mineral Resource. |
1.21.2.2 Mining
· | Pit wall slopes: The pit wall slope assessments were completed to a prefeasibility level of confidence. Additional field work and analysis are required to confirm these designs for operations. |
1.21.2.3 Process
· | Process recoveries: The metallurgical testwork completed on the Pebble deposit has been extensive but additional work is required to complete a feasibility study and design. |
|
|
· | Deleterious elements: The metallurgical testwork highlighted the low levels of impurity elements in the Project feed materials and correspondingly low deportment to saleable products, and likewise the process plant design incorporated no special treatment steps to manage impurities in the feed. There is a risk that pockets of the Pebble deposit will contain elevated levels of deleterious elements that could report to the concentrates products at levels which could incur penalty charges or adversely influence the saleability of the products. Operational controls could avoid these potential impacts. |
Pebble Project | Page 53 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.21.2.4 Project Execution
· | Weather: Adverse weather conditions and other factors such as pandemics could impact on the construction schedule. |
|
|
· | Labour: The construction schedule and operations performance require deployment of sufficient numbers of adequately trained and experienced personnel. Inability to realize this deployment could impact the construction schedule and operational results. |
1.21.2.5 Tailings and Water Management
· | Tailings structures designs: The tailings and water management pond structures designs have been completed to a preliminary level. Significant additional field data and design are required to prepare these structures for construction. |
|
|
· | Alaska dam permitting: The tailings and water management structures will be subject to an extensive design review and permitting process in Alaska. The process may result in changes to the designs. |
|
|
· | Groundwater: Additional field work and analysis are required to confirm specific design criteria for open pit wall and tailings structures. |
1.21.2.6 Social Issues
· | Land tenure: While the Pebble deposit lies within claims on State land, for which there is an identified path forward to gaining tenure, the transportation corridor crosses land belonging to Native Village Corporations and private individuals and agreements have not been reached with several of these entities. One of the Native Village Corporations has signed an agreement whereby a fund has obtained an option to buy portions of their land to create a conservation easement. The fund must exercise its option by the end of 2022. If the fund closes this agreement with the Native Village Corporation, the Pebble Partnership would be required to identify an alternate route to the proposed marine terminal on Cook Inlet. |
|
|
· | Project opposition: The Project is the subject of significant public opposition in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. |
1.21.2.7 Legal
· | Legal actions. Northern Dynasty is party to several class action legal complaints and Pebble Partnership is subject to a government investigation regarding public statements made regarding the project. While these matters do not directly affect the development of the Project, they could negatively impact Northern Dynasty’s and the Pebble Partnership’s ability to finance the development of the Project or the ability to obtain required permitting. |
|
|
· | EPA. On May 25, 2022, the EPA has announced that it intended to advance its pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Project and proceed with the Revised Proposed Determination. The Revised Proposed Determination would establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project. The Revised Proposed Determination would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction” that encompasses the area of the Pebble Project. The Pebble Partnership believes that there are numerous legal and factual flaws in the Revised Proposed Determination and plans to submit comprehensive comments outlining its objections in response. If finalized, the Revised Proposed Determination would negatively affect the ability of the Pebble Partnership to obtain required permitting and develop the Proposed Project even if the appeal of the 2020 Record of Decision is successful. There is no assurance that any challenge by the Pebble Partnership to the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination will be successful. |
Pebble Project | Page 54 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.21.2.8 Permitting
· | USACE Record of Decision. In November 2020, USACE denied Pebble Partnership’s permit application. That decision is currently under appeal. The Proposed Project cannot proceed unless and until the ROD is overturned and all necessary permits, including the CWA 404 Permit, are obtained. There is no certainty that these permits will be obtained. |
|
|
· | Bristol Bay Forever. Bristol Bay Forever was a public initiative approved by Alaskan voters in November 2014. Based on that initiative, development of the Proposed Project requires legislative approval upon securing all other permits and authorizations. |
1.21.2.9 Financial Results
· | Cost estimates: The cost estimates contained in the 2022 PEA are completed to a preliminary level. Additional analysis and engineering are required to confirm these results. |
|
|
· | Metal prices and realization costs: Metal prices and realization costs are subject to significant fluctuation, particularly over the periods identified for the Proposed Project and potential expansion scenarios. These fluctuations could have a significant impact on the financial results of future studies and the actual results achieved by an operating mine. |
|
|
· | Taxation: The Proposed Project is subject to taxation at three government levels (local, State, and Federal). These tax regimes may change over time, resulting in different results than those identified in the 2022 PEA. |
1.22 Interpretation and Conclusions
The Pebble property hosts a globally significant copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium deposit. The exploration and drilling programs completed thus far are appropriate to the type of the deposit. The exploration, drilling, geological modelling, and research work support the interpreted genesis of the mineralization and the domaining employed in the resource estimation.
The drill database for the Pebble deposit is reliable and sufficient to support the Mineral Resource estimate.
Estimations of mineral resources for the Project conform to industry best practices and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
Pebble Project | Page 55 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Products from mining this deposit, including rhenium, support development of alternative energy supply and other purposes of strategic national significance. The Project would have significant regional economic importance for southwest Alaska and the entire state through the creation of high-wage jobs and training opportunities, supply and service contracts for local businesses, and government revenue.
The results of the 2022 PEA indicate the Pebble project could provide significant economic returns on investment. Further, the potential expansion and gold plant scenarios indicate potential economic upside through the expansion of processing capacity over an extended mine life. Based on the work carried out, this study should be followed by further technical and economic studies leading to an advancement to the next level of development.
1.23 Recommendations
1.23.1 Introduction
A number of actions are recommended to support advancing the Pebble Project should the Pebble Partnership determine further study is warranted.
1.23.2 Resource
1.23.2.1 Updating of Inferred Resource
A Mineral Resource used as the basis for a prefeasibility or feasibility study, as defined by NI 43-101, must be classified as Measured or Indicated. A small portion of the Mineral Resource within the Proposed Project is classified as Inferred and this should be upgraded by infill drilling in order to prepare for a future prefeasibility study or feasibility study.
1.23.2.2 Block Model Update
The block model was recently updated to include rhenium. The model should be further updated as additional data are acquired from drilling to convert Inferred resource to Measured and Indicated and from drilling to collect additional metallurgical information.
1.23.2.3 Drill Hole 6348
Drill hole 6348 offers compelling exploration potential yet is at a depth which has prevented the completion of holes collared to further test the zone. A scoping level study is recommended to determine the optimum methods of drilling to ensure successful completion of follow up holes.
1.23.2.4 Additional Metals
Elevated levels of palladium, vanadium, titanium and tellurium have been noted in raw analytical data and in metallurgical studies. A scoping level program is recommended to determine their potential for inclusion in future resource estimates. Such a study would focus on the deportment and distribution of these metals, as well as the best approach to their quantification.
Pebble Project | Page 56 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.23.2.5 Estimated Resource Update Cost
The estimated cost of the recommended program, including drilling, is $10.2 million.
1.23.3 Mining
The following recommendations for future mining work include:
· | Detailed mining production schedule and designs should be developed with all mining activities to understand potential bottlenecks and assess possible cost reduction from technologies such as in-pit crushing and conveying, autonomous trucking, and blast hole drilling, and |
|
|
· | Detailed geotechnical studies should be conducted to better define the appropriate pit slope angles and design parameters for the pit, stockpiles, and overburden stockpiles. |
|
|
· | The estimated cost to complete the recommended work is $8.1 million, including drilling additional geotechnical investigation holes. |
1.23.4 Metallurgy and Processing
1.23.4.1 Metallurgy Testwork
Future testwork is required to provide additional data to define silver recovery to the copper concentrate, rhenium recovery to the molybdenum concentrate, and precious metals to the gravity concentrate.
Additional analysis and circuit optimization are recommended for treatment of supergene material. This should include collection of additional metallurgical samples from drilling these specific metallurgical domains.
Complete an initial assessment of potential treatment methods of molybdenum concentrates to optimize the value of molybdenum and rhenium.
1.23.4.2 Grinding Circuit SAG Mill Size
Continued analysis is recommended to determine the optimum grinding circuit configuration
1.23.4.3 Flotation Circuit Optimization
Coarse particle and column or other means of flotation should be evaluated.
1.23.4.4 Estimated Metallurgical Program Cost
The estimated cost to complete the recommended metallurgical program, including sample collection, is $8.5 million.
Pebble Project | Page 57 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
1.23.4.5 Infrastructure
1.23.4.6 Process Plant and Infrastructure Location
Additional studies are necessary to finalize the location of the process plant and related infrastructure. An investigation of the soil conditions should be performed in order to simplify the design of the mill building and major equipment foundations.
The estimated cost of this program is $1 million.
1.23.4.7 Access Road
Further alignment information, geotechnical detail and aggregate sourcing data will be required to support access road design.
The main access and secondary road alignments and designs need to be refined to better determine issues and costs. Considerations include:
· | Right of way and other permit constraints, if any; |
|
|
· | Optimizing the road corridor; |
|
|
· | Road horizontal and vertical alignments, cross-section designs and corresponding earth quantities; |
|
|
· | Design requirements for frost-susceptible, wet rock areas; and |
|
|
· | Concept level bridge general arrangement and profile designs taking into account geotechnical information. |
The estimated cost to complete this work is approximately $3.5 million.
1.23.5 Tailings and Waste Disposal
Recommendations require the following be completed to support the advancement of the Pebble Project permitting case tailings and water management:
· | Preparation of a detailed material balance, which includes quantities and timing for construction and closure materials (overburden/growth medium, quarried rock, PAG rock). |
|
|
· | Preparation of a detailed construction execution plan to support the initial construction planning. Complete additional geotechnical investigations to support prefeasibility level TSF and water management designs, such as: |
| o | Geotechnical infill drilling and sampling in overburden soils and rock; |
|
|
|
| o | Hydrogeological testing of soil and rock; |
|
|
|
| o | Test pitting to characterize the surficial geology; |
|
|
|
| o | Delineation of construction materials and local borrow areas; |
|
|
|
| o | Additional investigations to confirm the bedrock surface below embankment structures: and |
|
|
|
| o | Laboratory testing of samples collected in the field. |
Pebble Project | Page 58 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Tailings testwork and tailings consolidation modelling for both TSFs. |
|
|
· | Revise and update the mine plan, watershed and groundwater models as appropriate during future studies. |
|
|
· | Initiate Alaska Dam Safety Program and engage the Independent Review Panel. |
The estimated cost to complete this program, including sample collection, is $15 million.
Pebble Project | Page 59 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Introduction
Ausenco Engineering Canada (Ausenco) prepared this Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) Technical Report (the 2022 PEA) on the Pebble Project (the Project) in Alaska (Figure 2‑1), on behalf of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (Northern Dynasty).
Figure 2‑1: Project Location Plan
Note: Figure prepared by Northern Dynasty. Operating mines and late-stage development projects shown on the figure are held/operated by third parties and not by Northern Dynasty.
Pebble Project | Page 60 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Northern Dynasty holds the Project indirectly through its wholly-owned subsidiary the Pebble Partnership, which in turn indirectly wholly-owns the subsidiaries Pebble East Claims Corporation and Pebble West Claims Corporation.
2.2 Terms of Reference
This report updates a PEA for the Project issued in 2021 (the 2021 PEA) to disclose revised financial analysis based on a Royalty Agreement signed by Northern Dynasty on July 26, 2022. The Royalty Agreement was announced by Northern Dynasty in a news release on July 27, 2022 and is available at sedar.com. The 2022 PEA also provides an update on the permitting status of the Project. Pebble Partnership dropped a number of claims in late 2021 and the 2022 PEA incorporates the revised claim boundary, claim area, and annual fees.
The 2021 PEA was in turn an update to a Technical Report prepared for the Pebble Project in 2011 (the 2011 PEA) that has since been determined to be outdated, and the Proposed Project discussed therein has been superseded by the Project Description that the Pebble Partnership submitted for permitting in December 2017. This application triggered the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a process led by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Project Description was updated several times during the NEPA process, and that which is described in this 2021 PEA corresponds to the version submitted with the Revised Project Application in June 2020 and is attached to USACE Final EIS (FEIS) dated July 2020.
During the NEPA process, Pebble Partnership received a Request for Information (RFI) from USACE requesting a description of a concept for an expanded Project. The response to this RFI is included in the EIS Administrative Record. No engineering was done at the time, but the 2022 PEA does contain, as a potential expansion scenario, an analysis of that concept along with indicative costs and financial results. Two additional scenarios, with different expansion dates and expanded throughput rates, are also analyzed as potential expansion scenarios.
The Report currency is the United States (US) dollar (US$ or $). The Report uses US customary units unless otherwise specified. The Pebble Partnership uses the US State Plane Coordinate System (as Alaska 5005) as the preferred grid, measured in feet (ft).
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves are reported in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 2014; the 2014 CIM Definition Standards). Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves were estimated in accordance with the 2019 CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (November 2019; the 2019 Best Practice Guidelines).
2.3 Sources of Information and Data
Reports and documents listed in Section 3 and Section 27 of this Report were used to support preparation of the Report. Additional information was provided by Northern Dynasty personnel as requested. Supplemental information was also provided to the QPs by third-party consultants retained by Northern Dynasty in their areas of expertise.
2.4 Qualified Persons
The following serve as the qualified persons (QPs) for this Technical Report as defined in National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and in compliance with Form 43-101F1:
Pebble Project | Page 61 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 2‑1: Qualified Persons
Qualified Person | Professional Designation | Position | Employer | Independent of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. | Report Sections |
Robin Kalanchey | P.Eng. | Vice President, Transportation and Logistics | Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc | Yes | 1.14, 1.18, 1.20-1.23, 2.5, 12, 17, 18.8, 18.9, 21.1-21.3, 24.1, 24.2, 25.8, 25.12, 25.14 25.15, 26.4, 26.5 and 27 |
Hassan Ghaffari | P.Eng. | Director of Metallurgy | Tetra Tech Canada Inc. | Yes | 1.11, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 13.1-13.10, 25.15, 25.5, 26.4, and 27 |
Sabry Abdel Hafez | P.Eng. | Senior Mining Engineer | Tetra Tech Canada Inc. | Yes | 1.13, 1.18, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 15, 16, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3.4, 24.1.7, 24.2, 25.7, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 26.3 and 27 |
Les Galbraith | P.E. | Specialist Engineer/Associate | Knight Piésold Ltd. | Yes | 1.15, 1.18, 1.21, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 18.3, 18.4, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3.5, 24.1.8, 24.2, 25.9, 25.15, 26.5.3 and 27 |
J. David Gaunt | P.Geo. | Professional Geologist | Hunter Dickinson Services Inc. | No | 1.8, 1.12, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 6.3, 6.5, 12, 14, 25.6, 25.15, 26.2 and 27 |
Eric Titley | P.Geo. | Senior Manager, Resource Geology | Hunter Dickinson Services Inc. | No | 1.8, 1.10, 1.22, 2.5, 6.2, 10, 11,12, 25.4 and 27 |
Stephen Hodgson | P.Eng. | Executive Vice President, Engineering | Hunter Dickinson Services Inc. | No | 1.1-1.6, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18,1.19, 1.20-1.23, 2.1-2.8, 3.1-3.4, 4, 5, 6.4, 12, 18.1, 18.2, 18.5-18.7, 18.9, 19, 20, 21.1-21.3, 22, 24.1, 24.2, 25.1, 25.2, 25.9-25.15, 26.1, 26.5 and 27 |
James Lang | P.Geo. | Principal | J M Lang Professional Consulting Inc. | No | 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 1.22, 2.5, 6.1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13.9, 23, 25.3, 25.4 and 27 |
2.5 Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
QP Robin Kalanchey has not visited the Pebble site but has relied on the information provided in site visit reports as produced by Mr. Paul Staples, P.Eng., of Ausenco, who visited the site previously and during such visit observed the mine site, the site of the proposed marine terminal, and the data collection activities taking place at the time of the visit.
QP Hassan Ghaffari visited the Pebble site on September 1 and 2, 2010. The reasons for that visit were to witness the drilling program, then underway, to collect metallurgical samples, inspect core storage, and observe the Project site, including the proposed areas for the crushers and processing plant. The site visit included investigation of the possible infrastructure locations at the proposed mine and marine terminal sites and interacting with the site geology team.
QP Sabry Abdel Hafez visited the site on December 10, 2013, to inspect potential open pit, waste dump, stockpile, and pit access road locations.
Pebble Project | Page 62 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
QP Les Galbraith most recently visited the site on June 26, 2013, to witness the geotechnical site investigation program being completed by Knight Piésold at this time and complete a visual reconnaissance of potential infrastructure locations. Previous site visits by Les Galbraith were completed in 2012, 2009, and 2006 to witness geotechnical site investigations being completed by Knight Piésold.
QP David Gaunt has made multiple visits to the Project at Iliamna, AK since his involvement in the Project starting in 2001. The most recent visit made by QP Gaunt was completed on September 1 and 2, 2010. During this visit a review of drill core logging and sampling was conducted. Also at this time, QP Gaunt extensively consulted with project geologists regarding their interpretation of geological units, structure and alteration as it relates to domaining of the Pebble deposit for estimation. These visits ensure that the most accurate geological model was incorporated into the mineral resource estimate.
QP Eric Titley most recently visited the Pebble Project site at Iliamna, AK on September 20 and 21, 2011, to review drill core logging, sampling, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) and core storage procedures with geological and technical staff there. QP Titley was accompanied on this visit by a representative of Nicholson Analytical Consultants (NAC). The visit also included a tour of the Fairbanks, AK sample preparation laboratory of ALS Minerals (ALS) and the long-term storage facility for assay rejects at Delta Junction, AK on 19 September 2011. QP Eric Titley previously conducted site visits to the Iliamna site and these same facilities on August 25 to 27, 2008, with NAC, and with Analytical Laboratory Consultants (ALC) from May 29 to 31, 2007. In 2007, the visit also included visits to active drill rigs in the field. In separate visits, QP Titley and NAC (2008, 2011), and ALC (2007), visited the ALS assay laboratory in North Vancouver, BC, while drill core samples from the Pebble Project were being analyzed. These visits provide assurance that appropriate procedures were followed at these facilities.
QP Stephen Hodgson most recently visited the site on October 17 and 18, 2019. One of the reasons for that visit was to witness the hydro-geological drilling program underway at the time. QP Hodgson first visited the site in 1991 and has visited multiple times since joining the Northern Dynasty team in 2005. These trips included reconnaissance of possible site infrastructure sites and transportation corridors, interacting with the site teams supervising the various drill programs, and meeting with local residents.
QP James Lang was physically present at the Project area every year from 2003 through 2019, for a total of approximately 650 days. His most recent visit was in September 2019. From 2003 until March 2007, he was geological consultant to the Pebble Project and completed numerous studies on the geological characteristics of the Project. From March 2007 through 2010 he was resident Chief Geologist for the Project, and until March 2021 continued to function as Chief Geologist. Since March 2021, QP Lang has assumed the role of consulting Chief Geologist for the Project. During these years of involvement with the Project, QP Lang either personally acquired, supervised the acquisition of, or validated historical geological and related data on the Project. As a consequence, he is familiar with the geology, topography, physical features, access, location and infrastructure of the Project.
2.6 Effective Dates
There are a number of effective dates pertinent to the Report, as follows:
· | Effective date of the latest information on environmental and permitting matters: October 1, 2022; |
|
|
· | Drill hole database close-out date: August 18, 2020; |
|
|
· | Effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate August 18, 2020; and |
|
|
· | Effective date of the economic analysis that supports the PEA: October 1, 2022. |
The overall Report effective date is taken to be the date of the economic analysis that supports the 2022 PEA and is October 1, 2022.
Pebble Project | Page 63 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
2.7 Previous Technical Reports
Table 2‑2: Previous Technical Reports
Name Description | Effective Date |
Technical Report (43-101) | May 14, 2003 |
Technical Report (43-101) | February 20, 2004 |
Technical Report (43-101) | May 31, 2004 |
Technical Report (43-101) | November 3, 2004 |
Technical Report (43-101) | March 31, 2005 |
Technical Report (43-101) | April 1, 2005 |
Technical Report (43-101) | March 9, 2006 |
Technical Report (43-101) | March 31, 2007 |
Technical Report (43-101) | April 5, 2007 |
Technical Report (43-101) | February 25, 2008 |
Technical Report (43-101) | December 1, 2008 |
Technical Report (43-101) | December 31, 2009 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | February 15, 2011 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | December 31, 2014 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | December 22, 2017 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | August 18, 2020 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | February 24, 2021 |
Technical Report (NI 43-101) | September 9, 2021 |
Pebble Project | Page 64 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
2.8 Abbreviations
Table 2‑3: Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation or Acronym | Description |
(NH4)2 MoO4 | Ammonium molybdate |
3D | Three dimensional |
3DM | Three-Dimensional Model |
AAS | Atomic absorption spectroscopy |
Acme | Acme Analytical Laboratories |
ADEC | Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation |
ADFG | Alaska Department of Fish and Game |
ADL | Alaska Department of Lands |
ADNR | Alaska Department of Natural Resources |
ADOT & PF | Alaska Department of Transport & Public Facilities |
Ag | Silver |
ALC | Analytical Laboratory Consultants |
ALS Fairbanks | ALS Minerlas in Fairbanks |
ALS Vancouver | ALS Minerals in North Vancouver |
amsl | Above mean sea level |
AP | Acid Potential |
APC | Alaska Peninsula Corporation |
AR | Aqua Regia (HNO3-HCl) |
ARD | Acid Rock Drainage |
Au | Gold |
AVR | Acidification, volatilization, and re-neutralization |
AWC | Anadromous Waters Catalog |
BDF | Brittle-ductile fault |
BVCCL | Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd. |
BWi | Ball Mill Work Index |
CERL | Cominco Exploration Research Laboratory |
CIL | Carbon-In-Leach |
CIM | Canadian Institute of Mining Metallurgy and Petroleum |
CMP | Compensatory Mitigation Plan |
Cu | Copper |
CWA | Clean Water Act |
DEM | Digital Elevation Model |
DGPS | Differential global positioning system |
DWi | Drop weight index |
Pebble Project | Page 65 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Abbreviation or Acronym | Description |
EBD | Environmental Baseline Document |
EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
EM | Electromagnetic |
EPA | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
FA | Fire Assay |
FEIS | Final Environmental Impact Statement |
G&T | G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. |
Ga | Billion years |
GMMUSA | Full Metal Minerals USA Inc. |
GPS | Global Positioning System |
GRG | Gravity recoverable gold |
HAZOP | Hazard and Operability Analysis |
HSE | Health, safety and environment |
HSEC | Health, Safety, Environment, and Community |
ICP-AES | Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy |
ICP-MS | Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry |
INL | Iliamna Natives Limited |
IP | Induced Polarization geophysics |
ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
IX | Ion Exchange |
KC | Kaskanak Creek |
LEDPA | Least Environmentally Destructive Practicable Alternative |
MA | Mass in air |
Ma | Millions of years |
MAP | Molybdenum Autoclave Process |
MIBC | Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol |
ML | Metal Leaching |
Mo | Molybdenum |
MoO3 | Molybdenum Trioxide |
MPA | Maximum potential acidity |
NAC | Nicholson Analytical Consultants |
NaHS | Sodium Hydrosulfide |
NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
NFK | North Fork Koktuli |
NI 43-101 | National Instrument 43-101 |
NP | Neutralizing Potential |
NPR | Neutralization potential ratio |
Pebble Project | Page 66 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Abbreviation or Acronym | Description |
NQV and SQV | Northern and Southern quartz vein domains |
PAG | Potentially acid generating |
PEA | Preliminary Economic Assessment |
PEP | Project Execution Plan |
PEX | Potassium Ethyl Xanthate |
PLS | Pregnant Leach Solution |
PRA | Process Research Associates Ltd. |
QA/QC | Quality Control/Quality Assurance |
QEMSCAN | Quantitative evaluation of materials by scanning electron microscopy |
QP | Qualified Person |
QSP | Quartz Sericite Pyrite |
Re | Rhenium |
RFA | Request for Appeal |
RFI | Request for Information |
RHA | Rivers and Harbors Act |
ROD | Record of Decision |
ROM | Run of Mine |
RTK | Real Time Kinematic |
RWi | Rod Mill Work Index |
SAG | Semi-autogenous grinding |
SART | Sulphidize, acidify, recycle and thicken |
SEBD | Supplemental environmental baseline |
SEX | Sodium Ethyl Xanthate |
SFK | South Fork Koktuli |
SGS | SGS Mineral Services |
SMC | SAG Mill Comminution |
SX | Solvent Extraction |
TDS | Total dissolved solids |
TSF | Tailings Storage Facility |
Teck | Teck Resources Limited |
The LLC | Kaskanak Copper Limited Liability Company |
USACE | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
USGS | United States Geological Survey |
UTC | Upper Talarik Creek |
VWP | Vibrating wire piezometer |
WMP | Water Management Pond |
WTP | Water Treatment Plant |
XRF | X-ray Fluorescence |
Zonge Engineering | Zonge Engineering and Research Organization Inc. |
Pebble Project | Page 67 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 2‑4: Unit Abbreviations
Unit of Measurement | Description |
% | percent |
(‘) | minute (plane angle) |
“ | second (plane angle) |
< | less than |
> | greater than |
° | degree |
°C
| degrees Celsius
|
°F | degrees Fahrenheit |
µm | micron |
A | ampere |
a | annum (year) |
ac | acre |
B | Billion |
CFM | cubic feet per minute |
cm | centimetre |
cm2 | square centimetre |
cm3 | cubic centimetre |
d | day |
d/a | days per year (annum) |
d/wk | days per week |
ft | feet |
ft2 | square foot |
ft3 | cubic foot |
ft3/s | cubic feet per second |
g | gram |
g/cm3 | grams per cubic centimetre |
g/L | grams per litre |
g/t | grams per tonne |
GPM | US gallons per minute |
h | hour |
h/a | hours per year |
h/d | hours per day |
Pebble Project | Page 68 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Abbreviation or Acronym | Description |
h/w | hours per week |
ha | hectare (10,000 m2) |
hp | horsepower |
in | Inch |
in2 | square inch |
in3 | cubic inch |
k | one thousand |
k kg | one thousand kilograms |
kg | kilogram |
kg/h | kilograms per hour |
kg/m2 | kilograms per square metre |
km | kilometre |
km/h | kilometres per hour |
km2 | square kilometre |
kPa | Kilopascal |
kt | thousand metric tonnes |
kV | kilovolt |
kW | kilowatt |
kWh | kilowatt hour |
kWh/a | kilowatt hours per year |
kWh/t | kilowatt hours per tonne (metric tonne) |
L | litres |
L/m | litres per minute |
lb | pounds |
lb/ton | pounds per short ton |
m | metres |
M | million |
m2 | square metre |
m3 | cubic metre |
masl | metres above sea level |
mg | milligram |
mg/l | milligrams per litre |
mi | mile |
min | minute (time) |
mL | millilitre |
mm | millimetre |
mo. | month |
Pebble Project | Page 69 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Abbreviation or Acronym | Description |
Mt | Million metric tonnes |
MW | megawatt |
MWh | megawatt hour |
oz | ounce |
ppb | parts per billion |
ppm | parts per million |
psi | pounds per square inch |
rpm | revolutions per minute |
s | second (time) |
t | metric tonnes (1,000 kg) |
ton | short tons ( 2,000 lb) |
USG | US gallons |
V | volt |
wk | week |
Pebble Project | Page 70 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
3.1 Introduction
The QPs have relied upon the following other expert reports, which provided information regarding mineral rights, surface rights, property agreements, royalties, taxation, and marketing sections of this Report.
3.2 Mineral Tenure
The QPs have not independently reviewed ownership of the Project area and any underlying property agreements, mineral tenure, surface rights, or royalties. The QPs have fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information derived from Northern Dynasty for this information through the following document:
Thomas, T., 2022: Letter to Stephen Hodgson and David Gaunt“Re: NI 43-101 Technical Report on Preliminary Economic Assessment, Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA (the “Report”)” dated October 11, 2022, that provides the reliance; prepared for Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng., and David Gaunt, P.Geo.
This information is used in Section 4 of the Report. It is also used in Section 14 in support of the Mineral Resource estimates and in Section 22 in support of the economic analysis that supports the 2022 PEA.
3.3 Environmental, Permitting, Closure, and Social and Community Impacts
The QPs have fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information supplied by former staff and experts retained by Northern Dynasty for information related to environmental (including tailings and water management) and social and community impacts as follows:
Ford, L. 2021: Memo entitled, “Review of Draft 43-101 Technical Report” dated October 12, 2022, 1 page that provides the reliance; prepared for Pebble Limited Partnership, copied to Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng. and David Gaunt, P.Geo.
Magee, S., 2022: Letter to Stephen Hodgson entitled,“Re: NI 43-101 Technical Report on Preliminary Economic Assessment, Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA (the “Report”) dated October 11, 2022, that provides the reliance; prepared for Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng.
This information is used in Section 20 of the Report. It is also used in Section 14 in support of the Mineral Resource estimates and in Section 22 in support of the economic analysis that supports the 2022 PEA.
3.4 Taxation
The QPs have fully relied upon, and disclaim responsibility for, information supplied by staff and experts retained by Northern Dynasty for information related to taxation as applied to the financial model as follows:
Peters, Mark, 2021: Letter to Stephen Hodgson entitled, “NI 43-101 Technical Report on Preliminary Economic Assessment, Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA (the “Report”), dated October 11, 2021, that provides the reliance for Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng.
This information is used in Sections 22 and 24 of the 2022 PEA.
Pebble Project | Page 71 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 Introduction
The Pebble Project is located in southwest Alaska, approximately 200 mi southwest of Anchorage, 17 mi northwest of the village of Iliamna, 100 mi northeast of Bristol Bay, and approximately 60 mi west of Cook Inlet.
The Project is centred, approximately, at latitude 59°53′54" N and longitude 155°17′44" W and is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps Iliamna D6 and D7, in Townships 2–5 South, Ranges 33–38 West, Seward Meridian.
4.2 Mineral Tenure
Northern Dynasty holds indirectly through Pebble East Claims Corporation and Pebble West Claims Corporation, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the wholly-owned Pebble Partnership, a 100% interest in a contiguous block of 1,840 administratively active mining claims and leasehold locations covering approximately 274 mi2 (which includes the Pebble deposit).
State mineral claims in Alaska are kept in good standing by performing annual assessment work or in lieu of assessment work by paying $100 per year per 40 acre (0.06 mi2) mineral claim, and by paying annual escalating State rental fees each year. Assessment work is due annually by noon of September 1. However, credit for excess assessment work can be banked for a maximum of four years after work is performed and can be applied as necessary to continue to hold the claims in good standing. The Project claims have a variable amount of assessment work credit available that can be applied in this way. Annual assessment work obligations for the Project total US$442,900 and are due each year on September 1. The 2022 annual Affidavit of Labor on the claims was registered with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) on August 18, 2022. Annual State rentals for 2022 are approximately US$912,260 and are payable no later than 90 days after the assessment work is due (approximately December 1).
The details of the administratively active mining claims and leasehold locations are provided in Appendix A (ADL refers to the Alaska Department of Lands).
The claim boundaries have not been surveyed.
4.3 Royalty and Other Agreements
On July 27, 2022, Northern Dynasty announced that the Pebble Partnership, together with certain other wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pebble Partnership, had entered into an agreement (the “Royalty Agreement”) with an investor (the “Royalty Holder”) to receive up to US$60 million over the next two years, in return for the right to receive a portion of the future gold and silver production from the proposed Pebble Project for the life of the mine. The Pebble Partnership received an initial payment of US$12 million from the Royalty Holder concurrently with execution of the Royalty Agreement and granted the option to the Royalty Holder to increase its investment to $60 million, in aggregate. The Pebble Partnership retained the right to 100% of the copper production from the Pebble Project.
Pebble Project | Page 72 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Per the terms of the Royalty Agreement, the Royalty Holder made the initial payment of US$12 million in exchange for the right to receive 2% of the payable gold production and 6% of the payable silver production from the Pebble Project, in each case after accounting for a notional payment by the Royalty Holder of US$1,500 per ounce of gold and US$10 per ounce of silver, respectively, for the life of the mine. If, in the future, spot prices exceed US$4,000 per ounce of gold or US$50 per ounce of silver, then the Pebble Partnership will share in 20% of the excess price for either metal. Additionally, the Pebble Partnership will retain a portion of the metal produced for recovery rates in excess of 60% for gold and 65% for silver, and so is incentivized to continually improve operations over the life of the mine. Within two years of the date of the Royalty Agreement, the Royalty Holder has the right to invest additional funds, in US$12 million increments for the right to receive additional increments of 2% of gold production and 6% silver production, to an aggregate total of US$60 million, in return for the right to receive 10% of the payable gold and 30% of the payable silver (in each case, in the aggregate) on the same terms as the first tranche of the investment. The Royalty Holder is under no obligation to invest additional amounts to increase its interest in the gold and silver production in the Pebble Project.
The Pebble Partnership has also granted to the Royalty Holder a right of first refusal in respect of the sale of any gold or silver production from the Pebble Project pursuant to a streaming, royalty or other similar transaction in exchange for an upfront payment. The Royalty Holder has granted to the Pebble Partnership a right of first refusal should it propose to sell any of its rights under the Royalty Agreement.
Subject to certain conditions, the Royalty Agreement does not restrict Northern Dynasty’s ability to form partnerships to assist in the development of the Proposed Project, for example (but not restricted to) other mining companies or Alaska Native Corporations.
Teck Resources Limited (Teck) holds a 4% pre-payback net profits interest (after debt service), followed by a 5% after-payback net profits interest in any mine production from the Exploration Lands, which are shown in Figure 4‑1 and further described in Section 6 History.
In June 2020, the Pebble Partnership established the Pebble Performance Dividend LLP to distribute a 3% net profits royalty interest in the Pebble Project to adult residents of Bristol Bay villages that have subscribed as participants. The Pebble Performance Dividend will distribute a guaranteed minimum annual payment of US$3 million each year the Pebble mine operates, beginning at the outset of Project construction.
Pebble Project | Page 73 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 4‑1: Mineral Claim Map with Exploration Lands and Resource Lands
Note: Figure prepared by Northern Dynasty, 2021.
Pebble Project | Page 74 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
4.4 Surface Rights
Northern Dynasty currently does not own any surface rights associated with the mineral claims that comprise the Pebble property. All lands are held by the State of Alaska, and surface rights may be acquired from the State government once areas required for mine development have been determined and permits awarded.
The access corridor is owned by a number of landowners, including the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Village Corporations, and private individuals. Pebble Partnership has completed access agreements with two Native Village Corporations and a private individual. Negotiations have advanced with other Native Village Corporations and individuals, but no agreements are in place. In June 2021, one of the Native Village Corporations announced they had signed an agreement whereby a fund has obtained an option to buy portions of their land to create a conservation easement. The fund must exercise its option by the end of 2022. If the fund closes this agreement with the Native Village Corporation, the Pebble Partnership would be required to identify an alternate route to the proposed marine terminal on Cook Inlet.
4.5 Environmental Liabilities
The Pebble Partnership currently maintains 471 monitoring wells that are periodically used to collect piezometric and water quality data across the project area. The Pebble Partnership did retain a small year-round field facility and two satellite facilities at the deposit site to store materials and equipment used to support maintenance activities. However, most of these facilities were destroyed in a regional tundra fire that swept through the deposit area during the summer of 2022. The Pebble Partnership removed most of the damaged material from the fire aftermath in September 2022 and will complete this clean up in 2023. The environmental liabilities associated with the Pebble Project include completion of the fire cleanup, removal of any additional remaining temporary structures and field equipment, closure of monitoring wells, and removal of piezometers. The State of Alaska holds a $2 million reclamation security associated with removal and reclamation of these liabilities.
4.6 Permits
Permits necessary for exploration drilling and other field programs associated with pre-development assessment of the Pebble Project are applied for as required each year. Additional information on permitting is provided in Section 20.6 Permitting Considerations. Of note in Section 20.6 is the Record of Decision (ROD) by USACE to deny Pebble Partnership’s CWA 404 permit application. That denial is currently under appeal.
4.7 Comments on Section 4
On September 9, 2021, the EPA announced it planned to re-initiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay (the "Revised Proposed Determination"). On May 25, 2022, the EPA published the Revised Proposed Determination that would, if effective, establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project. The Revised Proposed Determination would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction” that encompasses the area of the Pebble Project. If effective, the Proposed Project could not proceed. The Pebble Partnership plans to challenge the Revised Proposed Determination but there is no assurance that its challenge will be successful.
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the Project that have not been discussed in this Report.
Pebble Project | Page 75 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 Accessibility
The Pebble property is located in southwest Alaska (Figure 5‑1), approximately 200 miles southwest of Anchorage, 65 miles west of Cook Inlet, and 16 miles northwest of the airport serving the villages of Iliamna and Newhalen. The map shows a proposed infrastructure corridor for the Project, as further described as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in the FEIS and in Section 18 of this Report.
Figure 5‑1: Property Location and Access Map
Note: Prepared by Northern Dynasty, 2021.
Access to the Project is typically via air from the city of Anchorage to the airport serving the villages of Iliamna and Newhalen. With approximately 300,000 residents, Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska. It is situated at the northeastern end of Cook Inlet and is connected to the national road network via Interstate Highway 1 through Canada to the USA. Anchorage is serviced daily by numerous regularly scheduled flights to major airport hubs in the USA.
Pebble Project | Page 76 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
From Anchorage, there are regular flights to Iliamna through Iliamna Air Taxi and other operators. Charter flights may also be arranged from Anchorage. From Iliamna, current access to the Pebble Site is by helicopter.
5.2 Climate
The climate of the Project area is transitional; it is more continental in winter because of frozen water bodies and more maritime in summer because of the influence of the open water of Iliamna Lake and, to a lesser extent, the Bering Sea and Cook Inlet. Mean monthly temperatures in the deposit area range from about 11.4 °F in January to 50.8 °F in July (at the Pebble 1 meteorological station). The mean annual precipitation in the deposit area is estimated to be 54.6 inches (at the Pebble 1 meteorological station). About one-third of this precipitation falls as snow. The wettest months are August through October.
The climate is sufficiently moderate to allow a well-planned mineral exploration program could be conducted year-round (Rebagliati, C.M., and Haslinger, R.J., 2003) at Pebble, although the programs were typically restricted over the winter because of the shorter daylight and weather conditions. The Pebble Project will operate year-round, although transportation operations may experience short-term weather-related delays.
5.3 Infrastructure
There is a modern airfield at Iliamna, with two paved 4,920 ft airstrips, that services the communities of Iliamna and Newhalen. The runways are suitable for DC-6 and Hercules cargo aircraft and for commercial jet aircraft.
There are paved roads that connect the villages of Iliamna and Newhalen to the airport and to each other and a partly paved, partly gravel road that extends to a proposed Newhalen River crossing near Nondalton. The Pebble Site is currently not connected to any of these local communities by road; a road would be planned as part of the project design.
There is no access road that connects the communities nearest the Pebble Site to the coast on Cook Inlet. From the coast, at Williamsport on Iliamna Bay, there is an 18.6-mile State-maintained road that terminates at the east end of Iliamna Lake, where watercraft and transport barges may be used to access Iliamna. The route from Williamsport, over land to Pile Bay on Iliamna Lake, is currently used to transport bulk fuel, equipment and supplies to communities around the lake during the summer months.
Also, during summer, supplies have been barged up the Kvichak River, approximately 43.4 mi southwest of Iliamna, from Kvichak Bay on the North Pacific Ocean.
A small run-of-river hydroelectric installation on the nearby Tazamina River provides power for the three communities in the summer months. Supplemental power generation using diesel generators is required during winter months.
5.4 Local Resources
Iliamna and surrounding communities have a combined population of just over 400 people. As such, there is limited local commercial infrastructure except that which services seasonal sports fishing and hunting.
Section 18 discusses the availability of power, water, mining personnel, and planned locations for key infrastructure for the project that is envisaged in the 2022 PEA.
Pebble Project | Page 77 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
5.5 Physiography
The Pebble Site area is located in the Nushagak-Big River Hills physiographic region. The area consists of low, rolling hills separated by wide, shallow valleys. Elevations range from approximately 775 ft in the South Fork Koktuli (SFK) valley up to 2,760 ft on Kaskanak Mountain. Glacial and fluvial sediment of varying thickness covers most of the study area at elevations below approximately 1,400 ft, whereas the ridges and hills above 1,400 ft generally exhibit exposed bedrock or have thin veneers of surficial material. The hills tend to be moderately sloped with rounded tops. The valley bottoms are generally flat. No permafrost has been identified to date in the Project area.
Pebble Project | Page 78 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
6 HISTORY
6.1 Overview
Cominco Alaska, a division of Cominco Ltd., now Teck, began reconnaissance exploration in the Pebble region in the mid-1980s and in 1984 discovered the Sharp Mountain gold prospect near the southern margin of the current property. Gold was discovered in drusy quartz veins of probable Tertiary age near the peak of Sharp Mountain (anonymous Teck report, 1984). Grab samples of veins in talus ranged from 0.045 oz/ton Au to 9.32 oz/ton Au and 3.0 oz/ton Ag. No record of further work is available, but similar quartz veins were encountered in 2004 during surface mapping of the Project area conducted by Northern Dynasty. Most of these veins trend north-south and dip steeply.
Teck staked their first mineral claims on the Property during reconnaissance mapping and sampling programs in the Cone and Sharp Mountain areas in August and September 1984. In November 1987, Teck staked claims on the newly discovered Sill and Pebble prospects and added claims to these two areas in July 1988. Further staking by Teck took place in the Pebble deposit area in July 1989 and in the broader Pebble Site area in January and June through September 1991 (St. George et al, 1992). This staking, along with additional claims added in the 1990s, led to the formation of a large continuous claim group. Teck held these claims until the transactions in October 2001 when Northern Dynasty acquired its interest in the property.
In 1987, examination and sampling of several prominent limonitic and hematitic alteration zones yielded anomalous gold concentrations from the Sill prospect, which was recognized as a precious-metal, epithermal-vein occurrence, and from outcrops over and surrounding what later became the Pebble area, but which at that time was of uncertain affinity. These discoveries were followed by several years of exploration including soil sampling, geophysical surveys and core drilling.
Teck conducted geophysical surveys on the Pebble Site between 1988 and 1997. The surveys were dipole-dipole induced polarization (IP) surveys for a total of 122 line-km and were completed by Zonge Geosciences. This work defined a chargeability anomaly about 31.1 mi2 in extent within Cretaceous age rocks which surround the eastern to southern margins of the Kaskanak batholith. The anomaly measures about 13 mi north-south and up to 6.3 mi east-west; the western margin of the anomaly overlaps the contact of the Kaskanak batholith, whereas to the east the anomaly is masked by Late Cretaceous to Eocene cover sequences. The broader anomaly was found to contain 11 distinct centres with stronger chargeability, many of which were later demonstrated to be coincident with extensive copper, gold and molybdenum soil geochemical anomalies. All known zones of mineralization of Cretaceous age on the Pebble property occur within the broad IP anomaly.
Core drilling was first conducted on the property during the 1988 exploration program which included 24 core drill holes at the Sill epithermal gold prospect, soil sampling, geological mapping, two core drill holes at the Pebble target and three holes totalling 893 ft on a target (later named the 25 Gold Zone by Northern Dynasty) located 3.7 mi south of the Pebble target.
Drilling at the Sill prospect intersected mineralization with gold grades that justified further exploration, but the initial Pebble drill holes yielded only modest encouragement (Table 6‑1). In 1989, an expanded soil sampling program, the initial stages of the IP surveys described above and nine core drill holes were completed at the Pebble target, 15 core drill holes were completed at the Sill prospect, and three core drill holes were completed elsewhere on the property (Table 6‑2). Although limited in scope, the IP survey at Pebble displayed response characteristics of a large porphyry copper system. Subsequent drilling by Teck intersected significant intervals of porphyry-style gold, copper and molybdenum mineralization, validating this interpretation.
Pebble Project | Page 79 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 6‑1: Teck Drilling on the Sill Prospect to the End of 1997
Year | No. of Drill Holes | Feet | Metres |
1988 | 24 | 7,048 | 2,148 |
1989 | 15 | 3,398 | 1,036 |
Total | 39 | 10,446 | 3,184 |
Table 6‑2: Teck Drilling on the Pebble Deposit to the End of 1997
Year | No. of Drill Holes | Feet | Metres |
1988 | 2 | 554 | 169 |
1989 | 9 | 3,131 | 954 |
1990 | 25 | 10,021 | 3,054 |
1991 | 48 | 28,129 | 8,574 |
1992 | 14 | 6,609 | 2,014 |
1997 | 20 | 14,696 | 4,479 |
Total | 118 | 63,140 | 19,245 |
Exploration was accelerated when it became apparent that a significant porphyry copper-gold deposit had been discovered at Pebble. In 1990 and 1991, 25 and 48 core drill holes, respectively, were completed (Table 6‑3). In 1991, baseline environmental and engineering studies were initiated and weather stations were established. A preliminary economic evaluation was undertaken by Teck in 1991 and was updated in 1992 on the basis of 14 new core drill holes. In 1993, an IP survey and a four-hole core drill program were completed at the target that was later named the 25 Gold Zone. In 1997, Teck completed an IP survey, geochemical sampling, geological mapping and 20 core drill holes within and near the Pebble deposit.
From 1988 to 1995, Teck undertook several soil geochemical surveys on the property and collected a total of 7,337 samples (Bouley et al., 1995).
Table 6‑3: Total Teck Drilling on the Property to the End of 1997
Year | No. of Drill Holes | Feet | Metres |
1988 | 26 | 7,602 | 2,317 |
1989 | 27 | 7,422 | 2,262 |
1990 | 25 | 10,021 | 3,054 |
1991 | 48 | 28,129 | 8,574 |
1992 | 14 | 6,609 | 2,014 |
1993 | 4 | 1,263 | 385 |
1997 | 20 | 14,696 | 4,479 |
Total | 164 | 75,741 | 23,086 |
Pebble Project | Page 80 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
6.2 Historical Drilling
Teck drilled 125 core holes in the Pebble area between 1988 and 1997 for a total of 65,295.5 ft. These holes include 118 core holes drilled in what later became known as Pebble West and seven core holes drilled elsewhere on the property. Of the Pebble West holes, 94 were drilled vertically and 20 were inclined from −45° to −70° at various orientations. Teck also completed 39 core drill holes on the Sill prospect for a total of 10,445.5 ft in 1988 and 1989.
Sampling, sample preparation and analysis of the Teck drill holes is described in Section 11.
6.3 Ownership History
The following summary of historical property agreements is taken from Rebagliati et al (2010).
In October 2001, Northern Dynasty acquired, through its Alaskan subsidiary, a two-part Pebble Property purchase option previously secured by Hunter Dickinson Group Inc. (HDGI) from an Alaskan subsidiary of Teck Cominco Limited, now Teck Resources Limited (Teck). In particular, HDGI assigned this two-part option (the Teck Option) as 80% to Northern Dynasty while retaining 20% thereof. The first part of the Teck Option permitted Northern Dynasty to purchase (through its Alaskan subsidiary) 80% of the previously drilled portions of the Pebble Property on which the majority of the then known copper mineralization occurred (the “Resource Lands Option”). Northern Dynasty could exercise the Resource Lands Option through the payment of cash and shares aggregating US$10 million prior to November 30, 2004. The second part of the Teck Option permitted Northern Dynasty to earn a 50% interest in the exploration area outside of the Resource Lands (the “Exploration Lands Option”). Northern Dynasty could exercise the Explorations Lands Option by doing some 18,288 m (60,000 ft) of exploration drilling by November 30, 2004, which it completed on time. The HDGI assignment of the Teck Option also allowed Northern Dynasty to purchase the other 20% of the Teck Option retained by HDGI for its fair value.
In November 2004, Northern Dynasty exercised the Resource Lands Option and acquired 80% of the Resource Lands. In February 2005, Teck elected to sell its residual 50% interest in the Exploration Lands to Northern Dynasty for US$4 million. Teck still retains a 4% pre-payback advance net profits royalty interest (after debt service) and 5% after-payback net profits interest royalty in any mine production from the Exploration Lands portion of the Pebble property.
In June 2006, Northern Dynasty acquired, through its Alaska subsidiaries, the remaining HDGI 20% interest in the Resource Lands and Exploration Lands by acquiring HDGI from its shareholders and through its various subsidiaries had thereby acquired an aggregate 100% interest in the Pebble Property, subject only to the Teck net-profits royalties on the Exploration Lands. At that time, Northern Dynasty operated the Pebble Project through a general Alaskan partnership with one of its subsidiaries.
In July 2007, the Pebble Partnership was created and an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo American plc (Anglo American) subscribed for 50% of the Pebble Partnership's equity effective July 31, 2007. Over the next six years, Anglo American spent US$573 million on exploration, resource estimation, environmental data collection and technical studies, with a significant portion spent on engineering of possible mine development models, as well as related infrastructure, power and transportation systems prior to withdrawing from the project. In December 2013, Northern Dynasty exercised its right to acquire Anglo American’s interest in the Pebble Partnership and now holds a 100% interest in the Pebble Partnership.
Pebble Project | Page 81 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
On June 29, 2010, Northern Dynasty entered into an agreement with Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corp. and its subsidiary, Big Chunk Corp. (together Liberty Star), pursuant to which Liberty Star sold 23.8 mi2 of claims (the 95 Purchased Claims) to a U.S. subsidiary of Northern Dynasty in consideration for both a $1 million cash payment and a secured convertible loan from Northern Dynasty in the amount of $3 million. The parties agreed, through various amendments to the original agreement, to increase the principal amount of the loan by $730,174. Northern Dynasty later agreed to accept transfer of 199 claims (the Settlement Claims) located north of the ground held 100% by the Pebble Partnership in settlement of the loan, and subsequently both the Purchased Claims and the Settlement Claims were transferred to a Northern Dynasty subsidiary and ultimately to Pebble West Claims Corporation, a subsidiary of the Pebble Partnership.
On January 31, 2012, the Pebble Partnership entered into a Limited Liability Company Agreement with Full Metal Minerals (USA) Inc. (FMMUSA), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Full Metal Minerals Corp., to form Kaskanak Copper LLC (the LLC). Under the agreement, the Pebble Partnership could earn a 60% interest in the LLC, which indirectly owned 100% of the Kaskanak claims, by incurring exploration expenditures of at least US$3 million and making annual payments of $50,000 to FMMUSA over a period ending on December 31, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the Pebble Partnership purchased FMMUSA’s entire ownership interest in the LLC for a cash consideration of $750,000. As a result, the Pebble Partnership gained a 100% ownership interest in the LLC, the indirect owner of a 100% interest in a group of 464 claims located south and west of other ground held by the Pebble Partnership. In 2014, the LLC was merged into Pebble East Claims Corporation, a subsidiary of the Pebble Partnership, which now holds title to these claims.
On December 15, 2017, Northern Dynasty entered into a Framework Agreement with First Quantum Minerals Ltd. (First Quantum) that contemplated that an affiliate of First Quantum would subsequently execute an option agreement with Northern Dynasty with an option payment of US$150 million staged over four years. This option would entitle First Quantum to acquire the right to earn a 50% interest in the Pebble Partnership for US$1.35 billion. First Quantum made an early option payment of US$37.5 million to Northern Dynasty, applied solely for the purposes of progressing the permitting of the Pebble Project but withdrew from the Project in 2018.
6.4 Study History
The Pebble Project has been the subject of a number of studies, both published and internal, since Teck identified the deposit’s potential. Northern Dynasty’s initial Preliminary Assessment was published in 2004, prior to the discovery of the deeper, higher grade zone initially entitled Pebble East. The 2004 report evaluated an open pit to exploit the then-known resource. The Pebble East discovery led to extensive analysis of the means of mining that zone, which in turn led to the Northern Dynasty’s second Preliminary Assessment in 2011. The 2011 report again evaluated the entire known resource, with three phases of open pit development. It also discussed the opportunity to mine the deeper, eastern portion of the resource by underground means. Additional internal analysis was conducted but most of that work went into hiatus with the departure of Anglo American from the Pebble Partnership in 2013.
In 2017, Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership developed a development plan to initiate the Federal permitting process under NEPA. That plan was submitted to USACE in December 2017 and its updated version is presented in the FEIS. The 2021 PEA disclosed the results of the financial analysis of the plan contained in the FEIS. Additional details for the plan will be required if and when the Project proceeds through State permitting. The 2021PEA also assessed future potential expansion scenarios for the Project, utilizing additional Mineral Resource and recognizing that any future development would require Federal and State permitting. The 2022 PEA updates the 2021 PEA to incorporate the effect of the recently announced Royalty and the current status of the project permitting.
6.5 Historical Production
There has been no production from the Pebble Project.
Pebble Project | Page 82 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
7.1 Regional Geology
The tectonic and magmatic history of southwest Alaska is complex (Decker et al., 1994; Plafker and Berg, 1994). It includes formation of foreland sedimentary basins between tectonostratigraphic terranes, amalgamation of these terranes and their translation along crustal-scale strike-slip faults, and episodic magmatism and formation of related mineral occurrences. The overview presented here is based largely on Goldfarb et al. (2013) and its contained references.
The allochthonous Wrangellia superterrane comprises the amalgamated Wrangellia, Alexander and Peninsular oceanic arc terranes that approached North America from the southwest in the early Mesozoic. West-dipping subduction beneath the superterrane formed the Late Triassic to Early Jurassic Talkeetna oceanic arc, which is now preserved in the Peninsular terrane east of the Pebble deposit (Figure 7‑1). Several foreland sedimentary basins dominated by Jurassic to Cretaceous flysch, including the Kahiltna basin that hosts the Pebble deposit (Kalbas et al., 2007), formed between Wrangellia and pericratonic terranes and previously-amalgamated allochthonous terranes of the Intermontane belt (Wallace et al., 1989; McClelland et al., 1992). Basin closure occurred as Wrangellia accreted to North America by the late Early Cretaceous (Detterman and Reed, 1980; Hampton et al., 2010). Between approximately 115 to 110 Ma and 97 to 90 Ma, the strata in the foreland basins were folded, complexly faulted and subjected to low-grade regional metamorphism (Bouley et al., 1995; Goldfarb et al., 2013). Intrusions at Pebble are undeformed (Goldfarb et al., 2013) and were probably emplaced during a period when at least local extension occurred across southwest Alaska in the mid-Cretaceous (e.g., Pavlis et al., 1993). The relative importance of extensional versus compressional structures to the formation of the Pebble deposit is not well constrained, although an important syn-hydrothermal transpressional fault occurs in the eastern part of the deposit.
Since the early Late Cretaceous, deformation in southwest Alaska has occurred mostly on major dextral strike-slip faults that broadly parallel to the continental margin (Figure 7‑1). The major Denali Fault in central Alaska forms the contact between the Intermontane Belt and the collapsed flysch basins. Subparallel faults with less substantial displacement are located south of the Denali Fault, and the Pebble district is located between what are probably terminal strands of the dextral Lake Clark fault zone (Figure 7‑1); Shah et al., 2009). The Lake Clark fault zone marks the poorly defined boundary between the Peninsular terrane to the southeast and the Kahiltna terrane, which hosts the Pebble deposit, to the northwest (Figure 7‑1). Haeussler and Saltus (2005) propose 16.1 mi of dextral offset along the Lake Clark fault zone, most of which is interpreted to have occurred prior to approximately 38 to 36 million years ago (Ma). Recent field studies of geomorphology along the Lake Clark fault indicate that this structure has not experienced seismic activity for at least the last 10,000 years (Haeussler and Saltus, 2005, 2011; Koehler, 2010; Koehler and Reger, 2011). Other sub-parallel strike-slip faults also form terrane boundaries in the region, including the Mulchatna and Bruin Bay Faults (Figure 7‑1). Goldfarb et al. (2013) propose that most or all movement on these smaller structures occurred during oroclinal bending in the Tertiary, after formation of the Pebble deposit.
The initiation of magmatism and metallogenesis in the Pebble district approximately coincides with the onset of dextral transpression during basin collapse (Goldfarb et al., 2013). Alkalic to subalkalic intrusions were emplaced between approximately 100 and 88 Ma (Bouley et al., 1995; Amato et al., 2007; Hart et al., 2010; Lang et al., 2013; Olson et al., 2017, 2020). Alaska-type ultramafic complexes were emplaced at Kemuk, which is enriched in platinum group elements (Iriondo et al., 2003; Foley et al., 1997), and a mineralogically-similar alkalic ultramafic body, albeit probably emplaced at shallow depths and without known enrichment in platinum group elements, occurs at Pebble (Bouley et al., 1995). Porphyry Cu-Mo±Au±Ag mineralization in the region is associated dominantly with subalkalic, felsic to intermediate intrusions formed between 97 and 90 Ma, and includes deposits at Pebble, Neacola (Reed and Lanphere, 1973; Young et al., 1997) and possibly the undated Iliamna prospect (Figure 7‑2 A). Late Cretaceous intermediate to felsic intrusions are subalkalic and were emplaced between 75 and 60 Ma (e.g., Couture and Siddorn, 2007; Goldfarb et al., 2013). Porphyry Cu-Au±Mo and/or reduced intrusion-related gold mineralization associated with these rocks (Figure 7‑2 A) formed at the Whistler deposit (Hames and Roberts, 2020), located about 93.2 mi northeast of Pebble, at Kijik River (Kreiner et al., 2020), the Bonanza Hills (Anderson et al., 2013) and Shotgun (Rombach and Newberry, 2001). Late Cretaceous to Eocene intrusions are common in the Kahiltna terrane and widespread, voluminous Eocene volcanic rocks cover much of the Kahiltna terrane and are associated with epithermal precious metal mineralization (Bundtzen and Miller, 1997). Igneous rocks of the mid-Cretaceous, Late Cretaceous, and Eocene magmatic suites are present within the Pebble district.
Pebble Project | Page 83 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.2 Project Geology
7.2.1 Kahiltna Flysch
The oldest rock type in the Pebble district is the Kahiltna flysch, which comprises basinal turbidites, interbedded basalt flows and lesser breccias, and minor gabbroid intrusions. The Kahiltna flysch forms a northeast-trending belt about 250 mi. long, which has experienced multiple stages of igneous and hydrothermal activity (Figure 7‑1; Goldfarb, 1997; Young et al., 1997). The flysch in the vicinity of Pebble is at least 99 to 96 million years old, based on the maximum age of cross-cutting intrusions. Sediments were predominately derived from intermediate igneous source rocks and consist of siltstone, mudstone, subordinate wacke and rare, thin, lensoidal beds of matrix-supported pebble conglomerate (Figure 7‑1). Bedding ranges from laminar to thick and is commonly poorly defined. Bouma sequences (Bouley et al., 1995), graded beds and load casts demonstrate that the stratigraphy is right-way-up.
The flysch locally contains thick layers of basalt flows, lesser breccias and minor mafic volcaniclastic rocks located mostly in the southwest and northern parts of the district. Undated gabbros cut the flysch and volcanic rocks in several areas and are interpreted to be related either to the basaltic volcanic rocks within the flysch or to younger diorite sills.
7.2.2 Diorite and Granodiorite Sills
Diorite and granodiorite sills intruded the Kahiltna flysch (Figure 7‑2 A) at approximately 96 Ma. These two rock types are interpreted to be approximately coeval, based on the similarity in their distribution and style of occurrence; they are only well documented within the Pebble deposit.
Pebble Project | Page 84 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑1: Location of the Pebble Deposit & Regional Geological Setting of Southwest Alaska
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. (2013) as modified slightly from Anderson et al., 2013. Dashed lines separate terranes: KB=Kuskokwim Basin; TT=Togiak Terrane; PT=Peninsular Terrane; FT=Farewell Terrane; CzC=Cenozoic cover. Filled circles are the locations of mineral deposits discussed in this text. Northern Dynasty claims cover only the Pebble deposit. Major dextral strike-slip faults are indicated by solid black lines.
Diorite sills are laterally extensive and range from less than 10 ft to greater than 300 ft in thickness. They are most common as stacked sheets in the western part of the Pebble deposit. The sills are medium grained and weakly porphyritic, with common plagioclase and hornblende and minor pyroxene set in a very fine-grained groundmass of plagioclase and hornblende (Figure 7‑2B).
Three laterally continuous granodiorite sills occur within the Pebble deposit. They are up to 1,000 ft thick, with the thickest portions in the northeast part of the deposit. The sills range from fine to medium grained, with common plagioclase and hornblende as well as minor amounts of apatite, in a very fine-grained groundmass of potassium feldspar and quartz with minor to accessory magnetite, apatite and zircon (Figure 7‑2 C).
Pebble Project | Page 85 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.2.3 Alkalic Intrusions and Associated Breccias
A complex suite of alkalic porphyry intrusions, which range from biotite pyroxenite, monzodiorite, monzonite to syenomonzonite, monzonite and monzodiorite in composition, and associated breccias, occur in the southwest quadrant of the Pebble deposit and extend several miles to the south (Schrader, 2001; Hart et al., 2010; Goldfarb et al., 2013). Isotopic dates on diorite and granodiorite sills, biotite pyroxenite and alkalic intrusions indicate that they are approximately coeval and were emplaced between 99 and 96 Ma (Schrader, 2001; Olson, 2015). Early intrusions are medium-grained, biotite monzonite porphyries (Figure 7‑2 D) that commonly contain scattered potassium feldspar megacrysts up to a few centimetres in size. Later intrusions are fine-grained porphyritic biotite monzodiorite (Figure 7‑2 E). All intrusive phases contain angular to subrounded xenoliths of flysch, diorite and, in the younger monzodiorite phase, xenoliths of older alkalic intrusions. Many of the intrusions grade laterally into breccias.
Breccias in the alkalic complex are complicated. Subordinate intrusion breccias have angular to subangular fragments in a cement of a relatively younger porphyritic biotite monzodiorite intrusion. Fragments of diorite sills, early alkalic biotite monzonite porphyry intrusions and flysch are most common xenoliths. In the common breccias, the matrices dominantly consist of a rock flour composed of subangular to subrounded fragments of these same rock types (Figure 7‑2 F). Hydrothermal cement is absent, and fragments range from a few millimetres to tens of metres in size. Locally, intersections of diorite and granodiorite sills within the breccia bodies may correlate laterally with undisturbed sills. Due to the internal complexity of the alkalic rocks and breccias within the deposit, the complex is modeled as a single unit, loosely interpreted as a megabreccia.
7.2.4 Hornblende Granodiorite Intrusions
Granodiorite intrusions include the Kaskanak batholith and numerous smaller bodies, mostly within or proximal to zones of porphyry-style mineralization around the margins of the batholith. All isotopic dates on these rocks are approximately 90 Ma (Bouley et al., 1995; Lang et al., 2013). The Kaskanak batholith is dominantly a medium-grained hornblende granodiorite porphyry, with minor equigranular hornblende quartz monzonite. Granodiorite intrusions spatially associated with porphyry-style mineralization throughout the Pebble district are all mineralogically and texturally similar to the main phase of the Kaskanak batholith (Figure 7‑2G). All of these intrusions are characterized by common hornblende, plagioclase and minor quartz and titanite, set in a fine-grained groundmass of quartz, plagioclase, potassium feldspar, apatite, zircon and magnetite. Megacrysts of potassium feldspar are up to 0.6 in in size, increase in both size and concentration with depth (from less than 2% to greater than 5%) and poikilitically enclose plagioclase and hornblende phenocrysts.
7.2.5 Volcanic Sedimentary cover Sequence
Cretaceous rock types 90 Ma or older are unconformably overlain by well-bedded sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Figure 7‑2 H), informally called the cover sequence. The cover sequence is up to 2,200 ft thick over the eastern edge of the Pebble deposit, and basalt flows with lesser interbeds of clastic sedimentary rocks are up to at least 6,400 ft thick within the East Graben. The sequence occurs mostly on, and thickens toward, the east side of the district, and is widespread to the southwest, south and north of Pebble. Sedimentary rock types are facing right-way-up but have been tilted about 20º east in the deposit area, and include pebble to boulder conglomerate, wacke, siltstone and mudstone. Plant fossils are common in wacke, and coal-bearing seams up to approximately 1.5 ft thick have been intersected by drilling. Volcanic to sub-volcanic rocks include basalt flows and mafic dykes and sills. Volcaniclastic rocks are abundant and contain angular fragments ranging from basalt to rhyolite within a matrix of comminuted volcanic material. The cover sequence is cut by minor narrow, dykes and sills of felsic to intermediate composition. Lang et al., (2013) report that basalts in the East Graben are cut by 65 Ma hornblende monzonite porphyry intrusions, and Olson et al., (2017) assign sedimentary and volcanic rocks that overlie the eastern part of the deposit to the late Paleocene to Eocene Talarik Formation, which may correlate with the widespread Copper Lake Formation of Detterman and Reed (1980).
Pebble Project | Page 86 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.2.6 Hornblende Monzonite Porphyry Intrusions
Two porphyry intrusions of hornblende monzonite, up to 820 ft thick, cut basalts within the East Graben and have been dated at approximately 65 Ma (Lang et al., 2013). They are medium-grained and porphyritic, with common plagioclase and lesser hornblende set in a fine-grained groundmass of potassium feldspar, plagioclase and minor magnetite. These intrusions are not hydrothermally altered.
7.2.7 Eocene Volcanic Rocks and Intrusions
Volcanic and sub-volcanic intrusive rocks on the east side of the district are dated at approximately 46 to 48 Ma (Bouley et al., 1995; Lang et al., 2013). These rocks are mostly exposed on Koktuli Mountain east of the deposit and in the East Graben; reconnaissance drill intersections suggest they are also common in the southeast part of the district beneath glacial cover. Rock types include felsic dykes, brecciated rhyolite flows, fine-grained, equigranular to porphyritic biotite-bearing hornblende latite intrusions and coarse-grained hornblende monzonite porphyry.
7.2.8 Glacial Sediments
Unconsolidated glacial sediments of Pleistocene to recent age cover the valley floors and the flanks of the higher hills (Detterman and Reed, 1973; Hamilton and Klieforth, 2010). The sediments are typically less than 100 ft thick, but drill intersections range up to 525 ft in the wide valley in the southeast part of the district. Ice flow directions over the deposit were to the south-southwest, and the glaciers had retreated by approximately 11 ka (Detterman and Reed, 1973; Hamilton and Klieforth, 2010).
7.2.9 District Structure
The structural history of the district outside of the Pebble deposit is poorly understood due to a paucity of outcrop and marker horizons. The Kahiltna flysch exhibits shallow to moderate dips to the east, south and southeast, which may reflect doming around the margins of the Kaskanak batholith. Folds in the flysch are open, and most inter-limb angles are less than 20°. Folding and related deformation predate hydrothermal activity at Pebble (Bouley et al., 1995; Goldfarb et al., 2013).
Faults are abundant throughout the Pebble district. A metallogenically-significant northeast-trending, syn-hydrothermal brittle-ductile fault zone (BDF) is described later in this section. Most faults are brittle normal or normal-oblique structures that cut and displace all rock types in the district and, in many cases, have been inferred from discontinuities in airborne magnetic and electromagnetic data. The most prominent faults strike north-northeast and northwest, with fewer striking east. The most important of these faults bound the northeast-trending East Graben, which is believed to be a negative flower structure that down-drops high-grade mineralization on the east side of the Pebble deposit. Brittle faults cut Eocene rock types, but precursor structures may have been periodically active since the mid-Cretaceous (L. Rankin, pers. comm., 2011). There is no geological evidence to suggest that these faults have been recently active.
Pebble Project | Page 87 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑2: Rock Types in the Pebble District
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. 2013.
1. A: Kahiltna flysch with interbedded siltstone and wacke affected by biotite-rich potassic alteration.
2. B: Diorite sill cut by magnetite-rich veins with intense biotite-rich potassic alteration.
3. C: Granodiorite sill with crowded porphyritic texture and pervasive potassic alteration.
4. D: Biotite monzonite porphyry member of the alkalic suite.
5. E: Late biotite monzodiorite porphyry member of the alkalic suite with angular xenoliths of flysch.
6. F: Diatreme breccia from the alkalic suite with polylithic fragments in a matrix of rock flour.
7. G: Pebble East zone granodiorite porphyry pluton with relict hornblende phenocrysts selectively altered to biotite.
8. H: Sharp contact between mineralized granodiorite sill and overlying basal conglomerate of the cover sequence, top of the Pebble East zone.
Pebble Project | Page 88 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3 Deposit Geology
The characteristics of the Pebble deposit are shown in plan view in Figure 7‑3 and Figure 7‑4, and in cross-section in Figure 7‑5 to Figure 7‑7. Geological interpretation of the Pebble deposit is based almost entirely on core drill intersections. Greater detail on the geology of the Pebble deposit is available in Lang et al. (2013), Olson (2015), and Olson et al. (2017, 2020).
7.3.1 Rock Types
The deposit is hosted by Kahiltna flysch, diorite and granodiorite sills, alkalic intrusions and breccias, granodiorite stocks, and granodiorite to granite dykes Figure 7‑3and Figure 7‑5. Within the deposit, the Kahiltna flysch is a well-bedded siltstone with less than 10% coarser-grained wacke interbeds; basalt and gabbro are absent. Bedding within the flysch typically dips less than 25º to the east. The flysch was intruded by diorite sills, granodiorite sills and rocks of the alkalic suite prior to hydrothermal activity. The diorite sills are found only in the western half of the deposit (Figure 7‑5), whereas some granodiorite sills extend across the entire deposit. Intrusions and breccias of the alkalic suite occupy the southwest quadrant of the deposit (Figure 7‑3).
The deposit is centered on a group of Kaskanak suite intrusions. Olson (2015) describes the sequence and composition of the intrusions within the Pebble deposit as: 1) earliest, voluminous equigranular granodiorite equivalent to the Kaskanak batholith; 2) transitionally porphyritic granodiorite stocks; 3) early-mineral granodiorite porphyry; 4) inter-mineral quartz granite porphyry; and 5) minor late-mineral high-silica quartz granite porphyry. Due to scale, the Kaskanak intrusions are simplified on Figure 7‑3, and are shown as the larger Pebble East zone pluton and four smaller bodies in the Pebble West zone. The north contact of the Pebble East zone pluton is close to vertical, and its upper contact dips shallowly to the west; it remains undelineated to the south and has been dropped into the East Graben by the ZG1 normal fault to the east. Contacts of stocks in the Pebble West zone dip steeply to moderately outward. Drill intersections of equigranular granodiorite at depths more than ~3,300 ft below the deposit support the hypothesis that the observed porphyry dikes and stocks in the upper part of the deposit emanate and were derived from a deeper reservoir of granodiorite at depth that is part of the main mass of the Kaskanak batholith.
The Pebble East zone is entirely concealed by the east-thickening cover sequence. The contact between the flysch and the cover sequence ranges from sharp and undisturbed to structurally disrupted with slippage along the contact. The lower half of the sequence comprises a thick basal conglomerate with well-rounded cobbles and boulders of intrusive and volcanic rock types of unknown provenance, overlain by complex, interlayered, discontinuous lenses of pebble conglomerate, wacke, siltstone, and mudstone. The upper half of the sequence comprises volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks (Figure 7‑5) dominated by basalt or andesite and intruded by minor felsic to intermediate sills and/or dykes.
The East Graben is filled by basalt flows and lesser sedimentary rocks that have an uncertain relationship to the cover sequence. The graben fill ranges from approximately 4,265 ft thick north of the ZE fault to a thickness of up to at least 6,400 ft to the south. Basalts in the lower half of the graben are cut by two ~65 Ma monzonite porphyry intrusions, which makes them older than the rocks that cover the Pebble East zone. The age of the upper part of the graben fill is unknown but similarities of the sedimentary layers to some rock types in the cover sequence suggests that they may be coeval.
Eocene rocks are rare within and proximal to the Pebble deposit. Where thus far encountered, they comprise narrow felsic dykes, a pink hornblende monzonite intrusion intersected at depth in the central part of the East Graben, and a rhyolite flow breccia at the top of the East Graben, south of the ZE fault.
Pebble Project | Page 89 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3.2 Structure
Within the western part of the Pebble deposit, the Kahiltna flysch occurs as an open, M-shaped anticline with axes that plunge shallowly to the east-southeast (Rebagliati and Payne, 2006). The folding predates intrusive activity at Pebble and diorite sills are commonly thicker where they exploited the hinges of the folds. Folding did not affect the cover sequence.
A BDF zone was identified on the east side of the Pebble deposit (Figure 7‑3) where it manifests a zone of deformation defined by distributed cataclastic seams and healed breccias. It strikes north-northeast, extends at least 1.86 mi along strike, is up to 650 ft wide and is vertical to steeply west-dipping. The BDF is truncated on the east by the ZG1 fault (Figure 7‑5) and does not affect the cover sequence. Displacement was dextral-oblique/reverse (S. Goodman, pers. comm., 2008), and correlation of alteration domains across the fault limits post-hydrothermal lateral displacement to less than 1,310 ft. The BDF was active before, during and after hydrothermal activity. Deformation is most intense in flysch north of the Pebble East zone pluton but is weaker within the intrusion, suggesting that the BDF was more active before or during emplacement of the stock. Syn-hydrothermal control on mineralization by the BDF is indicated by the much higher grades of copper and gold and higher vein density within the structural zone compared to adjacent, undeformed host rocks. The characteristics of deformation along the BDF, and its timing relative to hydrothermal activity at Pebble, support at least a local compressional to transpressional environment during the formation of the deposit. Local deformation of veins indicates some post-hydrothermal movement on the BDF.
Brittle faults within the Pebble deposit conform to the district-scale patterns described in Section 7.2.9 (Figure 7‑3). The ZB, ZC and ZD faults occur in the Pebble West zone and exhibit normal offset of diorite and granodiorite sills of between 50 ft and 300 ft. Normal displacement on the ZJ and ZI faults is not well constrained. The ZA fault has about 100 ft of apparent reverse movement. A minimum of 820 ft of normal displacement occurred across the steeply west-dipping ZF fault, juxtaposing mineralized sodic-potassic alteration in the east against poorly mineralized, propylitic and quartz-sericite-pyrite alteration to the west. Scissors-style, south-side-down normal displacement on the ZE fault increases from around 100 ft on its western end to about 980 ft on the east side of the deposit. The ZG1 fault forms the western boundary of the East Graben and has a well-defined normal displacement of approximately 2,100 ft in the north and 2,900 ft in the south, based on offset of the contact between the deposit and the cover sequence (Figure 7‑5). The ZG2 fault, which is parallel to the ZG1 fault, has between 880 ft and 1,800 ft of normal displacement. The ZH fault and possible parallel structures farther east mark the eastern margin of the East Graben but remain undelineated. Many of these brittle faults localized intermediate to mafic dykes and a date of 84 Ma for an andesite dyke by Schrader (2001) indicates that brittle faults were active at least from that time and likely continued at least until the Eocene (Olson, 2015).
Pebble Project | Page 90 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑3: Geology of the Pebble Deposit Showing Section Locations
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. (2013).
| 1. | The late Cretaceous cover sequence occurs to the east of the dark yellow line and has been removed for clarity. |
| 2. | Cross-sections A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’ are shown in Figure 7‑5, Figure 7‑6 and Figure 7‑7, respectively. |
| 3. | The brittle-ductile fault zone (BDF) is indicated by the cross-hatched pattern. |
| 4. | The dashed outline of the estimated resources at a 0.3% CuEq cut-off is used as a reference point for alteration and grade distribution in Figure 7‑4. |
| 5. | White areas are either undrilled or rock types below cover sequence unknown. |
| 6. | See Figure 7‑1 for geology legend. |
Pebble Project | Page 91 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑4: Plan View of Alteration and Metal Distribution in the Pebble Deposit
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. (2013).
| 1. | Grades are shown as they appear in a previously completed resource block model (Gaunt et al., 2010), at the contact between the deposit and the overlying cover sequence, which has been removed. These grades are not derived from the current resource estimate. |
| 2. | For geological reference, the resource outline matches that shown in Figure 7‑3. |
| 3. | A simplified distribution of alteration types is shown on the map at upper left. |
| 4. | NQV and SQV are the northern and southern quartz vein domains (>50% quartz veins). |
Pebble Project | Page 92 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑5: Geology, Alteration and Distribution of Metals on Section A-A’
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. (2013).
Location of section is shown in Figure 7‑3, and grade legends in Figure 7‑4.
Pebble Project | Page 93 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑6: Geology, Alteration and Metal Distribution on Section B-B’
Note: Prepared by Lang et al. (2013).
Location of section is shown in Figure 7‑3, and legend for grade ranges and alteration in Figure 7‑4.
Pebble Project | Page 94 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑7: Geology, Alteration and Metal Distribution on Section C-C’
Note: Lang et al. (2013).
Location of section is shown in Figure 7‑6, and legend for grade ranges and alteration in Figure 7‑4.
Pebble Project | Page 95 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3.3 Deposit Alteration Styles
Alteration styles are summarized below in the order of their interpreted relative ages.
7.3.3.1 Pre-hydrothermal Hornfels
Hornfels related to intrusion of the Kaskanak batholith pre-dates hydrothermal activity and is found in all Cretaceous rock types, except granodiorite plutons and dykes. The hornfels aureole to the batholith is narrow south of Pebble but extends well east of the batholith in the vicinity of the deposit, which suggests that the batholith underlies the deposit, a concept supported by magnetic data (Shah et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2013). Hornfels-altered flysch is massive but highly susceptible to brittle fracture, although the narrow alteration envelopes around veins indicate that permeability between fractures was low. Hornfels in flysch outside the deposit comprises biotite, K-feldspar, albite, plagioclase and quartz with minor pyrite and other accessory minerals.
7.3.3.2 Hydrothermal Alteration
Numerous stages of hydrothermal alteration are present, including potassic (also sometimes called K- or potassium-silicate alteration), sodic-potassic, illite ± kaolinite, pyrophyllite and sericite advanced argillic, quartz-illite-pyrite, propylitic, and quartz-sericite-pyrite associations, as well as a variety of vein types. Sericite is defined herein as fine-grained, crystalline white mica, whereas illite is very fine-grained, non-crystalline white mica (Harraden et al., 2013). Advanced argillic alteration follows the naming convention of Meyer and Hemley (1967), although there are some differences noted in Pebble alteration. Most metals were introduced during early potassic and sodic-potassic alteration, with significant enhancement of grade in areas overprinted by younger advanced argillic alteration.
7.3.3.3 Early Potassic and Sodic-Potassic Alteration
Most copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium mineralization coincides with early potassic and sodic-potassic alteration. Potassic alteration occurs mostly in the upper part of the Pebble East zone, whereas sodic-potassic alteration occurs in the Pebble West zone and below potassic alteration in the Pebble East zone. Sodic-potassic alteration is distinguished from potassic primarily by the presence of albite and a higher concentration of carbonate minerals (Gregory and Lang, 2011, 2012; Gregory, 2017). Associated vein types are described below.
Potassic alteration occurs in all rock types and is most intense in flysch and granodiorite sills near the Pebble East zone pluton, within the Pebble East zone pluton and in small areas of the Pebble West zone (Gregory and Lang, 2009). It is weakest in the area between the Pebble East and Pebble West zone centers. The assemblage includes potassium feldspar, quartz and biotite with trace to minor ankerite or ferroan dolomite, apatite and rutile. Sulphides include disseminated chalcopyrite and pyrite with minor molybdenite and bornite (Gregory and Lang, 2009). The proportion of biotite to potassium feldspar correlates with the original Fe-Mg concentration of host rocks and, thus, is highest in flysch and diorite sills.
Intrusive rocks in the Pebble West zone are affected by early sodic-potassic alteration which comprises albite, biotite, potassium feldspar and quartz, accompanied by ankerite, ferroan dolomite, trace apatite, magnetite and, locally, siderite. The concentration of carbonate minerals increases with depth. Sulphides include pyrite and chalcopyrite that both generally decrease in concentration with depth. Sodic-potassic alteration of sedimentary rocks is mineralogically similar to that in the intrusions and is typically pervasive.
In the Pebble East zone, sodic-potassic alteration occurs below potassic alteration and is distinguished from similar alteration in the Pebble West zone by the presence of epidote and calcite and by lower metal grades. The potassic to sodic-potassic transition occurs over vertical distances of less than 330 ft. In the Pebble East zone pluton, cores and rims of zoned plagioclase phenocrysts are replaced by calcite-epidote and albite, respectively. Hornblende phenocrysts were replaced by biotite and then by chlorite. Hematitized igneous magnetite is also present. The igneous groundmass was replaced by fine-grained quartz, potassium feldspar, and variable albite. Mineralization is weak in this alteration and decreases with depth, and commonly comprises 2% pyrite and trace to minor chalcopyrite and molybdenite. This alteration is difficult to distinguish from peripheral propylitic alteration and its potential equivalence to well-mineralized sodic-potassic alteration in the Pebble West zone remains unclear.
Pebble Project | Page 96 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Potassic alteration overprints sodic-potassic alteration but the two alteration types are interpreted to be coeval and therefore are treated as a single alteration event. The apparent relative timing is likely a consequence of telescoping and/or changing fluid chemistry during cooling. The paragenetic and spatial relationship between sodic-potassic alteration in the Pebble East and Pebble West zones and peripheral propylitic alteration is not established.
7.3.3.4 Vein Types Associated with Early Potassic and Sodic-Potassic Alteration
Four major quartz-sulphide vein types, comprising 80% of all veins in the deposit, are associated with early potassic and sodic-potassic alteration and are classified as types A, B, M and C. Each type includes varieties that broadly correlate with lateral and/or vertical position in the deposit. The naming conventions, while similar to common porphyry vein nomenclature, are not exact equivalents similarly named to vein types described from other deposits (e.g., Gustafson and Hunt, 1975; Clark, 1993; Gustafson and Quiroga, 1995). For clarity in the sections that follow, the term selvage is used to denote minerals lining the interior walls of a dilatant vein, whereas envelope refers to alteration in the host rock to a vein.
Total density of vein types A, B and C across most of the Pebble deposit is between 5 and 15 vol % (using the criteria of Haynes and Titley (1980) and excluding alteration envelopes). Lower concentrations occur near the margins of the deposit and at depth below the 0.3% CuEq resource boundary. Higher concentrations occur within or proximal to the Pebble East zone pluton and locally proximal to the smaller granodiorite plutons in the Pebble West zone. Vein density does not correlate consistently with rock type and, in most cases, patterns extend smoothly across lithological contacts. Measurements in oriented drill core do not reveal any significant or consistent preferred vein orientations.
On the east side of the Pebble East zone there are two domains characterized by 50 to 90% quartz veins. These two zones are surrounded by and gradational with a larger zone that contains greater than 20% quartz veins of either the A1 or B1 vein subtypes (see below). These zones of high vein density probably reflect repeated refracturing and dilation that accommodated repeated vein precipitation events. The first domain is located north of the ZE fault in a broadly cylindrical zone 330 to 1,640 ft wide and extending up to 1,970 ft below the cover sequence. Veins in this first zone are not deformed and controlling faults have not been identified. The second area forms a north-northeast-trending, nearly vertical, tabular zone that lies within the zone of brittle-ductile deformation. This second area is truncated to the east by the ZG1 fault, continues into the East Graben and is open below depths of 4,920 ft. Veins in this zone are commonly deformed, locally brecciated, and formed during syn-hydrothermal deformation along the BDF or a precursor structure.
7.3.3.4.1 Type A Veins
Type A veins are the oldest of the four types and include subtypes A1, A2 and A3. The A1 subtype is the most common and occurs mostly within the upper 2,300 ft of the Pebble East zone pluton. These veins are sinuous to anastomosing, discontinuous, and typically have diffuse contacts. They contain quartz, trace to minor potassium feldspar, less than 1 to 2% pyrite, lesser chalcopyrite, and rare molybdenite. Potassium feldspar alteration envelopes are commonly narrow, diffuse, and a few millimetres wide. They occur within zones of pervasive, weakly mineralized potassic alteration.
Pebble Project | Page 97 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The A2 veins occur below approximately 3,300 ft in the Pebble East zone pluton and have characteristics transitional between quartz veins and pegmatites. They are characterized by potassium feldspar selvages and coarse-grained cores of euhedral to subhedral quartz. Coarse clots of biotite are locally present along with trace chalcopyrite, molybdenite and/or pyrite. The A2 veins are sinuous, discontinuous, irregular, have diffuse contacts and lack alteration envelopes.
A3 veins are transitional between vein types A1 and B1 and are most common below 2,500 ft in the Pebble East zone pluton. The A3 veins are typically anastomosing, sinuous to irregular and have diffuse contacts with prominent potassium feldspar envelopes. They contain quartz with trace to minor potassium feldspar and biotite, and locally contain up to 3% pyrite, minor chalcopyrite and rare molybdenite.
7.3.3.4.2 Type B Veins
Type B veins cut type A veins and include subtypes B1, B2 and B3. These are spatially coincident with potassic and sodic-potassic alteration, are the most widespread veins at Pebble and are most abundant within and proximal to the Pebble East zone pluton.
B1 veins are the most common subtype and are planar, continuous, have sharp contacts, and are typically 0.1 to 1.2 in wide. They are dominated by quartz with trace to minor biotite, potassium feldspar, apatite and/or rutile. The veins typically contain 2 to 5% of both pyrite and chalcopyrite with minor molybdenite and local bornite. Potassium feldspar (±biotite) alteration envelopes are ubiquitous, highly variable in width and contain disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrite and molybdenite.
B2 veins occur below 2,600 ft depth in the Pebble East zone and broadly coincide with sodic-potassic alteration. They contain quartz and minor K-feldspar and have narrow, weak potassium feldspar or biotite alteration envelopes. B2 veins transition upward into B1 veins and are distinguished from B1 veins by green chlorite pseudomorphs after coarse aggregates of locally preserved hydrothermal biotite and by minor calcite and epidote. The veins typically contain less than 2% pyrite, and minor chalcopyrite, and molybdenite.
B3 veins are most common in the north-central and south-central part of the Pebble East zone, and below 5,600 ft depth in the lower grade domain between the Pebble East and Pebble West zones. These veins are similar to B1 veins but contain molybdenite as the dominant sulphide and have only sporadic, weak, potassium feldspar alteration envelopes. B3 veins are planar and can be greater than 3.3 ft in width. B3 veins cut vein types A, B1, B2 and, locally, C veins; B3 veins are interpreted to represent a late substage of early alteration which locally introduced significant molybdenum to the Pebble deposit.
7.3.3.4.3 Type M Veins
Type M veins are associated with magnetite-bearing sodic-potassic alteration within and proximal to diorite sills in the Pebble West zone. Paragenetically, they formed between vein types B1 and C. They are planar to irregular and are typically 0.4 to 2 inches wide. These veins comprise mostly magnetite and quartz with lesser ankerite and potassium feldspar as well as greater than 10% chalcopyrite and pyrite with minor molybdenite. The M veins have narrow potassium feldspar alteration envelopes.
7.3.3.4.4 Type C Veins
Type C veins are the most abundant veins in the western half of the deposit. The C veins cut A and B veins (except possibly the B3 subtype) and are contemporaneous with or slightly younger than M veins. C veins at Pebble are defined according to their relative timing and do not resemble the C veins defined by Gustafson and Quiroga (1995). The veins contain mostly quartz, locally abundant ankerite or ferroan dolomite, minor to trace potassium feldspar, magnetite and biotite, and 10% (locally up to 50%) sulphides. Sulphides include pyrite and chalcopyrite, variable molybdenite, trace arsenopyrite and rare bornite. The veins are planar, have sharp contacts, range from less than 0.4 in to approximately 2 in wide and commonly contain vugs along their central axis. Alteration envelopes are prominent with similar mineralogy to the veins and can be up to 10 times the width of the vein in the more permeable intrusive host rocks. Where the alteration envelopes to several C veins overlap, drill intersections up to approximately 15 ft in length can grade up to several percent copper.
Pebble Project | Page 98 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3.3.5 Intermediate Illite ± Kaolinite Alteration
Illite ± kaolinite alteration is coincident with and overprints early potassic and sodic-potassic alteration. Alteration intensity is highest at moderate depths within the Pebble East zone pluton. In these rocks, illite replaces phenocrysts of plagioclase previously altered to potassium feldspar and locally replaces the potassically-altered igneous matrix. This alteration style is weakest in flysch in the Pebble West zone. Minor pyrite co-precipitated with illite but is likely a local reconstitution of older sulphides. Fracture or fault control is rarely apparent. Kaolinite accompanies illite in alteration of previously sodic-potassic altered areas where it replaces albite.
7.3.3.6 Late Advanced Argillic Alteration
Advanced argillic alteration occurs only in the East Zone, where it is associated with the highest grades of copper and gold in the deposit. Advanced argillic alteration occurs within and adjacent to the BDF. This alteration comprises a pyrophyllite-quartz-sericite-chalcopyrite-pyrite zone within the BDF that is bounded to the west by an upwardly-flaring envelope of sericite-quartz-pyrite-bornite-digenite-chalcopyrite alteration to the west (cf., Khashgerel et al., 2009). Advanced argillic alteration is truncated on the east by the ZG1 fault but deep intersections in hole 6348 demonstrate that this alteration and its associated high grade mineralization continues eastward into the graben. Both the sericite and the pyrophyllite alteration types replace potassic and sodic alteration. The sericite alteration is locally replaced by younger quartz-sericite-pyrite alteration.
Pyrophyllite alteration is accompanied by quartz, sericite, pyrite and chalcopyrite. Pyrite concentration is commonly greater than 5% and is much higher than in adjacent early potassic alteration. Pyrophyllite alteration is coincident with but overprints the southern zone of high quartz vein density; quartz-sulphide veins within this zone are commonly deformed. Veins associated with pyrophyllite alteration are irregular, narrow, contain pyrite ± chalcopyrite in massive to semi-massive concentrations, contain variable quartz, and lack visible alteration envelopes. Pyrophyllite alteration has not been identified in the northern zone of high quartz vein density.
Pervasive sericite alteration forms an upward-flaring envelope west of the pyrophyllite alteration. Sericite alteration occurs in the upper 1,000 ft of the deposit on the downthrown southern side of the ZE fault. This alteration is pervasive and dominated by white sericite that replaces feldspars previously affected by potassic and illite alteration. Pyrite concentration is intermediate between pyrophyllite alteration and early potassic alteration and decreases with depth. Sericite alteration is distinguished by high-sulphidation hypogene copper minerals represented by various combinations of bornite, covellite, digenite, tennantite-tetrahedrite, and locally trace enargite. These minerals commonly replace the rims of chalcopyrite and pyrite precipitated during early potassic alteration. Minor quartz-rich veins with pyrite are related to this alteration, are narrow and irregular, and locally have well-developed envelopes with quartz, sericite, pyrite and high sulphidation copper minerals.
7.3.3.7 Propylitic Alteration
Propylitic alteration extends at least 3 mi south of the deposit and to the limit of drilling 1.4 mi to the north. Weak propylitic alteration also occurs throughout the eastern half of the Kaskanak batholith. This alteration comprises chlorite, epidote, calcite, quartz, magnetite and pyrite, minor albite and hematite, and trace chalcopyrite. Sulphide concentration is less than 3% and is mostly pyrite.
Pebble Project | Page 99 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Type H veins occur locally and at low vein density throughout propylitic alteration. They contain calcite, hematized magnetite, quartz, albite, epidote, pyrite and trace to minor chalcopyrite. H veins are planar, less than 0.4 in wide and have alteration envelopes similar in mineralogy and width to the veins.
Polymetallic type E veins occur locally south of the deposit, in areas of propylitic and quartz-sericite-pyrite alteration. Rarely, E veins cut sodic-potassic alteration in the Pebble West zone. The E veins are planar, can be up to two ft in width, have sharp contacts with host rocks and locally have weak sericite alteration envelopes. These veins contain various combinations of quartz, calcite, pyrite (locally arsenian), sericite, sphalerite, galena, minor chalcopyrite and trace arsenopyrite, tennantite-tetrahedrite, freibergite, argentite and native gold.
7.3.3.8 Quartz-Sericite-Pyrite and Quartz-Illite-Pyrite Alteration
The quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP) alteration occurs closer to the centre of the deposit than does the propylitic alteration, but where these two alteration types overlap the QSP alteration is younger. QSP alteration, which is equivalent to classic phyllic alteration, is commonly texture-destructive and forms a halo around the deposit with inner and outer alteration fronts that dip steeply away from the core of the deposit. This halo extends at least 2.6 mi south of the deposit and 0.9 mi north; it is weakly developed west of the ZF fault where it partially overprints propylitic alteration. It occurs at depth in the north part of the East Graben but its full distribution east of the ZG1 fault is not established. In the Pebble East zone, the transition from potassic or advanced argillic alteration to intense, pervasive QSP alteration typically occurs over 50 to 60 ft. Weak QSP alteration occurs sporadically throughout the Pebble West zone with a more gradual outward transition than in the Pebble East zone.
The mineralogy of the QSP alteration type includes quartz, sericite, 8 to 20% pyrite, minor to trace ankerite, rutile and apatite, and rare pyrrhotite. Zones are cut by up to 10% pyrite-rich type D veins (Gustafson and Hunt, 1975) with variable amounts of quartz and trace rutile, chalcopyrite and ankerite. D veins are planar, have sharp contacts with host rocks and range from less than 1 in to 5 ft in width. Alteration envelopes are typically wider than the veins and form intense pervasive QSP alteration where they coalesce.
Quartz-illite-pyrite (QIP) alteration partially replaces potassic and/or sodic-potassic alteration in the upper, central part of the deposit. QIP alteration is interpreted as a zone of former weak to moderate, grade-destructive QSP alteration, located at the transition between sodic-potassic and potassic alteration, that was later overprinted by low-temperature illite alteration as the hydrothermal system waned. QIP alteration is texturally and mineralogically similar to QSP alteration, except that illite is the main phyllosilicate phase rather than sericite (Harraden et al., 2012). The pyrite concentration in QIP alteration is typically 5 to 10%, which occurs mostly in type D veins and their alteration envelopes. Domains between the QIP alteration envelopes preserve relict sodic-potassic alteration that host most of the copper mineralization that remains in this zone.
7.3.3.9 Post-Hydrothermal Alteration
The youngest alteration at Pebble is clay alteration, which is common within 50 ft of the contact between the cover sequence and underlying Cretaceous rocks. Young, brittle faults that cut the deposit, in particular the ZG1 fault, host or are closely associated with basalt dikes related to volcanic rocks in the cover sequence. The faults and dikes are surrounded by narrow alteration zones of epidote, calcite, chlorite, and pyrite. An extremely small proportion of mineralization in the deposit is affected by this alteration.
Pebble Project | Page 100 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3.4 Mineralization Styles
Mineralization in the Pebble West zone is mostly hypogene, with a thin zone of mostly weak supergene overprint beneath a thin leached cap. Mineralization in the Pebble East zone is entirely hypogene with no preservation of leaching or paleo-supergene below the unconformity with the cover sequence.
7.3.4.1 Supergene Mineralization and Leached Cap
A thin leached cap occurs at the top of the Pebble West zone. Strong leaching is rarely more than 33 ft thick but is highly variable, and weak oxidation along fractures locally extends to depths of up to 500 ft along or near brittle faults. Hypogene pyrite is commonly preserved in the leached zone, and minor malachite, chrysocolla and native copper are present locally.
Supergene mineralization occurs only in the Pebble West zone where the cover sequence is absent. Similar to the overlying leached cap, the thickness of supergene mineralization is highly variable. It locally extends to a depth of 560 ft in strongly fractured zones, but on average is closer to 200 ft in average thickness and tapers toward the margins of the resource. In the supergene zone, pyrite is typically rimmed by chalcocite, covellite and minor bornite, and complete replacement of pyrite is rare (Gregory and Lang, 2009; Gregory et al., 2012). The transition to hypogene mineralization with depth is gradational over vertical intervals of up to approximately 100 ft. Supergene processes increased copper grade up to approximately 50% across narrow intervals but the upgrading is typically much less.
7.3.4.2 Hypogene Mineralization
Patterns of metal grades and ratios at Pebble correspond closely to alteration styles, with only weak or local relationships to host rock. The preserved deposit has a flat tabular geometry when the 20° post-hydrothermal tilt is removed. Copper and gold grades diminish below approximately 1,300 ft depth in the Pebble West zone but extend much deeper in the Pebble East zone, particularly within and proximal to the BDF. Laterally, grades decrease gradually toward the north and south margins of the deposit, where mineralization terminates over short distances due to the overprint by intense, grade-destructive QSP alteration. Moderate grades with the shortest vertical extent are observed in the middle of the deposit between the Pebble East and Pebble West zones. There is a general correspondence between copper and gold grades outside of the Pebble East zone pluton; within the Pebble East zone pluton, there is a closer correspondence between copper and molybdenum at low grades of gold, except where gold-rich advanced argillic alteration is present. On the west side of the deposit, mineralization extends to the normal/oblique ZF fault, but drilling has been too shallow to determine if the deposit continues to the west at depth. On the east side, the deposit was down-dropped by the ZG1 fault and continuation of high-grade mineralization into the East Graben has been confirmed by drilling. Molybdenum exhibits a more diffuse pattern, is open at depth and, in some areas, domains with strongly elevated grade corresponds with higher densities of molybdenite-rich type B3 veins.
Mineralization was primarily introduced during early potassic and sodic-potassic alteration. Copper is hosted primarily by chalcopyrite (Figure 7‑8) that is locally accompanied by minor bornite (Figure 7‑4) and trace tennantite-tetrahedrite. The pyrite to chalcopyrite ratio is typically close to one in potassic alteration in the Pebble East zone but is commonly much higher in the Pebble West zone where sulphide-rich type C and, locally, type D veins are present. Gold occurs primarily as electrum inclusions in chalcopyrite with minor amounts hosted by silicate alteration minerals and pyrite, and rarely as gold telluride inclusions in pyrite (Gregory et al., 2013). Diorite sills with magnetite-rich alteration and type M veins have relatively high gold concentrations. Molybdenite occurs in quartz veins and as intergrowths with disseminated chalcopyrite.
Incipient to weak illite ± kaolinite alteration had little effect on grade, whereas strong alteration reduced the grade of copper and gold but left molybdenum largely undisturbed. Gold liberated during illite ± kaolinite alteration was reconstituted as high-fineness inclusions (gold grains with less than 10 wt% Ag) in newly formed pyrite (Gregory and Lang 2009; Gregory et al., 2013). These patterns are consistent with the effects of illite alteration on grade in many porphyry deposits (e.g., Seedorf et al., 2005; Sillitoe, 2010).
Pebble Project | Page 101 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Advanced argillic alteration zones have much higher grades of copper and gold but similar molybdenum compared to adjacent early potassic alteration. Pyrophyllite alteration precipitated high concentrations of pyrite and chalcopyrite and both minerals contain inclusions of high-fineness gold (Gregory et al., 2013). During sericite alteration, bornite, covellite, digenite and trace enargite or tennantite replaced chalcopyrite formed during early potassic alteration and also precipitated minor additional pyrite (Gregory and Lang, 2009). In general, gold occurs as high-fineness inclusions in later pyrite and high-sulphidation copper minerals, whereas electrum predominates in relict early chalcopyrite (Gregory et al., 2013).
The zone of high quartz vein density along the BDF is typically well-mineralized where it has been overprinted by pyrophyllite alteration. The northern zone of high quartz vein density has average to low grades of copper and gold except in small areas where higher grades reflect the presence of the sericite subtype of advanced argillic alteration.
The late QSP alteration is invariably destructive of both copper and molybdenum mineralization. Gold concentrations, however, remain consistent at 0.15 to 0.5 g/t, but locally exceed 1 g/t (Lang et al., 2008). The QIP alteration has a similar effect on copper, molybdenum and gold but is not completely pervasive, such that copper and molybdenum grades are reduced and some of the gold now occurs as high-fineness inclusions in pyrite formed by breakdown of older sulphides (Gregory et al., 2013).
Grade variation within the cores of the Pebble East and Pebble West zones shows a weak, local relationship to rock type. Higher than average copper and gold grades are spatially related to highly reactive, iron-rich diorite sills, a relationship common in porphyry deposits (e.g., Ray, Arizona; Phillips et al., 1974). On the margins of the deposit and in the lower grade area between the Pebble East and Pebble West Zones, relatively impermeable flysch affected by pre-hydrothermal hornfels has lower grades than adjacent, more permeable granodiorite sills.
7.3.4.3 Rhenium
The Pebble deposit is remarkable for its very large endowment in rhenium, for which a resource is estimated in Section 14 that compares favourably with the largest known global resources of rhenium (Sinclair et al., 2009). Rhenium is one of the lesser known metals and is one of the rarest elements on earth, with a crustal abundance of less than one part per billion (John et al., 2017). The United States, under Executive Order 13817, has caused rhenium to be placed on its list of critical minerals, stating that it “is essential to the economic and national security of the United States that has a supply chain vulnerable to disruption.” (US Department of the Interior news release, May 18, 2018). Rhenium typically does not form discrete minerals in nature, but because of its valence and atomic radius instead almost exclusively substitutes for molybdenum in the lattice of molybdenite (e.g., McCandless et al., 1993; Barton et al., 2019). Globally most rhenium is recovered from flue dust created during the roasting of molybdenite concentrates, most of which come from porphyry-style deposits like Pebble (John et al., 2017). Elevated concentrations of rhenium occur throughout the Pebble deposit and, as expected, the concentrations of rhenium and molybdenum are very closely correlated. Molybdenite concentrates produced during metallurgical testwork on the Pebble deposit, as described in Section 13, contain up to 960 ppm rhenium, which places Pebble in the upper echelon of porphyry deposits (e.g., McCandless et al., 1993; Barton et al., 2019). Detailed rhenium deportment studies have not yet been completed to determine if the concentration of rhenium in molybdenite varies spatially across the Pebble deposit or in paragenetically-distinct stages of molybdenite precipitation, e.g., molybdenite in late B3 veins compared to molybdenite in earlier potassic or sodic-potassic alteration. Visual inspection of the 3D distribution of molybdenum to rhenium ratios in assay results across the Pebble deposit, however, suggests a general consistency with limited variation.
Pebble Project | Page 102 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
7.3.4.4 Palladium
The Pebble deposit also contains elevated concentrations of the platinum group metal palladium, which is also considered a critical mineral by the Department of the Interior. This places Pebble among a very small minority of porphyry deposits known to contain significant palladium concentrations (e.g., McFall et al., 2018; Hanley et al., 2020). The highest concentrations of palladium at Pebble occur in or proximal to areas affected by advanced argillic alteration, but elevated palladium also occurs in many other parts of the deposit including within the proposed open pit. The deportment of palladium remains essentially unstudied at Pebble. A single sample of pyrite from the pyrophyllite alteration zone was analyzed by in-situ laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and found to contain elevated palladium in undetermined form (Gregory et al. (2013). The deportment of palladium in porphyry deposits can be complex (e.g., Hanley et al., 2020) and a more detailed study of palladium deportment at Pebble is warranted to determine the degree to which this metal can be recovered to a chalcopyrite and/or pyrite concentrate.
Figure 7‑8: Drill Core Photograph Showing Chalcopyrite Mineralization
Source: Northern Dynasty, 2006
Pebble Project | Page 103 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 7‑9: Drill Core Photograph Showing Chalcopyrite and Bornite Mineralization
Source: Northern Dynasty, 2006
Pebble Project | Page 104 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
8 DEPOSIT TYPES
The Pebble deposit is classified as a porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit. The principal features of porphyry copper deposits, as summarized recently by John et al. (2010), include:
· | mineralization defined by copper and other minerals which occur as disseminations and in veins and breccias which are relatively evenly distributed throughout their host rocks; |
|
|
· | large tonnage amenable to bulk mining methods; |
|
|
· | low to moderate copper grades, typically between 0.3% and 2.0%; |
|
|
· | a genetic relationship to porphyritic intrusions of intermediate composition that typically formed in convergent-margin tectonic settings; |
|
|
· | a metal assemblage dominated by various combinations of copper, gold, molybdenum and silver, but commonly with other associated metals of low concentration; and |
|
|
· | a spatial association with other styles of intrusion-related mineralization, including skarns, polymetallic replacements and veins, distal disseminated gold-silver deposits, and intermediate to high-sulphidation epithermal deposits. |
These characteristics correspond closely to the principal features of the Pebble deposit as described in Section 7. This Report focuses exclusively on the Pebble porphyry deposit; other deposits of intrusion-related skarn-, vein- and porphyry-style mineralization have been encountered elsewhere within the Pebble Project area but have not been the subject of detailed exploration or delineation.
The Pebble deposit has many characteristics typical of porphyry deposits as a group, but it is unusual in terms of its size and the variety and scale of its contained metal. Pebble has one of the largest metal endowments of any gold-bearing porphyry deposit currently known. Comparison of the current Pebble Mineral Resource estimate to other major copper and precious metal deposits shows that it ranks at or near the top in terms of both contained copper (Figure 8‑1) and contained precious metals (gold and silver; Figure 8‑2). Pebble currently is both the largest known undeveloped copper resource and the largest known undeveloped gold resource in the world. Pebble also has a very large endowment in molybdenum and rhenium. The presence of palladium further highlights its unusual character. The bases for these estimations of metal endowment in the Pebble deposit are described in Section 14.
Pebble Project | Page 105 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 8‑1: Pebble Deposit Rank by Contained Copper
Source: Company filings, Metals Economics Group; BMO Capital Markets, 2020
Note: Includes Inferred Resource.
| 1. | At 0.30% Cu Eq. cut-off. |
Figure 8‑2: Pebble Deposit Rank by Contained Precious Metals
Source: Company filings, S&P Global Market Intelligence, street research; BMO Capital Markets, 2020
Note: Includes Inferred Resource.
| 1. | Converted to Au Eq. at street consensus Au price of US$1,500/oz and Ag price of US$18.00/oz. |
| 2. | At 0.30% Cu Eq. cut-off. |
| 3. | Source: World Gold Council (https://www.gold.org/about-gold/facts-about-gold) says that about 187,000 tonnes of gold have been mined since the beginning of civilization. Pebble resource represents 3,340 t (10,776,800,344 tonnes x 0.31 g/t = 3,340 tonnes). |
Pebble Project | Page 106 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
9 EXPLORATION
9.1 Overview
Geological, geochemical and geophysical surveys were conducted in the Pebble Project Site area from 2001 to 2007 by Northern Dynasty and since mid-2007 by the Pebble Partnership. The types of historical surveys and their results are summarized in the following sub-sections. More detailed descriptions of historical exploration programs and results may be found in Rebagliati and Haslinger (2003), Haslinger et al. (2004), Rebagliati and Payne (2006 and 2007), Rebagliati and Lang (2009) and Rebagliati et al. (2005, 2008, 2009 and 2010).
9.2 Geological Mapping
Between 2001 and 2006, the entire Pebble Project site area was mapped for rock type, structure and alteration at a scale of 1:10,000. This work provided an important geological framework for interpretation of other exploration data and drilling programs. A geological map of the Pebble deposit was also constructed but, due to a paucity of outcrop, was based solely on drill hole information. The content and interpretation of district and deposit scale geological maps have not changed materially from the information presented by Rebagliati et al. (2009 and 2010).
9.3 Geophysical Surveys
In 2001, dipole-dipole IP surveys totalling 19.3 line-mi were completed by Zonge Geosciences for Northern Dynasty, following up on and augmenting similar surveys completed by Teck.
During 2002, a ground magnetometer survey totalling 11.6 line-mi was completed at Pebble. The survey was conducted by MPX Geophysics Ltd., based in Richmond Hill, Ontario. The principal objective of this survey was to obtain a higher resolution map of magnetic patterns than was available from existing regional government magnetic maps. The focus of this work was the area surrounding mineralization in the 37 Skarn zone in the southern part of the Pebble district. A helicopter-based airborne magnetic survey was flown over the entire Pebble Project area in 2007. A total of 1,456.5 line-mi was flown at 656 ft line spacing, covering an area of 164.5 mi2. The survey lines were flown at a mean terrain clearance of 196.8 ft along flight lines oriented 135° at a line spacing of 656 ft, with tie lines oriented 045° at a spacing of 1.24 mi Immediately over and surrounding the Pebble deposit, an area of 214.4 mi2 was surveyed at a 1,328 ft line spacing for a total of 212.5 line-mi, without additional tie lines.
During 2007, a limited magnetotelluric survey was completed by GSY-USA Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Geosystem SRL of Milan, Italy, under the supervision of Northern Dynasty geologists. The survey focused on the area of drilling in the Pebble East zone and comprised 196 stations on nine east-west lines and one north-south line, at a nominal station spacing of 656 ft. Interpretation, including 3D inversion, was completed by Mr. Donald Hinks of Rio Tinto Zinc.
In July 2009, Spectrem Air Limited, an Anglo American-affiliated company based in South Africa, completed an airborne electromagnetic, magnetic and radiometric survey over the Pebble area. A total of 2,386 line-mi was surveyed in two flight block configurations:
· | A regional block covering an area of about 18.6 x 7.5 mi at a line spacing of 0.95 mi; and |
|
|
· | A more detailed block which covered the Pebble Project area using a line spacing of 820 ft. |
Pebble Project | Page 107 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The orientation of flight lines was 135° for both surveys, with additional tie-lines flown orthogonally. The objectives of this work included provision of geophysical constraints for structural and geological interpretation in areas with significant glacial cover.
Between the second half of 2009 and mid-2010, a total of 120.5 line-mi of IP chargeability and resistivity data were collected by Zonge Engineering and Research Organization Inc. (Zonge Engineering) for the Pebble Partnership. This survey was conducted in the southern and northern parts of the Project area and used a line spacing of about 0.5 mi. The objective of this survey was to extend the area of IP coverage completed prior to 2001 by Teck and during 2001 by Northern Dynasty.
During 2010, an airborne electromagnetic (EM) and magnetometer geophysical survey was completed on the Pebble Project totalling 4,009 line-mi. This survey was conducted by Geotech Ltd. of Aurora, Ontario.
The USGS collected gravity data from 136 stations distributed over an area of approximately 2,317 mi2 during 2008 and 2009.
9.4 Geochemical Surveys
Between 2001 and 2003, Northern Dynasty collected 1,026 soil samples (Rebagliati and Lang, 2009). Typical sample spacing in the central part of the large geochemical grid was 100 ft to 250 ft along lines spaced 122 to 400 ft to 750 ft apart; samples were more widely spaced near the north, west and southwest margins of the grid.
These sampling programs outlined high-contrast, coincident anomalies in copper, gold, molybdenum and other metals in an area that measures at least 5.6 mi north-south by up to 2.5 mi east-west, with strong but smaller anomalies in several outlying zones. All soil geochemical anomalies lie within the IP chargeability anomaly described above. Three very limited surficial geochemical surveys were completed by the Pebble Partnership in 2010 and 2011; no significant geochemical anomalies were identified. A total of 126 samples, comprising 113 till and 13 soil samples, were collected on the KAS claims located in the southern end of the property; samples were on lines spaced approximately 8,000 ft apart with a sample spacing of approximately 1,300 ft. A total of 109 soil samples were collected from two small areas located approximately 11 mi to the west-northwest and 15 mi west of the Pebble deposit; samples were spaced approximately 330 ft apart on lines that were irregularly spaced to accommodate terrain features.
Additional surveys were completed between 2007 and 2012 by researchers from the USGS and the University of Alaska Anchorage. The types of surveys that were completed by these groups include: (1) hydrogeochemical surveys in several parts of the Pebble property which obtained multi-element inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) data from samples of surface waters; (2) determination of copper isotope ratios in surface waters; (4) heavy indicator mineral analyses of glacial till; and (4) orientation surveys which utilized a variety of weak extraction geochemical techniques. The results of these surveys were largely consistent with the results obtained by earlier soil sampling programs.
Pebble Project | Page 108 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
10 DRILLING
10.1 Drill Hole Locations
Extensive drilling totaling 1,048,509.8 ft was completed in 1,389 holes on the Pebble Project. These drill campaigns took place during 19 of the 26 years between 1988 and 2013 and in 2018 and 2019. The most recent hole drilled on the Project was completed on October 13, 2019. The spatial distribution and type of holes drilled is illustrated in Figure 10‑1. A detail of the drilling in the “Deposit Area” is shown in Figure 10‑2.
Figure 10‑1: Project Drill Hole Location Map
Note: Figure prepared by Northern Dynasty, 2021. Drilling completed by Teck (1988 to 1997) is summarized in Section 6.
Pebble Project | Page 109 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
All drill hole collars were surveyed using a differential global positioning system (DGPS) instrument. All holes were resurveyed in 2008 and 2009, with the exception of the Sill holes. A digital terrain model for the site was generated by photogrammetric methods in 2004. All post- Teck drill holes were surveyed downhole, typically using a single shot magnetic gravimetric tool. A total of 989 holes were drilled vertically (-90°) and 192 were inclined from -42° to -85° at various azimuths.
10.2 Summary of Drilling 2001 to 2019
The Pebble deposit was extensively drilled (Figure 10‑2). Drilling statistics and a summary of drilling by various categories to the end of the 2013 exploration program are compiled in Table 10‑1. This includes seven drill holes completed by FMMUSA, drilled by Peak Exploration (USA) Corp. in the area in 2008; these holes were drilled on claims that are now part of the Pebble Project area and have been added to the Pebble dataset.
Most of the footage on the Pebble Project was drilled using core drills. Only 18,716 ft was percussion-drilled from 229 rotary drill holes. Many of the cored holes were advanced through overburden, using a tricone bit with no core recovery. These overburden lengths are included in the core drilling total.
From early 2004 through 2013, all Pebble drill core was geotechnically logged on a drill run basis. Almost 70,000 measurements were made for a variety of geotechnical parameters on 737,000 ft of core drilling. Recovery is generally very good and averages 98.2% overall; two-thirds of all measured intervals have 100% core recovery. Detailed (domain-based) geotechnical logging and downhole surveys were also conducted between 2007 and 2012. Proper domain selection is the basis for rock mass classification and domain-based data is used extensively in open pit and underground mine design. In order to maximize the information from the 2007-2012 drill programs, several tools and techniques were added to a number of holes including: triple tube drilling, core orientation, acoustic televiewer probe and comprehensive point load testing complemented by laboratory UCS testing. Additionally, all Pebble drill core from the 2002 through 2013 and 2018 drill programs and the chip trays from the 2019 percussion program were photographed in a digital format.
Pebble Project | Page 110 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 10‑2: Location of Drill Holes – Pebble Deposit Area
Note: Figure prepared by Northern Dynasty, 2021. This figure is the inset of the deposit-area outlined in Figure 10‑1.
Pebble Project | Page 111 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 10‑1: Summary of Drilling to December 2019
| No. of Holes | Feet | Metres |
By Operator | |||
Teck 1 | 164 | 75,741.0 | 23,086 |
Northern Dynasty | 578 | 495,069.5 | 150,897 |
Pebble Partnership 2 | 640 | 472,249.3 | 143,942 |
FMMUSA | 7 | 5,450.0 | 1,661 |
Total | 1,389 | 1,048,509.8 | 319,586 |
By Type | |||
Core 1,5 | 1,160 | 1,027,671.9 | 313,234 |
Percussion 6 | 229 | 20,838.0 | 6,351 |
Total | 1,389 | 1,048,509.8 | 319,586 |
By Year | |||
1988 1 | 26 | 7,601.5 | 2,317 |
1989 1 | 27 | 7,422.0 | 2,262 |
1990 | 25 | 10,021.0 | 3,054 |
1991 | 48 | 28,129.0 | 8,574 |
1992 | 14 | 6,609.0 | 2,014 |
1993 | 4 | 1,263.0 | 385 |
1997 | 20 | 14,695.5 | 4,479 |
2002 | 68 | 37,236.8 | 11,350 |
2003 | 67 | 71,226.6 | 21,710 |
2004 | 267 | 165,567.7 | 50,465 |
2005 | 114 | 81,978.5 | 24,987 |
2006 3 | 48 | 72,826.9 | 22,198 |
2007 4 | 92 | 167,666.9 | 51,105 |
2008 5 | 241 | 184,726.4 | 56,305 |
2009 | 33 | 34,947.5 | 10,652 |
2010 | 66 | 57,582.0 | 17,551 |
2011 | 85 | 50,767.7 | 15,474 |
2012 | 81 | 35,760.2 | 10,900 |
2013 | 29 | 6,190.0 | 1,887 |
2018 | 28 | 4,374.2 | 1,333 |
2019 | 6 | 1,917.4 | 584 |
Total | 1,389 | 1,048,509.8 | 319,586 |
By Area | |||
East | 149 | 450,047.3 | 137,174 |
West | 447 | 349,128.7 | 106,414 |
Main 7 | 83 | 9,629.8 | 2,935 |
NW | 215 | 49,951.1 | 15,225 |
North | 84 | 30,927.0 | 9,427 |
NE | 15 | 1,495.0 | 456 |
Pebble Project | Page 112 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
| No. of Holes | Feet | Metres |
South | 117 | 48,387.8 | 14,749 |
25 Zone | 8 | 4,047.0 | 1,234 |
37 Zone | 7 | 4,252.0 | 1,296 |
38 Zone | 20 | 14,221.5 | 4,335 |
52 Zone | 5 | 2,534.0 | 772 |
308 Zone | 1 | 879.0 | 268 |
Eastern | 5 | 621.5 | 189 |
Southern | 147 | 64,374.4 | 19,621 |
SW | 39 | 6,658.8 | 2,030 |
Sill | 39 | 10,445.5 | 3,184 |
Cook Inlet | 8 | 909.5 | 277 |
Total | 1,389 | 1,048,509.8 | 319,586 |
Notes:
| 1. | Includes holes drilled on the Sill prospect. |
| 2. | Holes started by Northern Dynasty and finished by the Pebble Partnership are included as the Pebble Partnership. |
| 3. | Drill holes counted in the year in which they were completed. |
| 4. | Wedged holes are counted as a single hole including full length of all wedges drilled. |
| 5. | Includes FMMUSA drill holes; data acquired in 2010. |
| 6. | Percussion holes were drilled for engineering and environmental purposes. Shallow (<15 ft) auger holes not included. |
| 7. | Comprises holes drilled entirely in Tertiary cover rocks within the Pebble West and Pebble East areas. |
| Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. |
The drill hole database includes drill holes completed up until 2019; the drilling completed after 2012 is outside the area of the Mineral Resource estimate. Highlights of drilling completed by Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership between 2001 and 2019 include:
· | Northern Dynasty drilled 68 holes for a total of 37,237 ft during 2002. The objective of this work was to test the strongest IP chargeability and multi-element geochemical anomalies outside of the Pebble deposit, as known at that time, but within the larger and broader IP chargeability anomaly described above. This program discovered the 38 Zone porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, the 52 Zone porphyry copper occurrence, the 37 Zone gold-copper skarn deposit, the 25 Zone gold deposit, and several small occurrences in which gold values exceeded 3.0 g/t. |
|
|
· | In 2003, Northern Dynasty drilled 67 holes for a total of 71,227 ft, mainly within and adjacent to the Pebble West zone to determine continuity of mineralization and to identify and extend higher grade zones. Most holes were drilled to the 0 ft elevation above mean sea level and were 900 to 1,200 ft in length. Eight holes for a total of 5,804 ft were drilled outside the Pebble deposit to test for extensions and new mineralization at four other zones on the property, including the 38 Zone porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit and the 37 Zone gold-copper skarn deposit. |
|
|
· | Drilling by Northern Dynasty in 2004 totalled 165,481 ft in 266 holes. Of this total, 131,211 ft were drilled in 147 exploration holes in the Pebble deposit; one exploration hole 879 ft in length was completed in the southern part of the property that discovered the 308 Zone porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit. Additional drilling included 21,335 ft in 26 metallurgical holes in Pebble West zone, 9,127 ft in 54 geotechnical holes and 3,334 ft in 39 water monitoring holes, of which 33 holes for a total of 2,638 ft were percussion holes. During the 2004 drilling program, Northern Dynasty identified a significant new porphyry centre on the eastern side of the Pebble deposit (the Pebble East zone) beneath the cover sequence (as described in Section 7). |
Pebble Project | Page 113 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | In 2005, Northern Dynasty drilled 81,979 ft in 114 holes. Of these drill holes, 13 for a total of 12,198 ft were drilled mainly for engineering and metallurgical purposes in the Pebble West zone. Seventeen drill holes for a total of 60,696 ft were drilled in the Pebble East zone. The results confirmed the presence of the Pebble East zone and further demonstrated that it was of large size and contained higher grades of copper, gold and molybdenum than the Pebble West zone. The Pebble East zone remained completely open at the end of 2005. A further 13 holes for a total of 2,986 ft were cored for engineering purposes outside the Pebble deposit area. An additional 6,099 ft of drilling was completed in 71 non-core water monitoring wells. |
|
|
· | Drilling during 2006 focused on further expansion of the Pebble East zone. Drilling comprised 72,827 ft in 48 holes. Twenty of these holes were drilled in the Pebble East zone, including 17 exploration holes and three engineering holes for a total of 68,504 ft. The Pebble East zone again remained fully open at the conclusion of the 2006 drilling program. In addition, 2,710 ft were drilled in 14 engineering core holes and 1,612 ft were drilled in 14 monitoring well percussion holes elsewhere on the property. |
|
|
· | Drilling in 2007 continued to focus on the Pebble East zone. A total of 151,306 ft of delineation drilling in 34 holes extended Pebble East to the northeast, northwest, south and southeast; the zone nonetheless remained open in these directions, as well as to the east in the East Graben. Additional drilling included 10,167 ft in nine metallurgical holes in Pebble West, along with 4,367 ft in 26 engineering holes and 1,824 ft in 23 percussion holes for monitoring wells across the property. |
|
|
· | In 2008, 234 holes were drilled totalling 184,726 ft, the most extensive drilling on the Project in any year to date. A total of 136,266 ft of delineation and infill drilling, including six oriented holes, was completed in 31 holes in the Pebble East zone. This drilling further expanded the Pebble East zone. Fifteen metallurgical holes for a total of 14,511 ft were drilled in the Pebble West zone. Three 2,949 ft infill/geotechnical holes totalling 3,133 ft were drilled in the Pebble West zone. Geotechnical drilling elsewhere on the property included 103 core holes for a total of 18,806 ft. Hydrogeology and geotechnical drilling outside of the Pebble deposit accounted for 82 percussion holes for a total of 6,745 ft. In 2010, the Pebble Partnership acquired the data for seven holes totalling 5,450 ft drilled by FMMUSA in 2008. These drill holes are located on land that is now controlled by the Pebble Partnership and provided information on the regional geology. |
|
|
· | The Pebble Partnership drilled 34,948 ft in 33 core drill holes in 2009. Five delineation holes were completed for 6,076 ft around the margins of the Pebble West zone and 21 exploration holes for a total of 22,018 ft were drilled elsewhere on the property. In addition, seven geotechnical core holes were drilled for a total of 6,854 ft. |
|
|
· | In 2010, the Pebble Partnership drilled 57,582 ft in 66 core holes. Forty-eight exploration holes totalling 54,208 ft were drilled over a broad area of the property outside the Pebble deposit. An additional 3,374 ft were drilled in 18 geotechnical holes within the deposit area and to the west. |
|
|
· | In 2011, the Pebble Partnership drilled 50,768 ft in 85 core holes. Eleven holes were drilled in the deposit area totalling 33,978 ft. Of these, two holes were drilled in the Pebble East zone for metallurgical and hydrogeological purposes. The other nine holes in the deposit area were drilled for further delineation of the Pebble West zone and the area immediately to the south. These results indicated the potential for resource expansion to depth in the Pebble West zone. Six holes totalling 8,780 ft were also drilled outside the Pebble deposit area to the west and south. In addition, 8,010.2 ft was drilled in 68 geotechnical holes within and to the north, west and south of the deposit. |
Pebble Project | Page 114 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | The Pebble Partnership drilled 35,760 ft in 81 core holes in 2012. Eleven holes totalling 13,754 ft were drilled in the southern and western parts of the Pebble West zone. The results show potential for lateral resource expansion in this area and further delineation drilling is warranted. Six holes totalling 6,585 ft. were drilled to test exploration targets to the south on the Kaskanak claim block, to the northwest and south of Pebble, and on the KAS claim block further south. An additional 64 geotechnical and hydrogeological holes were drilled totalling 15,422 ft. Of this drilling, 41 holes were within the deposit area and 15 geotechnical holes were drilled at sites near the deposit, and eight geotechnical holes were completed near Cook Inlet. |
|
|
· | The Pebble Partnership drilled 6,190 ft in 29 core holes for geotechnical purposes in 2013 at sites west, south and southwest of the deposit area. |
|
|
· | The Pebble Partnership drilled 4,374.2 ft in 28 core holes for geotechnical purposes in 2018 to test tailings and water storage facilities in areas remote from the Pebble deposit. |
|
|
· | The Pebble Partnership drilled 1,917.4 ft in six percussion holes adjacent to the Pebble deposit to enable hydrological testing in 2019. |
|
|
· | No holes were drilled in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 or 2021. |
A re-survey program of holes drilled at Pebble from 1988 to 2009 was conducted during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons. For consistency throughout the Project, the resurvey program referenced the control network established by R&M Consultants in the U.S. State Plane Coordinate System Alaska Zone 5 NAVD88 Geoid99. The resurvey information was applied to the drill collar coordinates in the database in late 2009.
In 2009 and 2013, the survey locations, hole lengths, naming conventions and numbering designations of the Pebble drill holes were reviewed. This exercise confirmed that several shallow, non-cored, overburden drill holes described in some engineering and environmental reports were essentially the near-surface pre-collars of existing bedrock core drill holes. As these pre-collar and bedrock holes have redundant traces, the geologic information was combined into a single trace in the same manner as the wedged holes. In addition, a number of very shallow (less than 15 ft), small diameter, water-monitoring auger holes were removed from the exploration drill hole database, as they did not provide any geological or geochemical information.
Drill core from the 2002 to 2013 and 2018 programs was boxed at the rig and transported daily by helicopter to the secure logging facility in the village of Iliamna, as were the chip trays from the 2019 percussion drill program.
10.2.1 Northern Dynasty 2002 – 2006 Drilling
The 2002 and 2003 holes were drilled for Northern Dynasty by Quest America Drilling Inc. (Quest) using NQ2 diameter (2 inches) core size.
Most of the 2004 drilling was also completed by Quest, with some footage drilled by Boart Longyear Company (Boart Longyear) and Midnight Sun Drilling Co. Ltd. Core diameters included NQ2, HQ (2.5 in) and PQ (3.3 in). Thirty-three rotary percussion water well, engineering and environmental holes were also completed. The 2004 drilling program included 26 larger diameter (PQ and HQ) holes for metallurgical testing. The average core recovery for all samples taken in 2004 was 97.6%.
Pebble Project | Page 115 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Quest completed the 2005 drilling. Core diameters included NQ2, HQ and PQ core. The average core recovery for all 2005 core holes was 98.4%. In addition to the core drilling, a total of 6,100 ft was drilled in 71 rotary percussion holes by Foundex Pacific Inc. (Foundex) for water monitoring purposes.
The drilling contractors in 2006 were American Recon Inc. (American Recon) and Boart Longyear. Drill holes were NQ2 and HQ in diameter. A total of 13 shallow rotary percussion holes were also completed for environmental purposes by Foundex. Average core recovery in 2006 was 98.7%.
10.2.2 Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2007 Drilling
The drilling contractors used in 2007 were American Recon, Quest and Boart Longyear. Drill holes were NQ2 and HQ in diameter and were drilled for geological and metallurgical purposes. Additional drilling was completed by Foundex to establish monitoring wells, but core was not recovered from these holes. Several holes included wedges; in cases where the wedged hole successfully extended beyond the total depth of the parent hole, they were treated as extensions of their parent holes and overlapping information was ignored. The average core recovery for 2007 drill holes was 99.7%.
10.2.3 Pebble Partnership 2008 – 2014 Drilling
The drilling contractors used in 2008 were American Recon, Boart Longyear and Foundex. Drill holes were NQ, HQ and PQ in diameter, and were drilled for delineation, geotechnical and metallurgical purposes. The drilling contractor used for 2009 drilling was American Recon. Drill holes were NQ, HQ and PQ in diameter. Drilling contractors used for 2010 drilling were American Recon and Foundex. Drill holes were NQ and HQ in diameter. Drill contractors American Recon, Quest and Foundex completed 85 holes in 2011. The hole numbering sequences for 2011 are 11526 through 11542 for 17 district exploration holes and GH11-229 through GH11-296 for 68 geotechnical holes. Most of these holes were drilled vertically except for 11526, 11528, 11530, 11532, 11533 and 11539, which were inclined at -80°, and 11529, drilled at -75°. Among 68 geotechnical holes, 43 were sonic drilling. The average core recovery for the 2008 holes in 95.7%.
Drill contractors Quest and Foundex completed 81 holes in 2012. The hole numbering sequences are 12543 through 12562 for 20 exploration, delineation and hydrological holes, and GH12-297 through GH12-357S for 61 geotechnical holes. Most of 12-series holes were drilled with dips of -65° to -80°, and azimuths of 90° to 270° except for 12546, 12554, 12558, 12559, 12561 and 12562, which were drilled vertically. All GH-series holes were drilled vertically. Among 61 geotechnical holes, 31 were completed by sonic drilling. Of the 81 holes, 14 holes were drilled in the southern and western parts of the Pebble West zone; 6 holes were drilled in the broader claim area to test exploration targets to the south on the Kaskanak claim block to the northwest and south and the KAS claim block further south; and the 61 geotechnical and hydrogeological holes were drilled in the deposit area (45 holes), in Site A (8 holes) and in the area 50 mi to the southeast near Cook Inlet (8 holes).
Drill contractor Foundex completed vertical drilling in 37 holes at sites near the deposit in 2013. These holes numbered GH13-358 through GH13-383 were drilled PQ and HQ size for geotechnical and hydrogeological purposes.
In 2010, the Pebble Partnership acquired the data for seven holes with 414 samples drilled by FMMUSA in 2008. These drill holes are located near the Project on land that is now controlled by the Pebble Partnership and provided information on the regional geology. Seven NQ size vertical holes numbered PS08-01 to PS08-07 drilled by Peak Exploration (USA) Corp averaged 780 ft in length.
10.2.4 Pebble Partnership 2018 - 2019 Drilling
In 2018, 28 vertical geotechnical holes numbered GH18-387S to GH18-414S were drilled to by contractors Foundex and AES to test proposed tailings storage facility (TSF), quarry and water management facility locations.
Pebble Project | Page 116 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Six reverse circulation (RC) percussion holes were drilled by T&J Enterprises for hydrogeological site investigation in 2019 in support of the ongoing EIS process. The work consisted of drilling vertically through overburden and bedrock, followed by the installation of pumping wells, monitoring wells, and grouted-in vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs).
10.3 Bulk Density Results
Bulk density measurements were collected from drill core samples, as described in Section 11.3.5. A summary of all bulk density results is provided in Table 10‑2 and Table 10‑3 shows a summary of bulk density drill holes used in the current Mineral Resource estimate.
Table 10‑2: Summary of All Bulk Density (g/cm3) Results
Age | No. of Measurements | Density Mean | Density Median |
Quaternary | 34 | 2.60 | 2.61 |
Tertiary | 2,703 | 2.57 | 2.57 |
Cretaceous | 8,671 | 2.66 | 2.64 |
All | 11,775 | 2.63 | 2.62 |
Table 10‑3: Summary of Bulk Density (g/cm3) Results Used for Resource Estimation
Age | No. of Measurements | Density Mean | Density Median |
Tertiary | 3,026 | 2.56 | 2.57 |
Cretaceous | 8,130 | 2.64 | 2.62 |
All | 11,185 | 2.62 | 2.61 |
10.4 Conclusions
Samples from the 2002 through 2012 core drilling of Northern Dynasty provide 91% of the assays used in the Mineral Resource estimate. These drilling and sampling programs were carried out in a proficient manner consistent with industry standard practices at the time the programs were completed. Core recovery was typically very good and averaged over 98%; two-thirds of all measured intervals have 100% core recovery. No significant factors of drilling, sampling, or recovery that impact the accuracy and reliability of the results were observed.
The remaining 9% of assays used in the Mineral Resource estimate derive from historical 1988 to 1992 and 1997 Teck core drill programs. Northern Dynasty expended considerable effort to assess the veracity of the Teck drilling over several years. This included: re-survey of drill hole locations, review of remaining half core, extensive re-drilling of areas targeted by Teck, and plotting and comparison of Teck drill holes with nearby Northern Dynasty drill holes. No significant factors of the drilling, sampling or recovery of the Teck program that impact the accuracy and reliability of the results were observed.
QP Eric Titley considers the drill programs to be reasonable and adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.
Pebble Project | Page 117 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
11.1 Sampling Method and Approach
The Pebble deposit has been explored by extensive core drilling, with 81,188 samples taken from drill core for assay analysis. Nearly all potentially-mineralized Cretaceous core drilled and recovered has been sampled by halving in 10 ft lengths. Similarly, all core recovered from the Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary cover sequence (referred to as Tertiary here and in Section 13) has also been sampled, typically on 20 ft sample lengths, with some shorter sample intervals in areas of geologic interest. Unconsolidated overburden material, where it exists, is generally not recovered by core drilling and therefore not usually sampled.
Rock chips from the 229 rotary percussion holes were generally not sampled for assay analysis, as the holes were drilled for monitoring wells and environmental purposes. Only 35 samples were taken from the drill chips of 26 rotary percussion holes outside the Pebble deposit area, which were drilled for condemnation purposes.
For details of the main rock units in the Pebble deposit and mineralization, see Section 7.
Half cores remaining after sampling were replaced in the original core boxes and stored at Iliamna in a secure compound. Later geological, metallurgical and environmental sampling took place on a small portion of this remaining core. Crushed reject samples from the 2006 through 2013 and the 2018 analytical programs are stored in locked containers at Delta Junction, AK. Drill core assay pulps from the 1989 through 2013 and the 2018 programs are stored at a secure warehouse in Surrey, BC.
11.1.1 Teck 1988 – 1997 Sampling
Teck drill core was transported from the drill site by helicopter to a logging and sampling site in the village of lIiamna. The core from within the Pebble deposit was typically sampled on 10 ft intervals and most core from Cretaceous age units was sampled. Samples from the Sill and other areas were typically 5 ft in length, with shorter samples in areas of vein mineralization. Samples consisted of mechanically-split drill core. The samples were transported by air charter to Anchorage and by air freight to Vancouver, BC. All coarse rejects from 1988 through 1997, all pulps from 1988, and most from 1989 have been discarded. The remaining pulps were later shipped by Northern Dynasty to a secure warehouse at Surrey, BC, for long-term storage.
11.1.2 Northern Dynasty 2002 – 2006 Sampling
All drill core was sampled at a secure core logging facility in the village of Iliamna. NQ2 core samples, averaging 10 ft long, were collected by Northern Dynasty personnel by mechanically splitting the core in half lengthwise. In 2002 a total of 2,467 core samples were taken.
A total of 12,865 Cretaceous (syn-mineralization) samples averaging 10 ft long were taken in 2004; 10,893 samples were mechanically split half-core samples and 1,972 samples were of the metallurgical type. The metallurgical samples were taken by sawing an off-centre slice representing 20% of the core volume, which was submitted for assay analysis. The remaining 80% was used for metallurgical purposes. No intact drill core remains after this type of metallurgical sampling, only assay reject and pulp samples. In addition, 904 Tertiary (post-mineralization) samples averaging 15 ft long were taken for trace element analysis. Tertiary samples were collected by mechanically splitting the core in half lengthwise. A total of 4,378 Cretaceous samples and 1,435 Tertiary samples were collected in 2005. Of the Cretaceous samples, 3,541 were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise. The remaining 837 Cretaceous samples were from metallurgical holes that were split using the 20% off-centre saw method. Tertiary samples were also sampled using this method. Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft long and Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft long. No samples were collected or analyzed from the 71 rotary percussion holes drilled in 2005.
Pebble Project | Page 118 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In 2006, the 2,759 Cretaceous samples collected averaged 10 ft in length and the 1,847 Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft in length. The Cretaceous samples were collected by sawing the core in half lengthwise, and the Tertiary samples were collected by the 20% off-centre saw method described for the 2004 metallurgical holes.
11.1.3 Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2007 Sampling
A total of 12,664 samples were taken from the 72 drill holes in 2007. The 9,485 Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft long, and the 3,179 Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft long. The Cretaceous samples were collected by sawing the core in half lengthwise, and the Tertiary samples were collected by the 20% off-centre saw method.
11.1.4 Pebble Partnership 2008 -2014 Sampling
A total of 12,701 samples were taken in 2008 by the Pebble Partnership. The 9,312 Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft long and the 3,389 Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft long. The Cretaceous samples were collected by sawing the core in half lengthwise. The Tertiary samples and assay samples from metallurgical holes were collected using the 20% off-centre saw method described for the 2004 metallurgical holes. The remaining 80% of the core from the Cretaceous portions of the metallurgical holes were used for metallurgical testing. A total of 2,835 mainstream samples were collected in 2009. The 2,555 Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft long and the 280 Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft long. The Cretaceous samples were collected by sawing the core in half lengthwise. Tertiary samples were collected using the 20% off-centre saw method.
A total of 4,714 mainstream samples were taken in 2010. The 4,463 Cretaceous samples and the 251 Tertiary samples averaged 10 ft long. All samples were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise.
A total of 4,281 mainstream samples were taken in 2011. The 3,674 Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft in length and the 607 Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft in length. Cretaceous samples were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise. Tertiary samples were taken by the 20% off-centre saw-cut method described above.
A total of 2,681 core samples (2,537 Cretaceous samples and the 144 Tertiary samples) were taken in 2012. The Cretaceous samples averaged 10 ft in length and were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise. Tertiary samples averaged 20 ft in length and were taken by the 20% off-centre cut method.
A total of 523 samples were taken in 2013: 1 from Quaternary, 124 from Tertiary and 398 from Cretaceous strata. The Cretaceous and Quaternary samples average 10 ft in length and were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise. The Tertiary samples average 15 ft in length and were taken by the 20% off-centre cut method.
In 2018, 329 samples averaging 10 ft in length were taken by sawing the core in half lengthwise.
The six RC holes drilled in 2019 were not sampled for assay.
The large 1.7 to 2.2 lb Cretaceous rock assay pulps and the 0.5 lb Tertiary waste rock pulps from these years are stored in a secure warehouse at Surrey, BC.
Pebble Project | Page 119 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Essentially, all potentially mineralized Cretaceous rock recovered by drilling on the Pebble Project is subject to sample preparation and assay analysis for copper, gold, molybdenum and several other elements. Similarly, all Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary cover sequence (Tertiary) rock cored and recovered during the drill program is also subject to sample preparation and geochemical analysis by multi-element methods. Since 2007, all sampling at Pebble has been undertaken by employees or contractors under the supervision of a QP. QP Titley believes these processes are acceptable for use in geological and resource estimation for the Pebble deposit.
11.2 Sample Preparation
11.2.1 Teck 1988 – 1997 Sample Preparation
Teck drill core samples collected prior to the 1997 program were prepared by ALS Minerals (ALS Vancouver) Laboratories in North Vancouver, BC (formerly Chemex Labs Inc.). The core samples were processed by drying, weighing, crushing to 70% passing 10 mesh and then splitting to a 250 g sub-sample and a coarse reject; the 250 g sub-sample was pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh. During the 1997 program, drill core samples were prepared by ALS Laboratories in Anchorage using similar methods.
11.2.2 Northern Dynasty 2002 Sample Preparation
In 2002, the samples were prepared at the ALS Fairbanks sample preparation laboratory (ALS Fairbanks). ALS was certified under an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 accreditation in 1999 and has been ISO/IEC 17025 certified since 2009. The sample bags were verified against the numbers listed on the shipment notice. In 2002, the entire sample of half-core was dried, weighed and crushed to 70% passing 10 mesh (2 mm), then a 250 g split was taken and pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh (75 µm). The pulp was split, and approximately 125 g were shipped by commercial airfreight for analysis at the ALS Vancouver. The remaining pulps were shipped to a secure warehouse at Surrey, BC for long-term storage. The coarse rejects were held for several months at ALS Fairbanks until QA/QC measures were completed and were then discarded.
11.2.3 Northern Dynasty 2003 Sample Preparation
The 2003 samples were prepared at the SGS Mineral Services (SGS) sample preparation laboratory in Fairbanks (SGS Fairbanks). After verification of the sample bag numbers against the shipment notice, the entire sample of half-core was dried, weighed and crushed to 75% passing 10 mesh (2 mm). A 400 g split was taken and pulverized to 95% passing 200 mesh (75 µm), and pulps were shipped by commercial airfreight to the SGS laboratories in either Toronto, ON, or Rouyn, QC. The assay pulps were returned for storage at the Surrey warehouse. Coarse rejects were held for several months at SGS Fairbanks until all QA/QC measures were completed and were then discarded.
11.2.4 Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2004-2013 and 2018 Sample Preparation
For the 2004 through 2013 and 2018 drill programs, ALS Fairbanks performed the sample preparation work. The laboratory received the half-core Cretaceous samples and the off-centre saw splits from the Tertiary samples and metallurgical holes, verified the sample numbers against the sample shipment notice and performed the sample drying, weighing, crushing and splitting. ALS Vancouver pulverized the samples from 2004 through 2006 (as described for 2002 samples), and ALS Fairbanks pulverized the samples from 2007 through 2013 and 2018. Assay pulps were returned for long-term storage at the Surrey warehouse. Crushed reject samples from the 2006 through 2013 and 2018 analytical programs are stored in locked containers at Delta Junction, AK. No samples were taken from the 2019 percussion drill program.
Pebble Project | Page 120 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.3 Sample Analysis
11.3.1 Teck 1988 – 1997 Sample Analysis
Teck analyzed a total of 6,987 core samples from 164 drill holes, including 676 samples analyzed from 39 drill holes on the Sill prospect. Samples from the 1988, 1989 and 1997 programs were analyzed by Cominco Exploration and Research Laboratory (CERL), a subsidiary of Teck in Vancouver, BC. Samples from the 1990 - 1993 programs of Teck were analyzed by the independent laboratory ALS Vancouver. Of the Teck samples outside the Sill zone, 69% were analyzed by ALS Vancouver.
Teck systematically assayed the Cretaceous rock intersections for gold from all drill holes completed on the property from 1988 through 1997. Prior to 1990, gold was determined by aqua regia (AR) decomposition solvent extraction of a 5 g sample with an AAS finish, and by lead collection fire assay (FA) with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), or gravimetric finish on higher grade samples. After 1989, gold was determined by lead collection FA-AAS only, and overall, gold was determined by FA-AAS on over 90% of the Pebble deposit samples analyzed during the Teck era.
Copper analysis was added when the Pebble porphyry discovery hole was drilled in 1989, and single element copper analysis by AR digestion AAS finish continued for all Cretaceous intersections in 1989. Selective single element molybdenum assays by HNO3-HCl04 decomposition AAS finish and single element silver analysis by AR digestion AAS were added to some holes in 1989. In 1990, Teck added multi-element analysis by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish to the analytical protocol, which included the determination of copper, molybdenum, silver and 29 additional elements. In 1991 and 1992, some sections of core were analyzed using multi-element methods and some were analyzed using single element copper analysis. Only four holes were drilled by Teck in 1993, on targets well south of the Pebble deposit, and these were only assayed for gold and copper. No drilling was completed from 1994 to 1996.
During the 1997 program, drill core samples prepared by ALS Anchorage were submitted to CERL for copper analysis by AR digestion with ICP-AES finish. Gold was analyzed by FA on a one assay-ton sample with AAS finish. Trace elements were analyzed by AR digestion with an ICP-AES finish. One blind standard was inserted for every 20 samples analyzed. One duplicate sample was taken for every 10 samples analyzed.
11.3.2 Northern Dynasty 2002 Sample Analysis
Analytical work for the 2002 drilling program was completed by ALS Vancouver, an ISO 9002 certified laboratory. All samples were analyzed for copper, silver, molybdenum and additional elements by multi-element analysis and for gold by fire assay.
Multi-element analysis for 34 elements, including copper, silver and molybdenum, was by AR digestion of a 0.5 g sample with an ICP-AES finish (ALS code ME-ICP41 shown in Table 11‑1).
Pebble Project | Page 121 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑1: ALS Aqua Regia Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-ICP41
Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
| Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Silver | Ag | ppm | 0.2 | 100 |
| Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.01 | 15 |
Aluminum | Al | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Manganese | Mn | ppm | 5 | 10,000 |
Arsenic | As | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
| Molybdenum | Mo | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Boron | B | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Sodium | Na | % | 0.01 | 10% |
Barium | Ba | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Nickel | Ni | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Beryllium | Be | ppm | 0.5 | 100 |
| Phosphorus | P | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Bismuth | Bi | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
| Lead | Pb | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
Calcium | Ca | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Sulfur | S | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Cadmium | Cd | ppm | 0.5 | 500 |
| Antimony | Sb | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
Cobalt | Co | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Scandium | Sc | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Chromium | Cr | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Strontium | Sr | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Copper | Cu | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Titanium | Ti | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Iron | Fe | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Thallium | Tl | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Gallium | Ga | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Uranium | U | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Mercury | Hg | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Vanadium | V | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Potassium | K | % | 0.01 | 10 |
| Tungsten | W | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Lanthanum | La | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Zinc | Zn | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
A total of 1,715 samples from 26 drill holes exhibiting porphyry-style copper-gold mineralization were assayed for copper by AR digestion with an AAS finish to the ppm level (ALS code Cu-AA46 shown in Table 11‑2). Five copper assays greater than 10,000 ppm in hole 2037 were also assayed by this method. A further 271 samples from 5 drill holes were assayed for copper by four-acid (HNO3-HClO4-HF-HCl) digestion AAS (ALS code Cu-AA61 in Table 11‑2) and 62 samples from drill hole 2034 were assayed for molybdenum by four-acid digestion with an AAS finish (ALS code Mo-AA61 shown in Table 11‑2). Two samples with Pb and Zn concentrations >10,000 ppm by method ME-ICP41 were reanalyzed by four-acid digestion AAS (ALS codes Pb-AA46 and Zn-AA46 respectively, these methods are also shown in Table 11‑2).
Table 11‑2: ALS Additional Analytical Procedures
Element | Symbol | Method Code | Digestion | Instrument | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Copper | Cu | Cu-AA46 | Aqua regia | AAS | 0.4 | % | 0.01 | 50 |
Lead | Pb | Pb-AA46 | Aqua regia | AAS | 0.4 | % | 0.01 | 50 |
Zinc | Zn | Zn-AA46 | Aqua regia | AAS | 0.4 | % | 0.01 | 50 |
Copper | Cu | Cu-AA61 | Four-acid | AAS | 0.4 | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Copper | Cu | Cu-AA62 | Four-acid | AAS | 0.4 | % | 0.01 | 50 |
Copper | Cu | Cu-OG62 | Four-acid | ICP-AES | 0.4 | % | 0.01 | 40 |
Pebble Project | Page 122 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Gold concentrations were determined by 30 g FA fusion with lead as a collector and an AAS finish (ALS code Au-AA23 in Table 11‑3). Four samples that returned gold results greater than 10,000 ppb (10 g/t), were re-analyzed by one assay-ton FA fusion with a gravimetric finish (ALS code Au-GRAV21 in Table 11 3). Seven samples from drill hole 2013 were analyzed for gold, platinum, and palladium by 30 g FA fusion with ICP finish (ALS code PGM-ICP23 in Table 11‑3). In 2007, and additional 459 samples from 11 other 2002 holes were analyzed by this method.
Table 11‑3: ALS Precious Metal Fire Assay Analytical Methods
Element | Symbol | Method Code | Instrument | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Gold | Au | Au-AA23 | AAS | 30 | ppm | 0.005 | 10 |
Gold | Au | Au-GRA21 | Gravimetric | 30 | ppm | 0.05 | 1,000 |
Gold | Au | PGM-ICP23 | ICP-AES | 30 | ppm | 0.001 | 10 |
Platinum | Pt | PGM-ICP23 | ICP-AES | 30 | ppm | 0.005 | 10 |
Palladium | Pd | PGM-ICP23 | ICP-AES | 30 | ppm | 0.001 | 10 |
11.3.3 Northern Dynasty 2003 Sample Analysis
Analytical work for the 2003 drilling program was completed by SGS Canada Inc. of Toronto, ON, an ISO 9002 registered, ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. All samples were assayed for copper by a total digestion ICP-AES method and for gold by FA. An AR digestion multi-element geochemical package was used for 33 additional elements including copper, silver, and molybdenum.
Copper assays were completed at SGS Toronto. Samples were fused with sodium peroxide, digested in dilute nitric acid and the solution analyzed by ICP-AES, with results in percent on SGS method ICAY50 as detailed in Table 11‑4.
Table 11‑4: SGS Copper Analytical Method ICAY50
Element | Symbol | Digestion | Instrument | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Copper | Cu | Sodium Peroxide Fusion | ICP-AES | 0.2 | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Gold analyses were completed at SGS Rouyn, QC, by one assay-ton (30 g) lead-collection FA fusion with AAS finish, with results reported in ppb. Ten samples that returned gold results greater than 2,000 ppb (2 g/t) were re-analyzed by 30 g FA fusion with a gravimetric finish, with results reported in g/t. The SGS analytical methods for gold are listed in Table 11‑5.
Table 11‑5: SGS Gold Fire Assay Analytical Methods
Element | Symbol | Method Code | Instrument | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Gold | Au | FA305 | AAS | 30 | ppb | 5 | 2,000 |
Gold | Au | FA30G | Gravimetric | 30 | g/t | 0.03 | 1,000 |
All samples were subject to multi-element analysis for 33 elements including copper, molybdenum, and sulphur by AR digestion with an ICP-AES finish at SGS Toronto by SGS method ICP70. The elements reported, units and detection limits are listed in Table 11‑6.
Pebble Project | Page 123 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑6: SGS Aqua Regia Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ICP70
Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
| Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Silver | Ag | ppm | 0.2 | 10 |
| Molybdenum | Mo | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Aluminum | Al | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Sodium | Na | % | 0.01 | 15 |
Arsenic | As | ppm | 3 | 10,000 |
| Nickel | Ni | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Barium | Ba | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Phosphorus | P | % | 0.01 | 1 |
Beryllium | Be | ppm | 0.5 | 2,500 |
| Lead | Pb | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
Bismuth | Bi | ppm | 5 | 10,000 |
| Sulphur | S | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Calcium | Ca | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Antimony | Sb | ppm | 5 | 10,000 |
Cadmium | Cd | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Scandium | Sc | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
Cobalt | Co | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Tin | Sn | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Chromium | Cr | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Strontium | Sr | ppm | 0.5 | 5,000 |
Copper | Cu | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
| Titanium | Ti | % | 0.01 | 15 |
Iron | Fe | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Vanadium | V | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
Potassium | K | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Tungsten | W | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Lanthanum | La | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
| Yttrium | Y | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
Lithium | Li | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Zinc | Zn | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.01 | 15 |
| Zirconium | Zr | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
Manganese | Mn | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, 30 samples were analyzed for whole-rock geochemical analysis by lithium metaborate fusion with an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) finish. All duplicates were analyzed at ALS Vancouver.
11.3.4 Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership 2004-2013 and 2018 Sample Analysis
Analytical work from 2004 to 2013 and 2018 was completed by ALS Vancouver. ALS Vancouver has been ISO/IEC 17025 accredited since 2005. Total copper and molybdenum concentrations were determined by an intermediate-grade multi-element analytical method. A four-acid digestion was followed by ICP-AES finish (ALS code ME-ICP61a). This multi-element method was also used to determine 31 additional elements including sulphur. The elements reported, units and detection limits are listed in Table 11‑7.
Pebble Project | Page 124 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑7: ALS Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-ICP61a
Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
| Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Silver | Ag | ppm | 1 | 200 |
| Molybdenum | Mo | ppm | 10 | 50,000 |
Aluminum | Al | % | 0.05 | 50 |
| Sodium | Na | % | 0.05 | 30 |
Arsenic | As | ppm | 50 | 100,000 |
| Nickel | Ni | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
Barium | Ba | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
| Phosphorus | P | ppm | 50 | 100,000 |
Beryllium | Be | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Lead | Pb | ppm | 20 | 100,000 |
Bismuth | Bi | ppm | 20 | 500,00 |
| Sulphur | S | % | 0.05 | 10 |
Calcium | Ca | % | 0.05 | 50 |
| Antimony | Sb | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Cadmium | Cd | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Scandium | Sc | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Cobalt | Co | ppm | 10 | 50,000 |
| Strontium | Sr | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
Chromium | Cr | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
| Thorium | Th | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Copper | Cu | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
| Titanium | Ti | % | 0.05 | 30 |
Iron | Fe | % | 0.05 | 50 |
| Thallium | Tl | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Gallium | Ga | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
| Uranium | U | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Potassium | K | % | 0.1 | 30 |
| Vanadium | V | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
Lanthanum | La | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
| Tungsten | W | ppm | 50 | 50,000 |
Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.05 | 50 |
| Zinc | Zn | ppm | 20 | 100,000 |
Manganese | Mn | ppm | 10 | 100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2004 and 2005, approximately one sample in 10 was also analyzed for copper by a high-grade, four-acid digestion method with AAS finish (ALS code Cu-AA62). Details on this and other copper check assay and overlimit methods employed are in Table 11‑2.
Gold content was determined by 30 g lead collection FA fusion with AAS finish (ALS code Au-AA23). A total of 14 samples from this period returned gold values greater than 10 ppm; they were re-analyzed by 30 g FA fusion with a gravimetric finish (ALS code Au-GRA21), with results reported in ppm. From drill hole number 7371 onward, gold, platinum and palladium concentrations were determined by 30 g FA fusion with ICP-AES finish (ALS code PGM-ICP23). In 2002, 464 samples from 12 holes in the 25 Zone, 37 Zone and nearby were also analyzed by method PGM-ICP23. Table 11‑3 provides further details on the sample size and detection limits of the ALS precious metal fire assay methods used. A single silver value >200 ppm was re-analyzed by AR digestion AAS (Method Ag-AA62 on Table 11‑2). Beginning in 2004 for Tertiary rocks and 2007 for Cretaceous rocks, samples were analyzed for 48 elements including copper, silver, molybdenum, and rhenium by four-acid digestion followed by ICP-AES and inductively coupled plasma–mass spectroscopy finish (ICP-MS). Information on this method (ALS code ME-MS61) is listed in Table 11‑8.
Pebble Project | Page 125 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑8: ALS Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method ME-MS61
Element | Symbol | Unit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
| Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Silver | Ag | ppm | 0.01 | 100 |
| Sodium | Na | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Aluminum | Al | % | 0.01 | 50 |
| Niobium | Nb | ppm | 0.1 | 500 |
Arsenic | As | ppm | 0.2 | 10,000 |
| Nickel | Ni | ppm | 0.2 | 10,000 |
Barium | Ba | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
| Phosphorous | P | ppm | 10 | 10,000 |
Beryllium | Be | ppm | 0.05 | 1,000 |
| Lead | Pb | ppm | 0.5 | 10,000 |
Bismuth | Bi | ppm | 0.01 | 10,000 |
| Rubidium | Rb | ppm | 0.1 | 500 |
Calcium | Ca | % | 0.01 | 50 |
| Rhenium | Re | ppm | 0.002 | 50 |
Cadmium | Cd | ppm | 0.02 | 500 |
| Sulphur | S | % | 0.01 | 10 |
Cerium | Ce | ppm | 0.01 | 500 |
| Antimony | Sb | ppm | 0.05 | 1,000 |
Cobalt | Co | ppm | 0.1 | 10,000 |
| Scandium | Sc | ppm | 0.1 | 250 |
Chromium | Cr | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
| Selenium | Se | ppm | 1 | 1,000 |
Cesium | Cs | ppm | 0.05 | 500 |
| Tin | Sn | ppm | 0.2 | 500 |
Copper | Cu | ppm | 0.2 | 10,000 |
| Strontium | Sr | ppm | 0.2 | 10,000 |
Iron | Fe | % | 0.01 | 50 |
| Tantalum | Ta | ppm | 0.05 | 100 |
Gallium | Ga | ppm | 0.05 | 500 |
| Tellurium | Te | ppm | 0.05 | 500 |
Germanium | Ge | ppm | 0.05 | 500 |
| Thorium | Th | ppm | 0.01 | 500 |
Hafnium | Hf | ppm | 0.1 | 500 |
| Titanium | Ti | % | 0.005 | 10 |
Indium | In | ppm | 0.005 | 500 |
| Thallium | Tl | ppm | 0.02 | 500 |
Potassium | K | % | 0.01 | 10 |
| Uranium | U | ppm | 0.1 | 500 |
Lanthanum | La | ppm | 0.5 | 500 |
| Vanadium | V | ppm | 1 | 10,000 |
Lithium | Li | ppm | 0.2 | 500 |
| Tungsten | W | ppm | 0.1 | 10,000 |
Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.01 | 50 |
| Yttrium | Y | ppm | 0.1 | 500 |
Manganese | Mn | ppm | 5 | 100,000 |
| Zinc | Zn | ppm | 2 | 10,000 |
Molybdenum | Mo | ppm | 0.05 | 10,000 |
| Zirconium | Zr | ppm | 0.5 | 500 |
As adjuncts to ALS methods ME-ICP61 and ME-MS61, mercury was determined by AR digestion with cold vapour AAS finish (ALS method Hg-CV41) and AR digestion ICP-MS (ALS method Hg-MS42) on samples where method ME-ICP61a is not performed. Table 11‑9 provides further details on these methods.
Table 11‑9: ALS Mercury Aqua Regia Digestion Analytical Methods
Element | Symbol | Method Code | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
Mercury | Hg | Hg-CV41 | 0.5 | ppm | 0.01 | 100 |
Mercury | Hg | Hg-MS42 | 0.5 | ppm | 0.005 | 100 |
A total of 13,371 samples were subject to sequential copper speciation analyses that included: oxide copper analysis by citric acid leach AAS finish; non-sulphide copper analysis by 5% sulphuric acid leach AAS finish and cyanide leachable copper on the sample residue of the sulphuric acid leach by cyanide leach AAS finish (ALS codes Cu-AA04, Cu-AA05 and Cu-AA17). These methods and the database codes associated with them are outlined in Table 11‑10.
Pebble Project | Page 126 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑10: ALS Copper Speciation Analytical Methods
Database Code | Method Code | Leach | Sample Mass (g) | Units | Lower Limit | Upper Limit |
CuOx | Cu-AA04 | Citric acid | 0.25 | % | 0.01 | 10 |
CuS | Cu-AA05 | 5% Sulphuric acid | 0.5 | % | 0.01 | 10 |
CuCN | Cu-AA17 | Cyanide | 2 | % | 0.01 | 10 |
A total of 222 samples from a drill hole in Pebble East were analyzed for precious metals (ALS code Au-SCR21 modified to include platinum and palladium). A 1,000 g pulp sample was screened at 100 µm (Tyler 150 mesh) and the entire plus fraction was weighed and analyzed by FA ICP finish and two 30 g minus fractions.
All duplicates since 2004 have been analyzed at Acme Analytical Laboratories (Acme), now Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd. (BVCCL) in Vancouver, BC, using similar methods to those at ALS. Acme (BVCCL) code MA270, a four-acid digestion with ICP-AES finish, was used to determine total concentrations for copper, molybdenum and 38 additional elements. Table 11‑11 lists the elements analyzed and the detection limits of this method.
Pebble Project | Page 127 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑11: BVCCL Four Acid Digestion Multi-Element Analytical Method MA270
Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit |
| Element | Symbol | Units | Lower Limit |
Silver | Ag | ppm | 0.5 |
| Sodium | Na | % | 0.01 |
Aluminum | Al | % | 0.01 |
| Niobium | Nb | ppm | 0.5 |
Arsenic | As | ppm | 5 |
| Nickel | Ni | ppm | 0.5 |
Barium | Ba | ppm | 5 |
| Phosphorus | P | % | 0.01 |
Beryllium | Be | ppm | 5 |
| Lead | Pb | ppm | 0.5 |
Bismuth | Bi | ppm | 0.5 |
| Rubidium | Rb | ppm | 0.5 |
Calcium | Ca | % | 0.01 |
| Sulphur | S | % | 0.05 |
Cadmium | Cd | ppm | 0.5 |
| Antimony | Sb | ppm | 0.5 |
Cerium | Ce | ppm | 5 |
| Scandium | Sc | ppm | 1 |
Cobalt | Co | ppm | 1 |
| Tin | Sn | ppm | 0.5 |
Chromium | Cr | ppm | 1 |
| Strontium | Sr | ppm | 5 |
Copper | Cu | ppm | 0.5 |
| Tantalum | Ta | ppm | 0.5 |
Iron | Fe | % | 0.01 |
| Thorium | Th | ppm | 0.5 |
Hafnium | Hf | ppm | 0.5 |
| Titanium | Ti | % | 0.001 |
Potassium | K | % | 0.01 |
| Uranium | U | ppm | 0.5 |
Lanthanum | La | ppm | 0.5 |
| Vanadium | V | ppm | 10 |
Lithium | Li | ppm | 0.5 |
| Tungsten | W | ppm | 0.5 |
Magnesium | Mg | % | 0.01 |
| Yttrium | Y | ppm | 0.5 |
Manganese | Mn | ppm | 5 |
| Zinc | Zn | ppm | 5 |
Molybdenum | Mo | ppm | 0.5 |
| Zirconium | Zr | ppm | 0.5 |
Check assays for gold were determined by Acme (BVCCL) code FA330, a 30 g FA fusion with ICP-AES finish. Table 11‑12lists the details for this method.
Table 11‑12: BVCCL Precious Metal Fire Assay Analytical Method
Element | Symbol | Method Code | Instrument | Units | Sample Mass (g) | Lower Limit |
Gold | Au | FA330 | ICP-AES | ppb | 30 | 2 |
In 2010, 115 till samples were also analyzed at BVCCL. The samples were dried and sieved to 230 mesh (63 µm), and a 15 g sub-sample was digested in AR and analyzed by ICP-MS (BVCCL code 1F05).
Figure 11‑1 illustrates the sampling and analytical flowchart for the 2010 through 2013 drill programs.
Pebble Project | Page 128 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 11‑1: Pebble Project 2010 to 2013 Drill Core Sampling and Analytical Flow Chart
Note: Modified after Gaunt et al., (2014).
Pebble Project | Page 129 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.3.5 Bulk Density Determinations
Density measurements were made at 100 ft intervals within continuous rock units, and at least once in each rock unit less than 100 ft wide. Rocks chosen for analysis were typical of the surrounding rock. Where the sample interval occurred in a section of missing core, or poorly-consolidated material unsuitable for measurement, the nearest intact piece of core was measured instead.
Core samples free of visible moisture were selected; they ranged from 3 to 12 in long, and averaged 11.8 in. The samples were dried, weighed in air on a digital scale (capacity 4.4 lb.) and the mass in air (MA) recorded to the nearest 0.1 g. The sample was suspended in water below the scale and its weight in water (Mw) entered. Calculation of the density was conducted using the following formula:
Core-sized pieces of aluminum were used as density standards at site starting in 2008. A total of 9,951 density measurements of Tertiary and Cretaceous rocks were taken using a water immersion method on whole and half drill core samples at the Iliamna core logging facility.
11.4 Quality Control/Quality Assurance
QP Titley reviewed the data verification procedures followed by Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership and by third parties on behalf of those entities, and believes these procedures are consistent with industry best practices and acceptable for use in geological and resource estimation.
11.4.1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Northern Dynasty maintained an effective QA/QC program consistent with industry best practices, which was continued from 2007 to 2013 under the Pebble Partnership. This program is in addition to the QA/QC procedures used internally by the analytical laboratories. The QA/QC program was independently reviewed by Analytical Laboratory Consultants Ltd (ALC, 2004 to 2007) and Nicholson Analytical Consulting (NAC, 2008 to 2012). The analytical consultants provided ongoing monitoring, including facility inspection and timely reporting of the performance of standards, blanks and duplicates in the sampling and analytical program. The results of this program indicate that analytical results are of a high quality, suitable for use in detailed modelling and resource evaluation studies.
Table 11‑13 describes the QA/QC sample types used in the program. The performance of the copper-gold standard CGS-16 is illustrated in Figure 11‑2and Figure 11‑3. A comparison of the matched-pair duplicate assay results of ALS and Acme (BVCCL) for 2004 through 2010 is provided in Figure 11‑4 and Figure 11‑5.
Pebble Project | Page 130 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 11‑13: QA/QC Sample Types Used
QC Code | Sample Type | Description | Percent of Total |
MS | Regular Mainstream | · Regular samples submitted for preparation and analysis at the primary laboratory. | 89% |
ST | Standard (Certified Reference Material) | · Mineralized material in pulverized form with a known concentration and distribution of element(s) of interest.
· Randomly inserted using pre-numbered sample tags. | 4.5% or 9 in 200 |
DP | Duplicate or Replicate | · An additional split taken from the remaining pulp reject, coarse reject, ¼ core or ½ core remainder.
· Random selection using pre-numbered sample tags. | 4.5% or 9 in 200 |
SD | Standard Duplicate | · Standard reference sample submitted with duplicates and replicates to the check laboratory. | <1% |
BL | Blank | · Sample containing negligible or background amounts of elements of interest, to test for contamination. | 2% 1 in 50 |
Figure 11‑2: Performance of the Copper Standard CGS-16 in 2008
Note: Figure prepared by NAC, Oct. 19, 2009.
Pebble Project | Page 131 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 11‑3: Performance of the Gold Standard CGS-16 in 2008
Note: Figure prepared by NAC, Oct. 19, 2009.
11.4.2 Standards
Standard reference materials (standards) were inserted into the Cretaceous sample stream (approximately 9 samples for every 200 samples) after sample preparation as anonymous (blind), consecutively numbered pulps. These standards are in addition to internal standards routinely analyzed by the analytical laboratories. Standards were inserted in the field by the use of sample tags, on which the "ST" designation for "Standard" was pre-marked. For the Tertiary waste rock analytical program, coarse blanks were inserted at the sample tags positions marked as ST until late 2008 and, since then a commercial pulp blank has been used.
Standard performance was monitored by charting the analytical results over time against the concentration of the control elements. The results are compared with the expected value and range, as determined by round-robin analysis. A total of 32 different standard reference materials were used to monitor the assay results from 1997 through 2018 and 2020 rhenium analysis programs. Copper and gold standards were inserted during the 1997 through 2020 programs. Molybdenum standards were added in September 2008.
In December 2007, several tons of coarse reject samples from Pebble East and Pebble West were pulled from storage and shipped to Ore Research & Exploration Pty Ltd in Victoria, Australia, for the production of ten matrix-matched certified reference materials. These standards (PLP-1 through PLP-10) became available in late 2009 and have been used to monitor the Pebble analytical results since that time. Nine of the standards from mineralized Cretaceous rocks are certified for copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, and arsenic. One low- grade standard (PLP-2) is from Tertiary rock and is certified for copper, silver, molybdenum, arsenic, and mercury.
Pebble Project | Page 132 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
A standard determination outside the control limits indicates a control failure. The control limits used are as follows:
· | warning limits: ±2 standard deviations; and, |
|
|
· | control limits: ±3 standard deviations. |
When a control failure occurred, the laboratory was notified and the affected range of samples re-analyzed. By the end of the program, no sample intervals had outstanding QA/QC issues. The standard monitoring program provides a good indication of the overall accuracy of the analytical results.
11.4.3 Duplicates
Random duplicate samples were selected and tagged in the field by the use of sample tags on which the “DP” designation for “duplicate” was pre-marked. From 2004 onward, samples to be duplicated were split by ALS Fairbanks and submitted to Acme (BVCCL) in Vancouver for pulverization.
The original samples were assayed by ALS of North Vancouver and the corresponding duplicate samples were assayed by BVCCL. The approximately 2,000 coarse reject, inter-laboratory duplicate assay results from 2004 to 2010 match well; the correlation coefficients are 0.96 for gold, 0.98 for copper and 0.98 for molybdenum. In 2011 and 2013, the duplicate analyses rate of 9 in 200 samples was continued and the number of duplicate samples analyzed was doubled. The protocol was modified so that after every 20th mainstream sample analyzed within the regular sample stream an in-line, intra-laboratory coarse reject duplicate (a “prep-rep” duplicate) was analyzed. In addition to this, the original pulp of this sample was sent to BVCCL for inter-laboratory check assaying when final QA/QC on the original samples was completed.
Figure 11‑4 and Figure 11‑5 provide a comparison of the matched-pair duplicate assay results of ALS Vancouver and BVCCL for 2004 through 2010.
Pebble Project | Page 133 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 11‑4: Comparison of Gold Duplicate Assay Results for 2004 to 2010
Source: Ghaffari et al., (2011).
Figure 11‑5: Comparison of Copper Duplicate Assay Results for 2004 to 2010
Source: Ghaffari et al., (2011).
Pebble Project | Page 134 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.4.4 Blanks
A total of 1,362 field blanks have been inserted since 2004 to test for contamination. This is in addition to the analytical blanks routinely inserted with the samples by the assay laboratories as a part of their internal quality control procedures. In 2004, coarse landscape dolomite was inserted as a blank material. This material was replaced by gravel landscape material between 2005 and late 2008. In late 2008, the gravel blank was replaced by a quarried grey granitic landscape rock. This material has a lithological matrix similar to the Pebble Cretaceous host rocks.
About 1 lb of the blank was placed in a sample bag, given a sequential sample number in the sequence and randomly inserted one to six times per drill hole after the regular core samples were split at Iliamna. These blank samples were processed in sample number order along with the regular samples.
Of the blanks inserted, 444 were included in the Tertiary waste rock sample program in the position marked for the standard. In late 2008, a commercial precious metals pulp blank was inserted with the Tertiary waste rock samples. In late 2009, the use of matrix-matched low grade Tertiary standard PLP-2 was initiated.
The majority of assay results for the blanks report at or below the detection limit. The maximum values reported in the current results are gold (0.028 g/t) and copper (0.057%). No significant contamination occurred during sample preparation, with a few minor exceptions, possibly due to cross-sample mixing errors during crushing.
11.4.5 QA/QC on Other Elements
The four-acid digestion ICP-AES 33 multi-element analytical method employed from 2004 through 2013 (ALS method ME-ICP61) is optimized for copper and molybdenum analysis. The copper and molybdenum assays were monitored by internal laboratory and external standards.
Parallel to this method (as described in Section 11), an ICP-MS 48 multi-element method (ALS Method ME-MS61) was also used to determine the same 25 elements above and 23 additional elements. The ICP-MS method gives lower detection limits for most of the elements.
11.4.6 Rhenium Study
In July 2020, the original assay pulps from 938 sample intervals cored in years 1991, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Pebble deposit drilling were retrieved from a company warehouse for a study on the relationship between rhenium and molybdenum concentrations. The selected samples were originally analyzed for copper, molybdenum and other elements, but had not been analyzed for rhenium. Samples were submitted to ALS Vancouver for multi-element analysis by four acid digestion ICP-MS finish (ALS method ME-MS61), along with 52 Pebble project-based standards, 17 nominal blanks and 48 duplicates. In addition to rhenium and molybdenum, the concentrations of copper, silver and 44 other elements were also determined in this study. The performance of standard PLP-1 for rhenium is illustrated in Figure 11‑6. The pre-2020 results and year 2020 results from ALS are highlighted by lighter and darker shaded lines, respectively. The performance of the nominal (low element concentration) blank PLP-2 for rhenium is similarly presented in Figure 11‑7. As the control samples used had not originally been subject to round-robin analysis for rhenium, results of several hundred analyses at ALS Vancouver were used to establish reasonable concentration levels for them. These levels were corroborated with results obtained by other analytical laboratories using similar analytical methods.
Pebble Project | Page 135 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 11‑6: Performance of Standard PLP-1 for Rhenium
Source: Gaunt et al., (2020).
Pebble Project | Page 136 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 11‑7: Performance of Control Sample PLP-2 for Rhenium
Source: Gaunt et al., (2020).
Pebble Project | Page 137 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Based on the results of this study, the QP Titley is of the opinion that the rhenium results obtained are suitable for use in the development of a regression equation to enable resource estimation of this element.
As part of the 2020 rhenium study, additional elements including copper and molybdenum were analyzed by the multi-element method employed. The copper and molybdenum results obtained in 2020 were compared with the original assay results. These comparisons are presented in Figure 11‑8 as scatterplots in log format of the original results versus the new results. A reasonable level of correspondence in concentrations of the matched pairs was obtained for each element
Figure 11‑8: Scatterplots in Log Format of Original vs 2020 Re-analysis for Copper and Molybdenum
Source: Gaunt et al., (2020).
In the opinion of the QP Titley, the reanalysis of these samples for copper and molybdenum lends further credence to the veracity of the assay results for these elements and the appropriateness of their use in this Report.
11.5 Bulk Density Validation
The bulk density data were reviewed prior to the resource estimate. The following types of errors were noted: entry errors, standards labelled as regular samples, incorrectly calculated density values based on the mass in air and mass in water values entered and extremely high or low-density values without appropriate explanation. These errors were investigated and corrected prior to including the data for resource estimation.
Two other possible sources of error in the measurements were identified: the presence of moisture in the mass in air measurement for some samples, and the presence of porosity and permeability of the bulk rock mass not determinable by the method. The former will result in measurements that are somewhat overstated, and the latter in measurements that are understated in terms of the dry in situ bulk density.
Pebble Project | Page 138 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.6 Survey Validation
In 1988, Teck established a survey control network including the Pebble Beach base monument in the deposit area using U.S. State Plane Coordinate System Alaska Zone 5. This monument was tied to the NGS State Monuments Koktuli, PIG and RAP at Iliamna and formed the base for subsequent drill collar surveys. In 2004, air photo panels and a control network were established using NAD 83 US State Plane Coordinate System Alaska Zone 5 with elevations corrected to NAVD88 based on Geoid99.
In 2005, differences between the elevations of surveyed drill collars in the deposit area and the digital elevation model (DEM) topography were observed. In early 2008, a re-survey program was initiated to investigate and resolve these discrepancies. A consistent error was identified in the collar coordinates from some years, and questions arose as to whether drill collars had been surveyed to the top of the drill casing or to ground level. In September 2008, two new control points - Pebble 1 and Pebble 2 - were established by R&M Consultants Inc. of Anchorage in the deposit area; they tied these two points and the Pebble Beach monument into the 2004 control network and an x, y, z linear coordinate correction was applied to resolve previously observed drill hole elevation discrepancies.
Subsequently, during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons, all holes drilled at the Pebble Project since inception in 1988 were re-surveyed using a real time kinematic (RTK) GPS, referencing the coordinates of the Pebble Beach monument as established by the 2008 re-survey to gain a complete set of consistently acquired collar survey data. The majority of the drill holes were marked with a wooden post and an aluminum tag. In cases where the post was missing, the original coordinates were used to find evidence of the drill hole. Any hole missing a drill post was re-marked, and this was noted in the database. The resurveys were taken to the top of tundra over the centre of the drill hole. Where a drill hole could not be located, the resurveyed coordinate was taken at the original drill collar coordinates and the elevation re-established in the new system.
All post Teck holes were down-hole surveyed by single shot magnetic methods. In 2008, several angle holes were also surveyed by a non-magnetic gyroscopic tool.
11.7 Data Environment
All drill logs collected on the Pebble Project were compiled in a SQL Server database. Drill hole logs were entered into notebook computers running a digital data entry module for the Pebble Project at the core shack in Iliamna prior to 2018. During the pre-2018 drilling programs, the core logging computers were synchronized on a daily basis with the site master database on the file server in the Iliamna geology office. In 2018 and 2019, data entry was to a cloud-based server. Core photographs are also transferred to the file server in the Iliamna geology office on a daily basis. In the geology office, the logs were reviewed and validated, and initial corrections made.
Prior to 2018, site data were transmitted on a weekly basis to the Vancouver office, where the logging data were imported into the Project master database and merged with digital assay results provided by the analytical laboratories. After importing, a further printing, validation and verification step followed. In 2018 and 2019, a cloud-based application was used. Any errors noted are submitted to the Iliamna office for correction. If analytical re-runs are required, the relevant laboratories are notified and corrections are made to the corresponding results within the project master database. Parallel to this, an independent QA/QC consultant compiled the sample log data from the site with assay data received directly from the laboratories for the 2004 through 2012 programs as part of an ongoing monitoring process. Compiled data are exported to the site database, to resource estimators, and to other users as required.
Pebble Project | Page 139 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.7.1 Error Detection Processes
Error detection within the data entry modules is used in the core shack and the Iliamna geology office as part of the data verification process. This process standardizes and documents the data entry, restricts data which can be entered and processed, and enables corrections to be made at an early stage. Users are prompted to make selections from ‘pick-lists’, when appropriate, and other entries are restricted to reasonable ranges of input. In other instances, information must be entered and certain steps completed prior to advancing to the next step. After the logs have been entered, they are reviewed and validated by the logger and printed.
Site data were transmitted to the Pebble database compilation group on a regular basis. The compiled data from the header, survey, assay, geology and geotechnical tables were validated for missing, overlapping or duplicated intervals or sample numbers, and for matching drill hole lengths in each table. Drill hole collars and traces were viewed on plan view and in section by a geologist as a visual check on the validity of the collar and survey information.
As the analytical data returned from the laboratory, they were merged with the site sampling data, and the gold, copper, silver and molybdenum values of the regular samples and QA/QC samples reviewed. Particular attention was paid to standards that failed QA/QC; they were targeted for immediate review and re-runs were requested from the analytical laboratory if necessary.
11.7.2 Analysis Hierarchies
The first valid QA/QC-passed analytical result received from the primary laboratory has the highest priority in the analytical hierarchy. If the same analytical method is used more than once, no averaging is done. If different analytical methods are employed on the same sample, the most appropriate combination of digestion and analytical method is selected and used.
For gold analysis, FA determined by gravimetric finish supersedes results by AAS or ICP finish, particularly where the AAS or ICP results are designated as over limits. For copper analysis done on Cretaceous rocks after 2004, ALS intermediate grade multi-element analytical method (ALS method ME-ICP61) supersedes copper by low grade multi-element method (ALS method ME-MS61).
In the case of all other elements, including molybdenum, silver and sulphur analyses from 2007 through 2013, the multi-element method (ALS method ME-MS61) supersedes the intermediate grade multi-element method (ALS method ME-ICP61), unless the low-grade method results are greater than the upper detection limit. In that case, the intermediate grade method result prevails. All rhenium results are by ALS method ME-MS61. Infrequent extremely high results for copper, molybdenum, silver, lead or zinc were reanalyzed by single element over limit analytical methods that supersede the original result.
11.7.3 Wedges
Some long holes, particularly in Pebble East, were intentionally wedged. This was undertaken when drilling conditions in the parent hole deteriorated to such an extent that continuation to target depth was impractical. For consistency of sample support for geological and resource modelling, mother hole/wedge hole combinations are represented by singular linear traces in the database. In treating the wedged portion of a hole that successfully extends beyond its parent hole, the following approach was used. The wedged portion of the hole was treated as a continuation of the mother hole from the point where the wedge starts. The information from the mother hole and the wedge was blended onto a string that follows the mother hole to the wedge point, and then follows the wedge (and the wedge surveys) to the end of the hole. The ‘best available’ information from the two hole strings was combined to produce one linear drill hole trace.
Pebble Project | Page 140 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
11.8 Verification of Drilling Data
The 1997 and prior Teck data were validated by Northern Dynasty in 2003 using:
· | the digital data and printed information obtained from Teck; |
|
|
· | digital assay results obtained directly from ALS and Cominco Exploration Research laboratories, where available; and |
|
|
· | selected re-analysis of original assay pulps obtained from Teck. |
Most of the pre-2002 data in the current database is derived from a digital compilation created by Teck in 1999. Twenty-eight gold results from 1988 and 1989 holes, which existed only on hand-written drill logs, were added to the database. A complete set of original information, including original drill logs, does not exist for all historical holes, particularly for those drilled in the Sill zone in 1988 and 1989. Assay data for the 1988 and 1989 holes drilled in Pebble West and 25 zone is from a combination of CERL assay certificates, the Teck digital compilation file and the original drill logs. The data compiled by Teck appears to be of good quality and matches the digital analytical data received directly from the CERL and ALS laboratories, with few exceptions. Most differences appear to be due to separately reported over-limits and re-runs. The small number of errors identified in the Teck data, including mismatched assay data, conversion errors, unapplied over-limits and typographical errors were corrected.
The 2002 analytical data were also verified and validated. A few errors were identified and corrected. When the 2003 digital data were verified against the assay certificates, some differences with the printed certificates were identified. In 2003, the analytical results were provided by SGS in a digital format that included SGS internal standards, duplicates and blanks. These digital results differed from the values on the corresponding printed certificates in two ways: digits in excess of three significant figures were recorded, and results were not trimmed to the upper detection limit value. As a result, sixteen 2003 gold assays over 2,000 ppb had incorrect values assigned to them in the database. This was corrected by applying the correct FA over-limit re-run result to these samples in the database. No over-limits existed in the 2003 copper results so there were no errors with this element. The lone over-limit molybdenum value was left untrimmed because this result was substantiated by an ALS check assay. Results from 2003 for elements other than gold, copper and molybdenum were left untrimmed in the database.
Norwest Corporation reported on additional data verification done in conjunction with the resource estimate in a technical report dated the February 20, 2004. “Norwest received, from Northern Dynasty, the initial Pebble drill hole database in the form of an assay, collar, downhole survey and geology file. An audit was undertaken of 5% of the data within these files. Digital files were compared to original assay certificates and survey records. It was determined that the downhole survey file had an unacceptable number of errors. The assay file had an error rate of approximately 1.2%. This was considered acceptable for this level of study.” These errors were investigated and subsequently corrected by Northern Dynasty.
The ongoing error-trapping and verification process for drill hole data collected from 2004 to 2019 is described in Section 11.1.4. Typically, validation and verification work was completed within a few months of completion of a drill hole, although some QA/QC issues took longer to resolve. Work at the Iliamna office consisted mostly of validating the site data entry and resolving errors that were identified. Additional validation and verification work was performed in the Vancouver office. This consisted of checking the site data tables for missing, overlapping, unacceptable and mismatching entries, and reviewing the analytical QA/QC results. During verification of the data, a low number of errors were found. Erroneously labelled standards in the sample log were the main source of error. Digital values not matching the analytical certificates were the next area of concern. In this case, the digital data were usually correct, as the certificates had been superseded by new results from QA/QC re-runs.
Pebble Project | Page 141 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In addition to typical database validation procedures, the copper, gold and molybdenum data included in Northern Dynasty news releases prior to 2009 were manually verified against the results on the ALS analytical certificates.
A significant amount of due diligence and analytical QA/QC for copper, gold and molybdenum has been completed on the samples that were used in the current Mineral Resource estimate. This verification and validation work performed on the digital database provides confidence that it is of good quality and acceptable for use in geological modelling, mineral estimation and preliminary mine planning.
Pebble Project | Page 142 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
12 DATA VERIFICATION
QP Robin Kalanchey was involved in multiple aspects of the 2021 PEA, and worked directly with engineers, designers, estimators and analysts in the development of the process facility and infrastructure engineering, cost estimates and the financial evaluation for the Proposed Project and potential expansion scenarios. Similarly Mr. Kalanchey worked directly with engineers and analysis in the development of the updated financial evaluation for the Proposed Project, as presented in this 2022 PEA. In his QP capacity, Mr. Kalanchey reviewed the relevant mineral processing and metallurgical test reports, as completed by others, the engineering design documentation, as well as consolidated capital and operating cost estimates, and the corresponding economic models. QP Kalanchey has validated the data used as the basis of the engineering design, cost estimates and inputs to the economic models against Ausenco’s internal standards and industry benchmarks, available metallurgical testwork reports for the Pebble deposit, and preferred practices for base metal deposits.
QP Kalanchey has not visited the Pebble site but has relied on the information provided in site visit reports as produced by Mr. Paul Staples, P.Eng, of Ausenco, who visited the site previously and during such visit observed the mine site, the port site and the data collection activities taking place at the time of the visit.
Given his involvement in the Project and his interactions with the design and project teams, QP Kalanchey is of the opinion that the data used as the basis of the engineering designs, cost estimates and financial evaluations, as presented herein, are appropriate and adequate for the purposes of this 2022 PEA.
QP Hassan Ghaffari was involved in the metallurgical testwork review, metal recovery projections, and processing design since 2012 when Tetra Tech was retained by Northern Dynasty to conduct an internal engineering study for the Pebble Project. He also supervised Ting Lu, P.Eng during the preparation of Section 13, Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing, of the 2014, 2018 and 2020 Technical Reports for Northern Dynasty.
In his QP capacity, QP Ghaffari reviewed the relevant mineral processing and metallurgical test reports that were completed by reputational commercial laboratories and leading processing equipment manufacturers. QP Ghaffari has conducted due diligence by reviewing the background, procedures and results of the testing programs. He also analyzed original test data and communication documents to verify the test results for metal recovery projections. All aspects of these programs were deemed to be of suitable standard.
In the months immediately prior to the completion of this Report, QP Ghaffari extensively reviewed all aspects of the test results regarding rhenium distributions and recovery methods, as well as projected rhenium recovery based on the results of the conventional flotation tests.
In QP Ghaffari’s opinion, the verification work conducted for the testwork review and metal projections is adequate for the purposes used in this Report.
QP Sabry Abdel Hafez was involved in the pit optimizations, pit designs, mine plan and mine costing since 2012 when Tetra Tech was retained by Northern Dynasty to conduct an internal engineering study for the Pebble Project.
In his QP’s capacity, QP Abdel Hafez has reviewed the relevant pit optimization and mine costing data. There have been no limitations placed on the ability of QP Abdel Hafez to verify the data used. In the QP’s opinion the data are adequate for the purposes used in this technical report.
Pebble Project | Page 143 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
QP Les Galbraith has been involved with Pebble Project waste and water management studies, including site investigation programs at the locations of the TSFs and the water management ponds since 2004. He has visited the site many times, with the last visit being in June 2013. Site geotechnical data, including geophysical surveys calibrated with drillhole data, were reviewed and are considered to be adequate to support this technical report.
QP David Gaunt was involved in the due diligence program and conducted the original modelling of the deposit prior to its acquisition by Northern Dynasty in 2001. He has been directly involved in resource estimation of the deposit continuously since that time. In this capacity he has worked directly with site personnel including QA/QC supervisors, project geologists, engineering personnel, data loggers, and other management personnel. QP David Gaunt either prepared or supervised all resource estimates completed on the project from 2003 through to 2018 and has extensive knowledge of this work. QP Gaunt has conducted numerous site visits to review aspects of the program such as drilling, sample procedures, geological interpretation, and QA/QC status. The most recent visit to site was conducted in 2010. All aspects of the project pertinent to resource estimation were deemed to be of suitable standard.
Immediately prior to the completion of this Report, QP Gaunt reviewed the resource estimate. All aspects of the estimate remain appropriate for the estimation, classification, and reporting of copper, gold, molybdenum, silver and rhenium.
Subsequent verification analyses on estimated grades lends credence to their accuracy, spatial distribution and correspondence with informing drill data.
QP James Lang has been directly involved in the acquisition of geological, exploration, drilling, and other related types of data on the Pebble Project since 2003. He has been physically on the Project site every year through 2019 for a total of over 650 days. Prior to 2007, QP Lang undertook a variety of specialized geological studies of both the Pebble deposit and the surrounding environs for Northern Dynasty, including examination of outcrops, extensive examination, review, and sampling of diamond drill core, review and reconciliation of drill logs, review of geochemical results in respect of geological controls, the acquisition of geotechnical data from drill core, and other similar activities, and he also participated in QA/QC oversight of many types of geological data acquisition. From 2007-2010, QP Lang was on-site Chief Geologist for the Project on behalf of Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership, supervising the geology team and their activities, including QA/QC oversight of their data collection methods, supervision of geometallurgical and metal deportment studies, modeling in support of deposit delineation and exploration, and characterization of the physical and mineralogical properties of the deposit. He also served as geological liaison to the metallurgical and geotechnical engineering and environmental disciplines. QP Lang was a member of the Geology and Exploration Technical Committee of the Pebble Partnership from 2007-2013, the duties of which included review of data collection methods, review of the results of drilling, and geochemical and geophysical surveys, and the planning of all exploration and geology activities on the Project. Since 2013, QP Lang has remained responsible for the limited geological activities that have occurred on the Project and the curation of geological data.
Verification of the geological data presented in this Report was achieved by two primary means. Firstly, by the direct participation of QP Lang in the acquisition of much of the data used in this Report, and secondly by his historical and ongoing custodianship of the geological data and its review in the context of newly-acquired analytical data presented and regional context provided by third-party studies referenced in this Report. As mentioned above, QP Lang also conducted site visits to observe and oversee collection of the data. During the period from 2003 until present, there have been no limitations placed on the ability of QP Lang to verify the data used herein, and there have been no material failures in the verification of said data. QP Lang deems these data to be appropriate to and adequate for the purposes of this Report.
QP Eric Titley was involved in the due diligence program on exploration conducted by Teck that ultimately resulted in the acquisition of the Pebble Project by Northern Dynasty in 2001. He has been directly involved in the exploration, drilling, sampling, analytical, QA/QC and data management programs of the Pebble Project on behalf of Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership continuously since then. Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership systematically validated and verified results from its exploration programs on the Pebble Project as they progressed between May 2002 and October 2019. QP Titley worked closely with the independent analytical consultants and supervised the analytical, QA/QC and data management aspects of these programs on behalf of Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership and has extensive knowledge of this work. QP Titley conducted site visits, most recently in September 2011, to review the ongoing drilling, sampling, and analytical QA/QC operations. All aspects of these programs were deemed to be of a suitable standard.
Pebble Project | Page 144 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In the months immediately prior to completion of this Report, QP Titley extensively reviewed and re-assessed the drill hole database used in the current resource estimate. This involved detailed comparison of the resource database with original source records that support it, including a number of original laboratory assay certificates. A high level of concordance between the resource database and the original source records was indicated by this study. In addition, over 900 original assay sample pulps from the 1991 through 2005 drill programs within the current resource area were retrieved and submitted for multi-element analysis. Re-analysis results included copper, silver, molybdenum and rhenium. The new copper, molybdenum and silver analyses compare with the original assays to an acceptable level. The newly-acquired rhenium analyses were used to upgrade the data support for this element in the resource database.
The verification work conducted lends credence to the veracity of the resource database. In QP Titley’s opinion the data is adequate for the purposes used in mineral resource estimation.
QP Stephen Hodgson has served many years in engineering leadership positions for the Pebble Project, including studies of the Project in 1991 and 1992 for a previous owner. He joined Northern Dynasty as Vice President Engineering in 2005 and has been engaged in the Project since that time, managing engineering studies. With the creation of the Pebble Partnership in 2007, he was Director of Engineering until 2011. Between 2011 and 2013, he served as a member of the Project’s Steering Committee and resumed the engineering leadership role in 2013. In 2017, he was named Senior Vice President Engineering and Project Director for the Pebble Partnership with responsibility for the technical aspects of the Project, including oversight of the development of the Project Description. He left the role with Pebble Partnership in 2021 and returned to his role as Vice President Engineering with Northern Dynasty.
QP Hodgson has visited the Pebble site many times, the most recent occasion in October 2019, to observe and oversee the collection of engineering and other data for Project design for the environmental assessment process. He has interacted continuously with the geological team during his tenure with Northern Dynasty and Pebble Partnership, including collaborating in the development of enclosing pits to define resources. QP Hodgson has reviewed all sections of the 2022 PEA and discussed the information presented by each of the QPs.
QP Hodgson has interacted with the Northern Dynasty team members responsible for the negotiation of the Royalty Agreement and with the personnel responsible for completing and reviewing the financial model.
QP Hodgson’s opinion is, given his tenure on and in-depth knowledge of the Pebble Project and his interaction with the geological, resource, and metallurgical teams, these data are appropriate and adequate for the purposes of this technical report.
Pebble Project | Page 145 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
This section summarizes the relevant results from all metallurgical testwork programs for the Pebble Project that was initiated by Northern Dynasty in 2003 and continued under the direction of Northern Dynasty until 2008. From 2008 to 2013, metallurgical testwork progressed under the direction of the Pebble Partnership. During the same period, geometallurgy studies were conducted by the Pebble Partnership and continued until 2014. This section includes testwork review with a focus on tests completed from 2011 to 2014, geometallurgical studies, and an updated metal recovery projection.
13.1 Test Programs Summary
Metallurgical testwork between 2005 and 2014 can be divided into three stages. The first stage testwork was conducted from 2003 to 2005 to understand the metallurgical response of the mineralized materials and to develop a baseline process flowsheet. The objectives of the second stage testwork, conducted between 2006 and 2010, were to optimize the baseline flowsheet on variability samples and to investigate appropriate processing methods to improve metal recoveries. The third stage testwork from 2011 to 2014 was focused on metallurgical verification tests on samples representing each metallurgical domain at the property in batch, pilot, and locked cycle tests. Additional testwork conducted during the third stage included evaluations of the performance of a secondary gold recovery plant and pressure oxidation of molybdenum concentrates to recover molybdenum and rhenium, and the subsequent metal extractions.
13.1.1 2003 to 2005 Testwork
The first stage metallurgical testwork was performed by different laboratories. The testwork conducted by Vancouver-based Process Research Associates Ltd (PRA) was preliminary in nature and was followed by testwork completed by G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. (G&T) in Kamloops, BC. Based on their test results, a comprehensive metallurgy test program was carried out at the SGS Lakefield laboratories located in Lakefield, ON (SGS Lakefield). The basic flowsheet from PRA was optimized by testing on primary grind size, regrind size, flotation and gold leaching. In addition, comminution data were obtained from samples covering the bulk of the lithology and alteration combinations in the mineral resource. A few miscellaneous tests were also performed including settling and filtration and concentrates properties. The SGS Lakefield test results demonstrated that marketable concentrate over 26% copper could be obtained, and production of molybdenum as a separate concentrate and doré by leaching were viable. All these laboratory facilities are well recognised in the mining industry.
13.1.2 2006 to 2010 Testwork
The second stage metallurgical testwork, conducted between 2006 and 2010, covered comminution, gravity separation, flotation, leaching, settling tests and other miscellaneous testwork as listed in Table 13‑1. The main purpose of the testwork was to optimize the process flowsheet to incorporate supergene mineralization from the western portion of the Pebble deposit, and to explore the performance variability of composite samples from Pebble West zone and Pebble East zone mineralization.
Pebble Project | Page 146 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 13‑1: Testwork Programs and Reports 2006 to 2010
Test Program | Laboratory | Report Date |
Metal Recoveries Related Programs: Comminution/Flotation/Leaching Tests | ||
Screen Analysis Data on Rod Mill Feed | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Apr 17, 2008 |
Rod Mill Grindability Test Data | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Apr 18, 2008 |
Screen Analysis Data on Rod Mill Product | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | May 13, 2008 |
Bond Abrasion Test Data | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Apr 22, 2008 |
Ball Mill Grindability Test Data | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Jun 6, 2008 |
Screen Analysis Data on Ball Mill Feed | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Jun 10, 2008 |
Screen Analysis Data on Ball Mil Product | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Jun 24, 2008 |
Mail to the Pebble Partnership c/o Mr. Alex Doll, Final Report of Comminution QA/QC Testing | Phillips Enterprises, LLC | Jul 18, 2008 |
Technical Memorandum to Steve Moult of Pebble Partnership, Grinding Throughput Calculation Procedure for Mine Production Schedules | DJB Consultants Inc (DJB) | Sep 30, 2008 |
E-Mail Transmission, Compare JK SimMet SABC-A and SABC-B Throughput Prediction to Morrell Total Power Calculation for Selected 2010 SMC Samples; Also, Morrell HPGR Predictions | Contract Support Services | Jan 21, 2010 |
E-Mail Transmission, Final Report, Pebble LOM Simulations, Years 1 to 13: SABC-A vs. SABC-B Circuit Options | Contract Support Services | Apr 7, 2010 |
E-Mail Transmission, Final Report, Pebble LOM Simulations, Years 1 to 25: SABC-A vs. SABC-B Circuit Options | Contract Support Services | Apr 29, 2010 |
E-Mail Transmission, Summary of Results, Pebble LOM Simulations: Years 1–45: SABC-A Revision B, Correct Year 8 Throughput | Contract Support Services | Dec 30, 2010 |
E-Mail Transmission, Summary of Results, Pebble LOM Simulations, Years 1–45: SABC-B Circuit Option, Comparison with SABC-A | Contract Support Services | Dec 30, 2010 |
An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum by Laboratory Flotation from Pebble Samples. Project 10926-008 Report #1 | SGS Lakefield | Jul 6, 2006 |
An Investigation into Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum Recovery from Pebble East Phase I Composites. Project 11486-003 Report #1 | SGS Lakefield | Jun 30, 2009 |
An Investigation into Bulk Flotation of Pebble East and West Composites, Project 11486-003 Report #2 | SGS Lakefield | Jun 26, 2009 |
An Investigation into Aging of Pebble East Phase I Samples. Project 11486-003 Report #3 | SGS Lakefield | Jun 30, 2009 |
Tank Cell e500 Mechanical Testwork | Outotec | Mar 11, 2010 |
Copper Sulphide Jar Mill Testing Test Plant Report #20002007 | Metso | Apr 12, 2010 |
An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Moly from Pebble East and West zones. Project 12072-002 Report #2 | SGS Lakefield | Dec 21, 2009, Jan 24, 2010 |
Pebble Project | Page 147 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Test Program | Laboratory | Report Date |
Determination of GRG Content Final Report Revised # T1144 | COREM | May 27, 2010 |
Gravity Modelling Report Project # KRTS 20587 | Knelson Research & Technology Centre | Aug 17, 2010 |
Settling Tests | ||
Summary of High Rate Thickening Test Results Tailings Samples | Outotec | Apr 2, 2010 |
Outotec Thickener Interpretation and Recommendations for Test Data Report TH-0493 | Outotec | Apr 9, 2010 |
Thickener Test Data Report # TH-0493 | Outotec | Apr 9, 2010 |
Thickener Test Data Report # TH-0493_R1 | Outotec | Apr 16, 2010 |
Thickener Test Data Report # TH-0497 | Outotec | Jun 2, 2010 |
Outotec Thickener Interpretation and Recommendations for Test Data Report TH-0497 | Outotec | Jun 17, 2010 |
Filtration Tests | ||
Test Report 12875T1 Pebble Partnership | Larox | Mar 8, 2010, Apr 7, 2010 |
Rheology Tests | ||
Report of Investigation into The Response of the Pebble Project Rougher Tailings to Sedimentation and Rheology Testing | FL Smith | Mar 2010 |
The major observations from the second testwork campaign are summarized as follows:
· | Bulk flotation testwork was intended to optimize the flowsheet to treat the supergene and transition zones in Pebble West. Most samples achieved the 26% copper concentrate target, in the variability tests and the locked cycle tests. |
|
|
· | Copper-molybdenum locked cycle separation tests demonstrated more than 99% of the copper contained in the circuit feed was recovered to copper concentrate and 92.6 to 98.4% of the molybdenum was recovered to molybdenum concentrate. |
|
|
· | The molybdenum concentrate, obtained from the last cleaner stage of the open circuit tests, was found to contain significant rhenium, with grades ranging up to 960 g/t, and the copper content observed was between 1.8% and 5.9%. |
|
|
· | Gravity recoverable gold (GRG) was determined to optimize gravity gold recovery. The obtained recovery was similar to previous testwork. |
|
|
· | Pyrite flotation was conducted with pyrite concentrate subjected to gold leaching tests. The average gold extraction was 55% by leaching for 48 hours. |
|
|
· | Other metallurgical testwork conducted in this period included tailings thickening, regrinding jar tests, and copper concentrate thickening and filtration. |
Pebble Project | Page 148 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.1.3 2011 to 2014 Testwork
The Pebble Partnership continued metallurgical testwork during 2011 and 2014. The major goals of the 2011 and 2014 testwork program were as follows:
· | Complete QEMSCAN® analysis of the variability sample inventory to support geometallurgical studies. |
|
|
· | Conduct additional flotation variability tests to ensure samples of each metallurgical domain type are represented. |
|
|
· | Conduct continuous flotation testwork to generate product for downstream testwork. |
|
|
· | Conduct testwork related with the design of the secondary recovery gold plant. |
|
|
· | Perform an initial program to test a molybdenum autoclave process (MAP) on Pebble concentrates for molybdenum and rhenium recovery. |
Table 13‑2: Subsequent Testwork Programs and Reports, 2011 to 2014
Test Program | Laboratory | Report Date |
Metal Recoveries – Comminution/Flotation/Leaching | ||
An Investigation into Ultrafine Grinding of Pilot Plant Concentrates from the Pebble Deposit | SGS Lakefield | Feb 9, 2011 |
An Investigation into the Grindability Characteristics of a Single Sample W-214-215 from the Pebble West zone | SGS Lakefield | Apr 6, 2011 |
Continuous Flotation of Five Composites from the Pebble Deposit | SGS Lakefield | Jun 21, 2011 |
Copper Molybdenum Separation Testing on a Pebble Bulk Concentrate | G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. | Sep 22, 2011 |
An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum from the Pebble Deposit; Incomplete; Progress Report, Project 12072-003 and -007 | SGS Lakefield | Jan 24, 2012 |
Concentrate Quality | ||
An Investigation by High Definition Mineralogy into the Mineralogy Characteristics of Five Concentrate Samples from Five Different Composites | SGS Lakefield | Mar 23, 2011 |
An Investigation into a Deportment Study of Gold in Eight Samples from the Pebble Gold zone | SGS Lakefield | Jun 17, 2011 |
An Investigation by High Definition Mineralogy into the Mineralogy Characteristics of Eight Products of Three Pilot Plant Samples | SGS Lakefield | Jun 23, 2011 |
Filtration | ||
Filtration Test Report | Outotec | Jun 17, 2011 |
Rheology Tests | ||
Grinding Transfer Stream Rheology Testwork Report, Report # PBL-5172 R02 Rev 0 & Rev 1 | Paterson & Cooke | Sep 2011, Oct 2011 |
Bulk Tailings Rheology Testwork Report. Report # 4303207-25-RP-002 | Paterson & Cooke | Nov 2011 |
An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum from the Pebble Deposit; Incomplete; Final Report, Project 12072-003 and -007 | SGS Lakefield | Sep 24, 2014 |
Results are discussed in the following subsections.
Pebble Project | Page 149 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.2 Comminution Tests
13.2.1 Bond Grindability Tests
The Bond rod mill work index (RWi) and Bond ball mill work index (BWi) are listed in Table 13‑3 and, Table 13‑4, respectively.
Table 13‑3: Pebble West Rod Mill Data Comparison, SGS January 20122
Description | BWi (kWh/t) | |||
Core Year | 2004 | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 |
Composites | - | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 |
Year Tested | 2005 | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 |
Results Available | 295 | 47 | 19 | 3 |
Average | 15.6 | 14.4 | 13.0 | 15.3 |
Minimum1 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 11.0 | 11.6 |
Median | 15.3 | 14.0 | 12.8 | 12.6 |
Maximum1 | 24.3 | 20.4 | 19.5 | 21.7 |
Notes:
| 1. | Minimum and maximum refer to softest and hardest values for the grindability test. |
| 2. | Drilled samples are from the Pebble West zone at a grind particle size of 1.4 mm or 14 mesh. |
Table 13‑4: Pebble West Ball Mill Data Comparison, SGS January 20122
Description | BWi (kWh/t) | |||
Core Year | 2004 | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 |
Composites | - | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 |
Year Tested | 2005 | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 |
Results Available | 295 | 57 | 72 | 2 |
Average | 14.2 | 14.0 | 13.4 | 11.7 |
Minimum1 | 7.7 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 11.4 |
Median | 14.0 | 13.7 | 12.7 | 11.7 |
Maximum1 | 22.1 | 21.7 | 20.4 | 12.1 |
Notes:
| 1. | Minimum and maximum refer to softest and hardest values for the grindability test. |
| 2. | Drilled samples are from the Pebble West zone, at a grind particle size of 0.147 mm or 100 mesh for the 2005 tests, and 0.204 mm/65 mesh for the remaining tests. |
13.2.2 Bond Low Energy Impact Tests
Comminution testwork was carried out on samples collected between 2004 and 2010 summarized in Table 13‑5 through Table 13‑8. The testwork completed is considered to be representative of the deposit.
Table 13‑5 shows the Bond low-energy impact test results on Pebble West zone samples. The tests were completed by Philips Enterprises, LLC under the supervision of SGS Lakefield.
Pebble Project | Page 150 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 13‑5: Bond Low-Energy Impact Test Results, SGS January 2012
| CWi (kWh/t) | Rock Density | ||
Average | Minimum | Maximum | g/cm3 | |
Average | 9.9 | 5.3 | 17.8 | 2.52 |
Minimum | 3.7 | 1.6 | 8.1 | 2.38 |
Median | 10.0 | 5.3 | 17.7 | 2.54 |
Maximum | 15.6 | 10.5 | 33.9 | 2.68 |
13.2.3 SMC Tests
The SAG Mill Comminution (SMC) test is to provide impact breakage parameters in a cost-effective means when a full drop weight test JK drop-weight test is not available due to the limited sample quantities. Additional SMC tests were conducted on Pebble West and Pebble East drill core samples in 2012. The major test results including the direct measurements of sample densities, JK drop-weight test index (DWi), the calculated JK drop weight test rock breakage parameters A x b, and the t10 values are summarized in Table 13‑6for Pebble West zone and Table 13‑7 for Pebble East samples. The tested samples represent the relevant rock types for the west and east zones of the project. Test results since 2004 are also presented.
Table 13‑6: Major SMC Data Comparison on Pebble West Samples-SGS Test Report Sept. 2014
| DWi kWh/m3 | A x b | t10@1kWh/t | Density (g/cm3) | ||||||||||
Core Years | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 | 2004 | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 | 2004 | 2005, 2006 | 2008 | 2011 |
Comp | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 | - | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 | - | W1 to W177 | W178 to W394 | W395 to W445 |
Years Tested | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 | 2005 | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 | 2005 | 2008, 2010, 2011 | 2009, 2010, 2011 | 2011 |
Results Available | 53 | 64 | 15 | 47 | 53 | 64 | 15 | 53 | 64 | 15 | 47 | 53 | 64 | 15 |
Average | 6.46 | 6.12 | 6.94 | 45.7 | 44.0 | 50.1 | 43.6 | 31.8 | 34.8 | 31.3 | 2.59 | 2.60 | 2.60 | 2.62 |
Minimum* | 2.74 | 1.79 | 2.61 | 98.3 | 89.4 | 135.2 | 98.9 | 46.5 | 62.3 | 48.1 | 2.49 | 2.43 | 2.38 | 2.44 |
Median | 5.93 | 5.78 | 7.47 | 43.1 | 43.2 | 45.6 | 35.9 | 31.7 | 33.6 | 29.7 | 2.59 | 2.62 | 2.59 | 2.64 |
Maximum8 | 11.5 | 10.9 | 11.1 | 26.0 | 24.0 | 26.1 | 24.5 | 21.3 | 22.8 | 21.5 | 2.89 | 2.76 | 2.90 | 2.74 |
Notes: *Minimum and maximum refer to softest and hardest values for the grindability test.
Pebble Project | Page 151 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 13‑7: Major SMC Data Comparison on Pebble East Samples
| DWi kWh/m3 | A x b | t10@1kWh/t | Density (g/cm3) | ||||||||
Phase | I | II | III | I | II | III | I | II | III | I | II | III |
Results Available | 134 | 182 | 44 | 134 | 182 | 44 | 134 | 182 | 44 | 134 | 182 | 44 |
Average | 4.93 | 6.16 | 3.88 | 57.9 | 45.7 | 75.3 | 40.1 | 33.1 | 46.2 | 2.61 | 2.59 | 2.59 |
Minimum* | 1.69 | 2.59 | 1.61 | 150 | 98.3 | 158.8 | 68.8 | 51.2 | 70.6 | 2.50 | 2.49 | 2.53 |
Median | 4.85 | 6.04 | 3.79 | 54.3 | 43.1 | 68.1 | 39.5 | 32.3 | 45.0 | 2.61 | 2.59 | 2.58 |
Maximum* | 8.81 | 10.3 | 6.3 | 30.0 | 26.0 | 41.5 | 25.9 | 22.7 | 31.6 | 2.87 | 2.89 | 2.69 |
Notes: Source SGS Summary Report, 2014.
* Minimum and maximum refer to softest and hardest values for the grindability test.
13.2.4 MacPherson Autogenous Grindability Tests
Two variable samples from the Pebble West zone were blended to represent the global average for this zone and sent to SGS Lakefield for MacPherson autogenous grindability tests. The test results are shown in Table 13‑8. The composite sample was categorized as medium with respect to the throughput rate, the specific energy input, and the final grind. The composite sample is near the median of the Pebble West distribution for A x b, DWi and BWi.
Table 13‑8: MacPherson Autogenous Grindability Test Results, SGS January 2012
Sample | Feed Rate (kg/h) | F80 (µm) | P80 (µm) | Gross Work Index (kWh/t) | Correlated Work Index (kWh/t) | Gross Energy Input (kWh/t)
| Hardness Percentile |
W214/215 | 12.4 | 22,176 | 331 | 13.6 | 12.6 | 6.5 | 31 |
13.3 Flotation Concentration Tests
Focusing on the on-site production of three final products, namely copper concentrate, molybdenum concentrate and gold gravity concentrate, flotation tests conducted on Pebble materials since 2011 primarily consisted of:
· | bulk flotation to produce a copper-molybdenum flotation concentrate with associated gold and rhenium; |
|
|
· | molybdenum flotation to produce the final copper concentrate and molybdenum concentrate; and |
|
|
· | pyrite flotation with the concentrate being subjected to cyanide leaching; Other separation techniques were also tested at a preliminary level to optimize metal recoveries and concentrate grades, including: |
|
|
· | GRG tests (Section 13.4); |
|
|
· | sulphidization, acidification, recycling, and thickening (SART) process tests to recover copper from leaching circuit residue. SART test results are not included due to removing cyanide applications in the process design; and |
|
|
· | pressure oxidation tests conducted on molybdenum flotation concentrates to recover molybdenum and rhenium (Section 13.5). |
Pebble Project | Page 152 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.3.1 Recovery of Bulk Flotation Concentrate
13.3.1.1 Flotation Kinetics and Preliminary Optimization
In 2011 and 2012 test programs, SGS Lakefield investigated flotation kinetic properties. Both rougher flotation and first cleaner flotation were tested on various samples, with pH value, reagent type/dosage/addition points and pulp density factors varied in order to determine optimized conditions for subsequent batch cleaner and locked-cycle tests.
The 2011 program focused on bulk rougher kinetics tests on composite samples representing supergene and hypogene rock types. The 2012 program included rougher flotation kinetics on the individual variability sample W182, representing supergene, and four domain composite samples, namely K-silicate, supergene, sodic potassic and illite-pyrite. Additional first cleaner kinetics was also investigated on the four domain samples.
The observations from the two programs are summarized as follows:
· | Rougher pH level (SGS Lakefield, 2011) |
| o | By increasing pH values of the rougher flotation stage to about 8.5, metal recoveries to rougher concentrate can be significantly increased. |
|
|
|
| o | This was attributed to the low average natural pH value of the four sample types (i.e., 5.8, 5.7, 7.2 and 6.2). |
· | Rougher reagent dosage and addition points (SGS Lakefield, 2011) |
| o | A rougher flotation collector comparison was made between using only potassium ethyl xanthate (PEX) as the collector versus PEX with the promoter (AERO 3894) added. It was observed that metal recoveries increased for supergene with the addition of AERO 3894; however, metal recovery increases were not demonstrated for other samples. |
|
|
|
| o | Collector dosages for PEX and AERO 3894 were tested at 27.5 g/t and 45 g/t, respectively. The results indicated that adding 27.5 g/t PEX was sufficient for the first two rougher stages. The optimized retention time is about 12 minutes for the rougher stage. |
|
|
|
· | Rougher sulphidization (SGS Lakefield, 2012) | |
|
|
|
| o | Tests on sample W182 were performed to investigate the effect in the rougher stage of using sodium hydrosulphide (NaHS) to achieve a target of a reduction potential (-140 mV measured with silver/silver cleaner) electrode. There were no observed effects on metal recoveries to the rougher concentrate. |
|
|
|
· | Rougher pulp density (SGS Lakefield, 2011-2012) | |
|
|
|
| o | Tests on one composite sample indicated that reducing pulp density from 30 to 25% improved gold and molybdenum recovery significantly, while copper recovery was unaffected. |
Pebble Project | Page 153 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Flotation rate (SGS Lakefield, 2011-2012) | |
|
|
|
| o | The supergene sample was found to be the slowest to recover copper, gold and molybdenum in the rougher flotation stage and the K-silicate sample the fastest. The indicated retention time for rougher flotation is approximately 12 minutes. At the first cleaner stage, all samples presented similar flotation rates in terms of copper recovery, with the molybdenum recovery rate being the slowest. The retention time indicated by the tests for first cleaner flotation is six minutes. |
13.3.1.2 Flotation Tests on Variability Samples
SGS Lakefield conducted significant flotation testwork since mid-2009 on both the Pebble West and Pebble East zones. The baseline flowsheet is shown in Figure 13‑1. The target pH value for the rougher flotation stage was set at 8.5, and the P80 feed particle size was about 200 µm. The regrind size, reagent dosage and types and pH levels in the cleaner flotation stage were varied across the testwork in order to determine the optimal copper grade of the bulk concentrate.
SGS Lakefield conducted batch cleaner tests on 146 variability samples from the Pebble West and Pebble East zones. The variability samples represented the flotation geometallurgical domains as described in Section 13.9.2 and should be considered representative of the mineralized material. Five of the variable batch cleaner tests were performed on the low copper grade samples. At an average feed grade of 0.16% copper, a bulk concentrate containing about 29.3% copper can be recovered at a 68.1% recovery. This indicates that a saleable concentrate can be produced from low-grade mineralized material.
SGS Lakefield also performed locked-cycle tests on 107 variability samples from the Pebble West and Pebble East zones, the results of which are summarized in Table 13‑9. The average metal recoveries were higher than with the batch tests, while the metal grades of the concentrates were slightly lower. Three duplicate locked-cycle tests were performed, with results in a similar range to those obtained from the variable locked-cycle tests.
Pebble Project | Page 154 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 13‑1: Basic Testwork Flowsheet
Note: Figure prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2011
Table 13‑9: Summary of Locked-Cycle Test Variability Test Results
Definitions: cleaner (Cl), pyrite (Py), chalcopyrite (Cpy), pyrite to chalcopyrite ratio (Py:Cpy), Recovery (Rec)
Pebble Project | Page 155 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Samples from 10 locked cycle tests were submitted for rhenium and silver assays to complete a mass balance. The recoveries of rhenium and silver to the 3rd cleaner concentrate was calculated as 73.4% and 62.7%, respectively, as shown in Table 13‑10. A linear relationship between the recovery of molybdenum and rhenium can be observed on the ten sets of data. This can be attributed to the rhenium occurrence as a solid substitution for molybdenite atoms on the molybdenite lattice structure (SME, 2018).
Table 13‑10: Locked-Cycle Test Results on Pebble Variability Samples, SGS Lakefield, 2014
Test #/Composite |
Cu/Mo Concentrate Grade, %, g/t
|
Cu/Mo Concentrate Recovery %
| ||||||||
Cu | Au | Mo | Ag | Re | Cu | Au | Mo | Ag | Re | |
LCT1/W182 | 28.8 | 12.3 | 0.38 | 69 | 9.7 | 67.2 | 41.4 | 43.8 | 29.6 | 42.0 |
LCT4/W265 | 30.5 | 33.9 | 0.67 | 76 | 10.0 | 82.2 | 68.6 | 68.6 | 48.9 | 58.5 |
LCT7/W223 | 27.3 | 21.7 | 0.7 | 60 | 18.4 | 72.7 | 67.8 | 74.7 | 62.9 | 76.3 |
LCT41/W181 | 31.9 | 24.6 | 0.31 | 90 | 6.0 | 73.0 | 56.5 | 51.5 | 62.9 | 45.9 |
LCT62/V101 | 31.2 | 11.4 | 0.45 | 74 | 5.3 | 93.0 | 64.9 | 82.2 | 80.8 | 83.2 |
LCT63/V102 | 29.5 | 10.6 | 0.51 | 81 | 8.2 | 94.2 | 56.9 | 86.7 | 81.4 | 87.8 |
LCT64/V130 | 24.2 | 18.0 | 1.80 | 104 | 32.8 | 89.3 | 61.1 | 96.4 | 74.7 | 96.3 |
LCT66/V222 | 24.8 | 3.8 | 2.07 | 82 | 33.1 | 83.9 | 29.1 | 89.9 | 73.0 | 91.0 |
LCT69/V263 | 24.3 | 6.0 | 1.40 | 65 | 26.3 | 84.2 | 35.7 | 67.0 | 63.1 | 71.0 |
LCT89/W312 | 18.0 | 11.6 | 1.05 | 99 | 22.1 | 56.2 | 37.7 | 77.5 | 49.6 | 82.4 |
13.3.1.3 Flotation Tests Optimization
SGS Lakefield made a few attempts to improve the copper grade in the obtained bulk concentrate for samples with high clay and/or pyrite/chalcopyrite content. SGS Lakefield observed that:
· | adding sodium silicate did not appear to have a beneficial impact on the selectivity of metal recovered to rougher flotation concentrate; |
|
|
· | reducing pulp density from 35% to 28% solids improved metal recoveries, especially with molybdenum; |
|
|
· | for samples high in pyrite, adding dextrin helped to achieve the desired 26% copper of bulk concentrate copper/gold/molybdenum; however, it was also noted that extra fuel oil will be required when adding dextrin. SGS Lakefield also recommended considering a ratio of sulphur to copper of greater than 10 to identify if dextrin addition is required; |
|
|
· | the effects of regrind size, and pulp temperature were further investigated in batch cleaner flotation tests and in the locked-cycle tests. The testwork was performed by SGS Lakefield in both 2011 and 2012, resulting in the following major conclusions: the investigated regrind size P80 of 15 to 58 µm had little impact on copper recovery or grades, while a finer regrind size benefitted both gold and molybdenum recovery; and |
|
|
· | there was no observed impact from changing the pulp temperature from 5°C to 25°C on flotation recoveries. |
Pebble Project | Page 156 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
SGS Lakefield also compared two other frothers (HP700 and W22 C) with the primary frother, methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC). SGS Lakefield found that the HP700 froth bed was less stable than that of the MIBC; W22 C showed better molybdenum recovery, and a lower dosage produced similar metal recoveries. SGS Lakefield also compared the lower cost collector sodium ethyl xanthate (SEX) with PEX and concluded that interchanging SEX and PEX had no effect on metal recoveries.
13.3.1.4 Flotation Tests on Bulk Composites
As part of SGS Lakefield’s 2011 test program, bulk flotation tests on a locked-cycle scale were conducted on illite-pyrite, carbonate and supergene composites. The purpose of this testwork was to produce large quantities of products that could be used for vendor testwork. It should be noted that the carbonate composite sample was an early geometallurgical domain type classification and was redefined as sodic potassic in later geometallurgical studies. The locked-cycle test results are shown in Table 13‑11. SGS Lakefield observed that the illite-pyrite composite did not reach the target copper grade of 26%. SGS suspected this may be caused by a low head grade and the presence of high levels of pyrite and clay minerals.
Table 13‑11: Locked-Cycle Test Results of Bulk Samples, SGS Lakefield, 2012
Composite | Regrind Size P80 µm | Cu/Mo Concentrate Grade | Cu/Mo Concentrate Recovery % | |||||
Cu % | Au | Mo % | Cu | Au | Mo | |||
g/t | oz/ton | |||||||
Illite-Pyrite | 28 | 10.4 | 11.2 | 0.327 | 0.20 | 77.0 | 40.3 | 34.9 |
Carbonate | 37 | 28.4 | 10.7 | 0.312 | 1.25 | 79.4 | 43.5 | 59.8 |
Supergene | 38 | 27.1 | 16.0 | 0.467 | 1.64 | 70.6 | 47.3 | 70.0 |
13.3.1.5 Continuous Flotation Tests on Composites
A continuous flotation plant was utilized on five composite samples from the Pebble deposit to generate additional quantities of sample for vendor testwork. The five composites ranged in head grade from 0.28 to 0.57% Cu, from 0.30 to 0.46 g/t Au, and from 0.010 to 0.028% Mo. The main purpose of this continuous flotation testwork was to generate product for downstream testwork and to evaluate the implementation of a gravity circuit on a portion of the feed to the regrind mill. A continuous flotation plant was utilized on five composite samples from the Pebble deposit to generate additional quantities of sample for vendor testwork. The five composites ranged in head grade from 0.28 to 0.57% Cu, from 0.30 to 0.46 g/t Au, and from 0.010 to 0.028% Mo.
The pilot plant was completed over a series of day shifts and continuous runs. Overall, 28 runs were completed: 17 on the commissioning composite representing first years of operation, 3 on the sodic potassic, 2 on the K-silicate, 3 on the supergene, and 3 on the illite pyrite composites. The additional water generated by incorporation of the Knelson concentrator (gravity circuit) was managed by using a thickener to treat the gravity tailings stream. Any further continuous testwork would ideally be completed on a higher feed rate and a sufficient amount of operation time reserved for reagent optimization.
The continuous flotation results for the K-Silicate composite were close to the locked cycle test results, with the exception that molybdenum recoveries were slightly lower. The continuous flotation copper recovery for the supergene composite was higher compared to the locked cycle test result. For the remaining three composites, copper and gold recoveries were 7% lower, on average. Except for the supergene composite, molybdenum losses to the rougher tail were almost twice as high as in the locked cycle test. Final concentrate molybdenum recoveries were almost half the LCT recoveries. The molybdenum recovery to the final concentrate would likely improve with longer retention times in the 2nd and 3rd cleaning stages.
Pebble Project | Page 157 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
One of the main purposes of the pilot plant was to determine the amount of gold that could be recovered by adding a Knelson concentrator in the regrind circuit. The Knelson concentrator treated a 33% bleed stream from the regrind cyclone underflow. The average gold recovery to the Knelson concentrate ranged from 2.6% for the Supergene composite to 7.5% for the K-silicate composite. A comparison of metallurgical performance with and without the Knelson concentrator indicated similar overall gold recoveries to a 26% copper concentrate.
13.3.2 Separation of Molybdenum and Copper
Separation of molybdenum from copper in the bulk flotation concentrate was tested by SGS Lakefield in the 2011 and 2012 programs. In addition, G&T also performed separation tests on one sample in 2011.
13.3.2.1 SGS Lakefield Separation Work, 2011 and 2012
Preliminary separation tests for molybdenum and copper were performed on three composite samples, including illite-pyrite, carbonate and supergene (SGS Lakefield, 2011). The locked-cycle tests in the 2011 program employed a basic flowsheet, as shown in Figure 13‑2. The cycle numbers were varied in order to achieve the target grade of a final molybdenum concentrate.
Pebble Project | Page 158 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 13‑2: Basic Testwork Flowsheet
Note: Figure prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2011.
Pebble Project | Page 159 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The 2011 program results outlined in Table 13‑12 show that only the carbonate composite achieved a molybdenum grade of 50%, while the other two composite samples were unable to produce a marketable molybdenum product. Increasing the locked cycles from 3 to 6 for the illite-pyrite composite produced only a marginal increase in molybdenum grade.
As part of the 2012 testing program, further tests to improve the molybdenum separation were conducted on four domain samples. The commissioning sample, which represented the sodic potassic domain, was used to optimize the flotation conditions required for copper-molybdenum separation. A series of open cycle and kinetic tests were conducted to establish the conditions for the commissioning composite locked cycle test. Results of the locked cycle tests are provided also in Table 13‑12.
Locked cycle test results for the latter three composites were found to be below expectations. It should be noted that the locked cycle tests conducted on the illite pyrite, sodic potassic and supergene composites were carried out without the open cycle tests to confirm conditions (due to their smaller mass compared to the commissioning composite), and by a different flotation operator than previous. Molybdenum head grades of the bulk cleaner concentrates from the three problematic domain samples were also below typical values achieved in locked cycle tests which may have contributed to the poor results. Further investigation confirmed that major molybdenum loss occurred in the rougher circuit.
Addition of the flotation reagent sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) in the rougher stage was found to be too high, resulting in unacceptable molybdenum depression. Adding a scavenger stage to the rougher flotation resulted in significant improvements in molybdenum recovery of approximately 15% for the sodic potassic composite, and over 30% for the illite pyrite composite. The scavenger tests were not conducted for the supergene composite due to lack of sample.
Table 13‑12: Locked-Cycle Test Results of Molybdenum Flotation
Composite | Regrind Size P80 µm | Mo Concentrate | Cu Concentrate | ||||||||||
Grade | Recovery % | Grade | Recovery % | ||||||||||
Cu % | Au g/t | Mo % | Cu | Au | Mo | Cu % | Au g/t | Mo% | Cu | Au | Mo | ||
SGS 2011 | |||||||||||||
Illite-Pyrite | 28 | 5.93 | 15.4 | 11.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 32.3 | 10.5 | 11.1 | 0.015 | 76.3 | 39.4 | 2.6 |
Carbonate | 37 | 1.81 | 3.96 | 49.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 55.5 | 29.0 | 10.9 | 0.091 | 79.3 | 43.1 | 4.2 |
Supergene | 38 | 3.46 | 3.84 | 38.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 68.9 | 28.1 | 16.5 | 0.027 | 70.2 | 46.8 | 1.1 |
SGS 2012 | |||||||||||||
Commission | - | 1.86 | 2.12 | 48.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 92.7 | 21.8 | 11.2 | 0.068 | 99.8 | 99.7 | 7.3 |
Sodic Potassic | - | 3.01 | N/A | 41.1 | 0.1 | N/A | 83.6 | 23.3 | N/A | 0.074 | 99.9 | N/A | 16.4 |
Illite-Pyrite | - | 3.19 | N/A | 43.5 | 0.02 | N/A | 79.8 | 23.8 | N/A | 0.14 | 99.8 | N/A | 20.2 |
Supergene | - | 2.42 | N/A | 43.8 | 0.1 | N/A | 86.9 | 29.8 | N/A | 0.078 | 99.9 | N/A | 13.1 |
Note: Prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2011-2012.
13.3.2.2 G&T Separation Work
G&T tested molybdenum recovery from bulk flotation concentrate, using one sample of copper-molybdenum bulk concentrate (G&T 2011). The head analysis indicated that the bulk concentrate had high levels of pyrite (about 13.2%) and galena (about 0.5%). Due to the limited sample size, only two batch cleaner tests were performed on the bulk concentrate sample. A regrind stage was used in Test 1, while no regrinding was performed in Test 2. The test results are summarized in Table 13‑13.
Pebble Project | Page 160 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Test 1 and Test 2 results were 50.6% and 47.6% for molybdenum grades in the final molybdenum concentrates, and recoveries were 76.2% and 74.7% molybdenum, respectively. G&T recommended further testing be considered, including locked-cycle tests and other potential reagent schedules.
Table 13‑13: Molybdenum Recovery
Description | Regrind Size P80 µm | Grade | Recovery % | |||||
Cu % | Au | Mo% | Cu | Au | Mo | |||
g/t | oz/ton | |||||||
Test 1 | 33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Molybdenum Concentrate | - | 1.45 | 2.36 | 0.0689 | 50.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 76.2 |
Molybdenum 3rd Cl Tail | - | 12.9 | 18.9 | 0.552 | 12.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 3.0 |
Molybdenum 2nd Cl Tail | - | 24.2 | 35.4 | 1.034 | 3.89 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 6.9 |
Molybdenum 1st Cl Tail | - | 24.3 | 27.7 | 0.809 | 1.47 | 5.3 | 10.4 | 11.3 |
Molybdenum Ro Tail | - | 26.3 | 14.2 | 0.415 | 0.02 | 93.3 | 86.2 | 2.6 |
Test 2 | 49 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Molybdenum Concentrate | - | 2.74 | 3.92 | 0.114 | 47.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 74.7 |
Molybdenum 3rd Cl Tail | - | 14.8 | 21.2 | 0.619 | 8.18 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.4 |
Molybdenum 2nd Cl Tail | - | 21.3 | 38.4 | 1.12 | 5.51 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 4.3 |
Molybdenum 1st Cl Tail | - | 27.9 | 28.4 | 0.829 | 0.80 | 3.6 | 6.5 | 3.6 |
Molybdenum Ro Tail | - | 26.0 | 13.9 | 0.406 | 0.12 | 95.8 | 91.5 | 16.0 |
Source: G&T, 2011
13.3.3 Rhenium Recovery into Molybdenum Concentrate
Rhenium was shown to report to the molybdenum concentrate in molybdenum flotation process. A rhenium mass balance was reported by SGS Lakefield in 2012 with the test results of an open circuit batch molybdenum cleaner flotation test (Mo-F13), as shown in Table 13‑14. Figure 13‑3 presents the rhenium recovery and grade data. Rhenium grade of over 900 g/t was observed in the 5th and 6th cleaner molybdenum concentrates. A linear relationship is also noticed between molybdenum recovery and rhenium recovery.
Pebble Project | Page 161 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 13‑14: Molybdenum Open Cycle Cleaner Flotation Test Results (Mo-F13, SGS Lakefield, 2012)
Products | Weight | Assays | Distributions | |||||||
g | % | Cu % | Mo % | Au g/t | Re g/t | Cu % | Mo % | Au % | Re % | |
Mo 6th Cl Conc | 42.9 | 1.21 | 1.59 | 49.0 | 1.75 | 926 | 0.1 | 69.2 | 0.2 | 71.4 |
Mo 6th Cl Tail | 2.5 | 0.07 | 3.69 | 40.8 | 2.17 | 759 | 0 | 3.4 | 0 | 3.4 |
Mo 5th Cl Tail | 5.1 | 0.14 | 5.76 | 33.9 | 3.79 | 651 | 0 | 5.7 | 0.1 | 6 |
Mo 4th Cl Tail | 3.2 | 0.09 | 11 | 18.1 | 7.82 | 341 | 0 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 2 |
Mo 3rd Cl Tail | 6.5 | 0.18 | 18.6 | 8.29 | 14.3 | 163 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 1.9 |
Mo 2nd Cl Tail | 17.4 | 0.49 | 30.1 | 2.85 | 17.6 | 47.6 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.5 |
Mo 1st Cl Scav Conc | 7.9 | 0.22 | 14.7 | 18.6 | 12.9 | 364 | 0.2 | 4.8 | 0.3 | 5.2 |
Mo 1st Cl Scav Tail | 104.3 | 2.94 | 25 | 0.58 | 15.2 | 13.1 | 3.6 | 2 | 4.2 | 2.5 |
Rougher Sc Conc | 116.9 | 3.3 | 23.8 | 1.24 | 13.3 | 24 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 4.2 | 5 |
Rougher Scav Tail | 3235.5 | 91.3 | 20.2 | 0.046 | 10.4 | <0.2 | 91.2 | 4.9 | 89.9 | 1.2 |
Head (calc.) | 3542.2 | 100 | 20.2 | 0.86 | 10.6 | 15.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Figure 13‑3: Rhenium Grade and Recovery Relationship
Note: Figure prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2012.
Pebble Project | Page 162 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.3.4 Pyrite Flotation
The purpose of a pyrite flotation is to concentrate gold-bearing sulphide minerals prior to a subsequent leach process to recover additional precious metals.
A pyrite flotation step was included as part of the locked cycle variability tests. The pyrite flotation stage gold recoveries from the initial samples were found to be highly variable in a four-minute laboratory flotation process. In order to optimize the pyrite flotation metallurgy, SGS Lakefield performed a series of kinetics tests on the first scavenger tailings samples generated from four domain composite samples. Results of the tests are summarized in Figure 13‑4 which shows the optimum laboratory flotation time occurs at approximately eight minutes.
Figure 13‑4: Pyrite Flotation Kinetics Test Results
Note: Figure prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2012
13.4 Gold Recovery Tests
Both gravity concentration and cyanide leaching methods were investigated as part of metallurgical test program to recover gold from the mineralized samples.
Pebble Project | Page 163 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.4.1 Gravity Recoverable Gold Tests
Three composite samples, representing illite-pyrite, carbonate and supergene mineralization types, were tested for GRG potential in COREM’s facility (COREM, 2010). GRG tests were carried out on the variable samples reground to a target particle size P80 of 25 µm. Using a modified GRG test, the supergene sample had the highest GRG content of 33%, followed by illite-pyrite with 29% GRG and carbonate at 23%.
In 2011, four composite samples from the continuous testwork program were tested for gravity recoverable gold. K-silicate sample had the highest GRG potential at 49%, followed by sodic potassic (41%), supergene (33%), commissioning (26%), and illite pyrite (25%).
13.4.2 Gold Recovered from Leaching
Cyanide leaching testwork was carried out on the pyrite concentrates of various samples. Initial tests indicated that gold recovery can be significantly increased by an average of 15% when the pyrite concentrate particle size was reduced to a P80 of approximately 10 µm (SGS Lakefield, 2011).
The pyrite concentrate regrind test was conducted showed the average power consumption as 48.7 kWh/t at a target P80 of 10 µm, and the average media consumption was 22.2 g/kWh.
Further cyanide leaching tests were carried out on the reground pyrite concentrate on variable samples (SGS 2012). The optimized leaching test conditions that gave the best gold, copper and silver extraction rates are summarized below:
· | pre-oxidation with oxygen addition to 20 ppm before leaching; |
|
|
· | leaching pulp density of 33% solids; |
|
|
· | leaching pH 10.5 to 11.0; and |
|
|
· | cyanide concentration of 2 g/L. |
Variable sample cyanide leaching tests were performed under the optimized condition. The average extraction rates were 72.9% for gold, 72.8% for silver and 75.5% for copper with a 48-hour leaching period.
Bulk leaching test CN-51 was conducted under the same conditions with varied composite samples. The leaching kinetic properties are shown in Figure 13‑5.
Pebble Project | Page 164 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 13‑5: Bulk Cyanidation Silver Extraction Kinetics
Note: Figure prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2012.
Carbon adsorption tests were carried out on commission composite samples as well as K-silicate composite samples. The observations are summarized as follows:
· | Most leaching can be completed after about 12 hours, but some concentrates benefited from a longer leach time of 24 to 48 hours; and, |
|
|
· | The copper loading rate on carbon was higher than with gold or silver, approximately 20 lb/ton from solution containing 4 to 4.5 g/L copper, approximately 8 lb/ton from a 1.5 to 2.5 g/L copper solution. |
Leaching circuit simulations were performed by SGS, as described in their 2012 report. The simulations were based on 3,300 US GPM slurry feed of low-copper commissioning composite samples, high-copper commissioning samples, and K-silicate composite samples. From the simulation results, it was noticed that:
· | A total of 24 hours should be allowed for leaching and carbon adsorption; |
|
|
· | At least 6 to 10 hours of leaching is required before the first carbon adsorption for optimum carbon adsorption; this results in a hybrid leaching plant of carbon-in-pulp (CIP) + CIL arrangement; |
|
|
· | A minimum of six adsorption tanks are required due to the slow carbon adsorption kinetics of gold and silver. Additional tanks will be required if targeting less than 0.01 ppm gold in barren solution; |
|
|
· | The carbon adsorption tanks will require a relatively high carbon inventory of about 38.5 ton per stage; and, |
|
|
· | The efficiency of the gold stripping plant should be maintained at over 95% to prevent gold loss when recycling back to the leaching circuit. |
Pebble Project | Page 165 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.5 SART Process (Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling, Thickening)
SGS tested SART potential to recover the dissolved copper in the leaching circuit. SART lab tests were performed on both high- and low-copper pyrite concentrates. For the high-copper sample, the lowest copper concentration in the final solution was lower than 10 ppm from the original 3,130 ppm. With the low-copper sample, the concentration of copper dropped from 1,810 ppm to about 3 ppm. The test conditions for the two optimized results within this test range were:
· | The addition of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) to reach a pH value of 4.0; and, |
|
|
· | The addition of the reagent NaHS at 130% of the stoichiometric ratio. |
13.6 Cyanide Destruction
SGS tested cyanide destruction with the Inco sulphur dioxide (SO2/air) destruction process on various composite samples. It was observed that, when the sample had a high concentration of weak acid dissociable cyanide (CNWAD) of 1,680 mg/L, a long retention time of six hours was required to achieve a CNWAD of 1.0 mg/L in the treated solution. However, when the CNWAD concentration in the feed sample was reduced to 400 ppm, the required retention time fell to about two hours to achieve a CNWAD of less than 0.1 mg/L in the treated solution.
13.7 Auxiliary Tests
13.7.1 Concentrate Filtration
Outotec tested the filtration rates and cake moisture on a copper concentrate sample (Outotec, 2011). Three tests with varied pumping times were performed at Outotec’s laboratory. With a feed solids density of 58 to 60% by weight, the cake moisture for all three tests was less than 9%. The measured filtration rate was between 569 and 663 kg/m2/h.
13.8 Quality of Concentrates
The results of the detailed assays obtained on all the variability locked cycle test copper/molybdenum 3rd cleaner concentrates were completed and reported in the 2014 SGS Lakefield report. Table 13‑15 shows the major elements distributions. The median concentrations of the potentially payable elements in the final copper/molybdenum concentrates are 27.5% Cu, 15.5 g/t Au, 1.07% Mo, 20.2 g/t Re and 71 g/t Ag.
Pebble Project | Page 166 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 13‑15: LCT Cu-Mo Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS Lakefield, 2014
Variability Samples | Cu % | Au g/t | Mo % | S % | Fe % | Re g/t | Ag g/t |
Average | 27.1 | 16.9 | 1.26 | 34.6 | 29.9 | 23.7 | 75 |
Min | 17.6 | 1.2 | 0.07 | 23.5 | 23.5 | 1.3 | 20 |
Median | 27.5 | 15.5 | 1.07 | 34.4 | 29.9 | 20.2 | 71 |
Max | 39.0 | 52.7 | 4.82 | 40.7 | 34.5 | 122.0 | 151 |
Note: Prepared by Lakefield, 2014.
The detailed elemental analysis was also completed on the copper-molybdenum concentrate samples of the variability locked cycle tests as reported in the 2014 SGS Lakefield report. The results indicate that the Pebble bulk concentrate will not be problematic in terms of deleterious elements. The assays showed that more than 90% of the 103 variability samples were below the penalty triggers for mercury, antimony, arsenic, and zinc, with the exception of 10 samples from illite pyrite and sodic potassic zones.
The elemental analysis of copper concentrates and molybdenum concentrates from the copper/molybdenum separation testwork are listed in Table 13‑6 and Table 13‑17. The reported rhenium grade in the LCT molybdenum concentrate ranged from 791 to 832 g/t Re.
Table 13‑16: LCT Cu Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS Lakefield, 2014
Cu % | Au g/t | Mo % | S% | Fe % | Re g/t | Ag g/t | |
Illite Pyrite | 23.0 | 10.2 | 0.026 | 36.1 | 31.8 | 0.4 | 91 |
Supergene | 29.3 | 11.4 | 0.065 | 33.0 | 28.9 | 1.5 | 104 |
Sodic Potassic | 24.0 | 8.54 | 0.011 | 36.2 | 33.1 | <0.2 | 37 |
K-Silicate | 24.0 | 8.41 | 0.021 | 36.6 | 32.9 | 0.3 | 39 |
Commission | 21.2 | 10.6 | 0.032 | 35.0 | 32.1 | 0.5 | 80 |
Table 13‑17: LCT Mo Concentrate Major Elements Analysis Results – SGS 2014
Cu % | Au g/t | Mo % | S% | Fe % | Re g/t | Ag g/t | |
Illite Pyrite | 3.94 | 3.42 | 42.6 | 38.5 | 5.33 | 791 | 31.6 |
Supergene | 2.45 | 3.87 | 43.7 | 34.0 | 3.84 | 832 | 23.2 |
Sodic Potassic | 3.71 | 3.60 | 43.0 | 34.9 | 5.31 | 830 | 22.9 |
K-Silicate | 2.53 | 1.34 | 50.9 | 36.7 | 3.34 | n/a | 11.1 |
Commission | 1.94 | 2.12 | 47.8 | 35.9 | 3.37 | 812 | <40 |
Pebble Project | Page 167 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.9 Geometallurgy
13.9.1 Introduction
Geometallurgical studies were initiated by the Pebble Partnership in 2008 and continued through 2012. The principal objective of this work was to quantify significant differences in metal deportment, meaning the mineralogical association of a given metal that may result in variations in metal recoveries during mineral processing.
Characterization of the respective geometallurgical domains within the deposit was based on the acquisition of detailed mineralogical data determined using QEMSCAN® mineral mapping technology. QEMSCAN® was used to form the basis for definition of the geometallurgical domains as follows:
· | to determine the mineralogy of samples; |
|
|
· | to classify them by alteration assemblage; |
|
|
· | to assess variations in copper mineral speciation; and |
|
|
· | to locate gold inclusions down to 1 µm in diameter and characterize their size, shape, composition and host mineralogy. |
The results of the geometallurgical studies indicate that the deposit comprises numerous geometallurgical domains. These domains are defined by distinct, internally consistent copper and gold deportment characteristics that correspond spatially with changes in silicate alteration mineralogy. Overall metal deportment reflects characteristics developed during both the initial stage of metal introduction that occurred during specific stages of alteration and subsequent redistribution by overprinting alteration types.
Chalcopyrite is the dominant copper mineral in most of the deposit. Bornite is a greatly subordinate component that is most abundant in advanced argillic alteration. Supergene mineralization, in the form of chalcocite and lesser bornite and covellite, forms rims on and partially replaces hypogene chalcopyrite in the near surface portion of the western half of the deposit, where mineralization was exposed subsequent to glaciation (there is no evidence for paleo-supergene effects in the eastern part of the deposit that is located beneath the post-hypogene rocks of the cover sequence). Hypogene pyrite is present in much of the supergene zone where it typically has been partially replaced by the supergene copper minerals. Molybdenum deportment does not vary appreciably across the deposit, and this metal occurs exclusively in the mineral molybdenite. The deportment of silver and palladium has not been studied in detail. Rhenium occurs as a substitution for molybdenum in the matrix of molybdenite, but the potential for spatial and temporal variations in the degree of substitution has not been studied.
Gold has a more variable deportment across the deposit than the other primary metals of economic interest, and this behaviour can be related directly to variations in predicted gold recoveries to different metallurgical products, as determined by metallurgical testwork. Gold occurs mostly as inclusions in chalcopyrite, pyrite, and to a much lesser extent, in silicate alteration minerals. The proportion of gold hosted by chalcopyrite, pyrite, and the silicate alteration minerals varies significantly between volumetric domains that were affected by different types or combinations of hydrothermal alteration (Gregory et al., 2013). The consequence of these differences in gold deportment is that different alteration domains exhibit different degrees of recovery to different processing materials, such as copper concentrates versus pyrite concentrates versus silicate tailings. It is this knowledge of the relationship between hydrothermal alteration, as defined in a three-dimensional alteration model for the Pebble deposit, and the specific deportment of gold micro-inclusions that allows the spatial variations in gold recovery across the deposit to be modelled.
Pebble Project | Page 168 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.9.2 Description of Geometallurgical Domains
Hypogene mineralization in the Pebble deposit has been divided into seven geometallurgical domains, the boundaries of which correspond to the distribution of specific alteration types and their combination within the three-dimensional alteration model. The most volumetrically significant geometallurgical domains are the potassic (in some places referred to as K-silicate or potassium silicate) and sodic-potassic domains, whereas the illite-pyrite, QSP, quartz-pyrophyllite, sericite, and 8431M (see Section 13.9.2.7 for definition of this domain) domains are smaller. Two additional domains occur in the western part of the Pebble deposit where the sodic-potassic and illite-pyrite domains are overprinted by supergene alteration. These domains are being used to constrain the geometallurgical parameters in the resource block model. Specific metallurgical recoveries have been applied to each geometallurgical domain (see Section 13.10).
13.9.2.1 Potassic Domain
The potassic domain is concentrated near the top of the main granodiorite pluton and its immediate host rocks in the eastern part of the deposit. Material in this domain is dominated by K-feldspar, quartz, and minor biotite, and has been variably overprinted by illite. The copper sulphide minerals are dominated by chalcopyrite, accompanied by a subequal concentration of pyrite and, more rarely, traces of sphalerite. Gold occurs dominantly as inclusions in chalcopyrite. This material type is volumetrically most important in the Pebble East zone and is predicted to have the best metallurgical response due to low clay and pyrite concentrations and a close association of gold with chalcopyrite.
13.9.2.2 Sodic-Potassic Domain
Material in the sodic-potassic domain is dominated by K-feldspar, quartz, albite and biotite, accompanied by low concentrations of subequal illite and kaolinite. Chalcopyrite is the main copper sulphide mineral and the ratio of pyrite to chalcopyrite is moderate and a bit higher than in the potassic domain. The carbonates siderite and ferroan dolomite are also commonly present. Gold occurs as inclusions in both chalcopyrite and pyrite. It is the dominant geometallurgical domain in the western part of the deposit and extends to depth to the east, below the potassic domain. Supergene mineralization is present in the uppermost part of this domain in the western part of the deposit.
13.9.2.3 Illite-Pyrite Domain
The mineralogical characteristics of the illite-pyrite domain reflect successive, partial overprints of quartz-sericite-pyrite and later illite alteration on an early stage of well-mineralized sodic-potassic and/or potassic alteration. Illite-pyrite material is dominated by K-feldspar, quartz, illite and biotite. The illite-pyrite domain has a high concentration of pyrite and a high ratio of pyrite to chalcopyrite. This assemblage occurs in the shallow part of the eastern portion of the Pebble West zone and also extends to the east where it replaces potassic alteration below the cover sequence. Supergene mineralization affects the upper part of the illite-pyrite domain in the western part of the deposit that is not concealed by the younger cover sequence. Gold deports as inclusions both within early chalcopyrite that is part of the early sodic-potassic and potassic alteration, and to a greater extent in pyrite that formed during the later alteration overprints. The high clay and pyrite concentrations are expected to lead to processing challenges that could include the increase of reagent consumptions and/or the decrease of a flotation selectivity between copper minerals and pyrite. Additionally, the gold-pyrite association will result in a lower gold recovery to the final copper flotation concentrate compared to the sodic-potassic and potassic geometallurgical domains.
13.9.2.4 Quartz-Sericite-Pyrite Domain
The QSP domain occurs on the north and south margins of the alteration model. This alteration is a late-stage overprint around the margins of the deposit and is strongly grade destructive for copper, molybdenum, and gold that originally formed during earlier alteration types. This material is dominated by quartz and sericite, has a very high pyrite concentration, and contains very little chalcopyrite. As a consequence, both grade and recovery of this domain are very low and it would form a part of the normal processing stream.
Pebble Project | Page 169 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.9.2.5 Quartz-Pyrophyllite Domain
The quartz-pyrophyllite domain is coincident with the distribution of quartz pyrophyllite alteration. It occurs in the easternmost part of the deposit where it has typically overprinted an older zone of potassic alteration with a very high concentration of quartz veins. This material is composed mostly of quartz, sericite, and pyrophyllite. -pyrophyllite assemblage. This domain has high concentrations of both pyrite (average 9.7 wt%) and chalcopyrite (average 3.8 wt%), along with very low concentrations of bornite. Gold mostly occurs as inclusions in chalcopyrite, with lesser amounts in pyrite and silicate alteration minerals. This is the highest-grade material in the deposit and has favourable gold deportment, but also has higher clay and pyrite concentrations.
13.9.2.6 Sericite Domain
The high-grade sericite domain is different to the very low-grade quartz-sericite-pyrite domain. The sericite domain is characterized by quartz, sericite, minor pyrophyllite, and variable concentrations of K-feldspar. This material occurs in two areas within the Pebble East zone. The main and most intense volume of sericite domain occurs south of the ZE fault and forms an envelope to the western side of the quartz-pyrophyllite domain. A second, much weaker and smaller area of sericite domains occurs in the Pebble East zone, just north of the ZE fault. The copper minerals are dominated by chalcopyrite accompanied by trace to minor bornite, digenite and covellite, traces of the arsenic-bearing sulphosalts enargite and tennantite, and trace sphalerite. The pyrite concentration is high but the pyrite to chalcopyrite ratio is moderate due to high copper grade. Gold inclusions occur in both chalcopyrite and pyrite, and to a much lesser extent in bornite and digenite. The domain has high concentrations of both clay and pyrite and variable gold deportment; this may have implications for mineral processing, but the high-tenor copper sulphides may yield a higher concentrate grade.
13.9.2.7 8431M Domain
The 8431M domain is a variant on the potassic domain. It occurs as a small volume of rock in the vicinity of drill holes 8431M and 11527 in the western part of the deposit and is surrounded by the sodic-potassic domain. The material contains abundant biotite and K-feldspar, lesser quartz and illite, and also contains a relatively higher concentration of magnetite similar to that found in altered diorite sills. The copper minerals are dominated by chalcopyrite and the concentration of pyrite is relatively low, yielding a lower-than-average pyrite to chalcopyrite ratio. The concentration of molybdenite is also very high. Metallurgical tests from hole 8431M have the highest gold recoveries in the western part of the deposit. This is unusual because most of the gold occurs as inclusions in pyrite, but it is believed that the larger grain size of the gold inclusions results in liberation and therefore higher than expected recovery. Because the 8431M geometallurgical domain is so small, it has been included with the surrounding sodic-potassic geometallurgical domain for modeling purposes.
13.9.2.8 Supergene Domains
A thin, irregular zone of supergene mineralization of variable thickness extends across the near-surface part of much of the western part of the deposit. The zone is characterized by weak enrichment of copper that manifests partial replacement of hypogene chalcopyrite and rimming of hypogene pyrite by supergene chalcocite and lesser bornite and covellite. Geometallurgically, supergene mineralization is defined as all material with cyanide soluble copper above 20%. Supergene effects overprint the near surface parts of the sodic-potassic and illite-pyrite domains in the western part of the deposit and require consideration as two additional geometallurgical domains.
Pebble Project | Page 170 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.10 Metal Recovery Projection
Metal recovery projections of copper, gold, silver and molybdenum were completed in 2014 based on the review of 111 variability locked cycle test results on 103 samples. The projections were updated in 2018 to reflect the changes of the proposed processing methods for Pebble deposit, including the exclusion of a cyanide leach process and the implementation of a finer primary grind particle size to improve metal recoveries. The 2018 projections remain the same in this technical report, while a high-level recovery estimate of rhenium has been completed and is included.
13.10.1 Metal Projections of Copper, Gold Silver and Molybdenum – 2014/2018, Tetra Tech
In 2014, a metal recovery projection was completed based on the variability locked-cycle flotation tests, variability cyanidation tests, and cyanide recovery (SART) tests on two commissioning samples. The overall metal recoveries of copper, gold, and silver consist of two parts with the majority via flotation concentration and a small portion from the gold plant, i.e., the cyanide leaching and SART processes. In 2018, as secondary gold recovery using cyanide was excluded from the proposed processing methods, the 2014 metal recovery projections were adjusted accordingly.
13.10.1.1 Metal Recovery Projection Basis - 2014-2018, Tetra Tech
The adjusted analysis made to predict metal recoveries can be summarized as follows, starting from the changes made in the analysis followed by the original analysis basis that is still applicable.
13.10.1.1.1 Adjusted Analysis Basis
The following considerations were made in adjusting the metal recoveries:
· | reducing the primary grind size P80 from about 200 µm to 125 µm with corresponding improved metal recoveries; |
|
|
· | adjusting the copper recovery by applying an average recovery increase of 0.5% per 10 µm reduction of primary grind size; and |
|
|
· | applying a similar same recovery change factor for gold, silver, and molybdenum. |
|
|
· | a review of the 103 available samples, eight were excluded from the analysis – 5 of 8 because they were below the 0.20% Cu cut-off grade, and 3 of 8 because they were contaminated by drilling fluid; |
|
|
· | the remaining 95 samples were used to determine copper, gold and molybdenum recoveries; |
|
|
· | silver recovery was based on a dataset of 10 samples due to incomplete silver assay data for the testwork; |
|
|
· | locked cycle test recovery distributions were reviewed for each geometallurgical domain type to determine if domains could be grouped into similar recovery domains; |
|
|
· | the outcome of this analysis established seven recovery domains for copper, six for gold, and seven for molybdenum; |
|
|
· | recoveries were determined using the median value of each dataset; |
|
|
· | copper-molybdenum separation efficiency was assumed to be 92.7% molybdenum recovery to the molybdenum concentrate; and |
|
|
· | gold recovery included an incremental 1.0% for the gravity circuit. |
Pebble Project | Page 171 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.10.1.2 Effects of Primary Grind Size on Metal Recoveries
Four testwork programs were conducted in 2005 and 2006 by SGS Lakefield to investigate the impacts of the primary grind size on metal recoveries with different composite samples in rougher flotation, batch cleaner flotation and locked-cycle flotation tests. A general observation was made that higher metal recoveries can be obtained with a finer primary grinding size, with just a few exceptions that mainly resulted from the inconsistent test conditions. The primary size effect testing results are plotted and connected with trendline by SGS Lakefield as presented in Figure 13‑6 to Figure 13‑7.
Figure 13‑6: The Effect of Primary Grind Fineness of Copper Recovery to Rougher Concentrate
Note: Prepared by SGS Lakefield, 2006
Figure 13‑7: Effect of Primary Grind Size on Cu, Au and Mo Recovery to Batch Copper Concentrate
Source: SGS Lakefield, 2006
Pebble Project | Page 172 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 13‑8: Cu, Au, and Mo Recovery into a 26% Batch Cu Concentrate
Source: SGS Lakefield, 2006
Pebble Project | Page 173 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The observed linear relationship between the primary grind size and metal recovery change was mathematically summarized by SGS Lakefield, in 2005 and 2006, as follows:
“Linear trendlines that were fitted to the data sets suggested that in only 4 cases the metal recovery improved with coarser grinds compared with 20 cases that produced inferior recoveries at a coarse grind. Metal losses of Cu, Au, and Mo typically ranged between 0.5% to 1.0% per 10 microns increase in grind size.”
Similar observations were obtained from the batch cleaner and locked cycle flotation tests as shown in Table 13‑18 to Table 13‑19. It can be noted that the metal recovery increase in the locked cycle flotation tests is lower as compared with the batch cleaner flotation tests. The average metal increase per 10 µm reduction of primary grind size from the locked cycle tests are 0.48% for copper, 0.15% for gold, and 0.34% for molybdenum.
Table 13‑18: Summary of Batch Recovery Change per 10 µm Primary Grind Size Reduction
Composite | Product | Change per 10 µm Size Reduction (% Recovery) | ||
Cu | Au | Mo | ||
2005G | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.62 | 0.24 | 0.53 |
2005Y | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.70 | 0.37 | 0.53 |
2006G | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
2006Y | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.50 | 0.22 | 0.40 |
2005G | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.62 | NA | 0.44 |
2005Y | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.86 | NA | 0.59 |
2006G | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.33 | NA | 0.51 |
2006Y | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.49 | NA | 0.44 |
Table 13‑19: Change in Metal Recovery for 101µm Primary Grind Size Reduction, P80 150µm to 300 µm
Composite | Product | Cu % | Au % | Mo % |
PBA | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.38 | -0.46 | 0.59 |
PBB | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.57 | 0.15 | 1.46 |
PBC | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.54 | 0.68 | 0.31 |
PBD | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.45 | -0.43 | 0.58 |
PBE | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.34 | 0.01 | -0.1 |
PBF | Cu/Mo Concentrate | 0.54 | 0.38 | 0.57 |
PBA | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.84 | -1.05 | 0.84 |
PBB | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.29 | 0.50 | 1.61 |
PBC | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.41 | 0.34 | -0.01 |
PBD | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.40 | 0.01 | 0.72 |
PBE | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.79 | 0.31 | 0.70 |
PBF | Ro+Scav Concentrate | 0.51 | 0.46 | 0.64 |
Pebble Project | Page 174 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
13.10.2 Metal Recovery Projection Results
The adjusted metal recoveries are presented in Table 13‑20, excluding any incremental recovery of gold, silver and copper realized from the leaching circuit and SART process. The flotation recoveries are adjusted based on the previous projection but at a primary grind P80 of 135 µm.
Table 13‑20: Projected Metallurgical Recoveries Tetra Tech, 2021
Domain | Flotation Recovery % | |||||
Cu Con, 26% Cu | Mo Con, 50% Mo | |||||
Cu | Au | Ag | Mo | Re | ||
Supergene | ||||||
Sodic Potassic | 74.7 | 60.4 | 64.1 | 51.2 | 70.8 | |
Illite Pyrite | 68.1 | 43.9 | 64.1 | 62.6 | 70.8 | |
Hypogene | ||||||
Illite Pyrite | 91.0 | 46.2 | 67.5 | 77.1 | 70.8 | |
Sodic Potassic | 91.0 | 63.8 | 67.7 | 80.9 | 70.8 | |
Potassic | 93.0 | 63.1 | 66.0 | 84.8 | 70.8 | |
Quartz Pyrophyllite | 95.0 | 65.5 | 64.6 | 80.7 | 70.8 | |
Sericite | 91.0 | 41.3 | 67.5 | 77.1 | 70.8 | |
Quartz Sericite Pyrite | 90.5 | 33.3 | 67.5 | 86.8 | 70.8 | |
LOM Average | 87 | 60 | 67 | 75 | 71 |
Note: An additional 1% Au recovery to the gravity concentrate is expected.
The metallurgical testwork from 2011 to 2013 on the Pebble deposit indicates that significant rhenium can be recovered to the bulk copper-molybdenum flotation concentrate and further concentrated into the final molybdenum flotation concentrate. The overall rhenium recovery is determined by the rhenium recovery to the bulk copper-molybdenum concentrate and the separation efficiency of the rhenium into the molybdenum concentrate in the subsequent copper-molybdenum separation stages. The estimated rhenium recovery is about 70.8% on average for all the domains based on the following considerations:
· | The available rhenium distributions to the bulk copper/molybdenum concentrates are based on the 10 of the 111 LCT tests on variability samples. The average recovery was calculated as 73.4% representing five of the eight geometallurgical domains. |
|
|
· | The application of a similar separation efficiency of molybdenum as of 92.7% in the copper-molybdenum separation to estimate the rhenium stage recovery, considering the significant linear relationship between the molybdenum and rhenium bulk and circuit recovery test data. |
|
|
· | The adjustment of the overall rhenium recovery by applying a similar factor for an average recovery increase of 0.5% per 10 µm reduction of primary grind size. |
Pebble Project | Page 175 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
14.1 Summary
The Pebble Mineral Resource estimate presented in this section is unchanged from the resource estimate disclosed in 2020 (Gaunt et al, 2020). No core drilling has taken place in the vicinity of the Mineral Resource area since 2013, nor have any additional analyses have been obtained since that time for copper, gold, molybdenum, or silver.
The current estimate is based on all core holes in the vicinity of the block model extents, completed to the end of 2013. Wireframe domains for the estimated metals, as well as bulk density, were interpreted using geological, structural and alteration data. Descriptive statistics, unique search strategies and geostatistical parameters for block interpolation and resource classification were then developed for each of the modeled domains.
The Pebble Mineral Resource estimate is presented in Table 14‑1. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is August 18, 2020. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Tonnes were rounded to the nearest million. The highlighted 0.3% CuEq cut off is appropriate for a large scale, open pit deposit of this type in Alaska. Of the total Mineral Resource, the Measured category represents approximately 5%, the Indicated category represents 54%, and the Inferred category represents approximately 41%.
Pebble Project | Page 176 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 14‑1: Pebble Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate August 2020
Measured | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cut-off CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.64 | 531,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 177 | 1.7 | 0.31 | 3.87 | 5.96 | 0.21 | 28.4 | 167,000 |
0.2 | 0.64 | 530,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 177 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.87 | 5.96 | 0.21 | 28.4 | 167,000 |
0.3 | 0.65 | 527,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 178 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.83 | 5.93 | 0.21 | 28.1 | 167,000 |
0.4 | 0.66 | 508,000,000 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 180 | 1.7 | 0.32 | 3.81 | 5.88 | 0.20 | 27.4 | 163,000 |
0.6 | 0.77 | 279,000,000 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 203 | 1.8 | 0.36 | 2.46 | 3.77 | 0.12 | 16.5 | 100,000 |
1.0 | 1.16 | 28,000,000 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 302 | 2.3 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.56 | 0.02 | 2.0 | 14,000 |
Indicated | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cu-toff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.73 | 6,409,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 233 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 54.38 | 66.56 | 3.29 | 328.5 | 2,500,000 |
0.2 | 0.73 | 6,305,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 236 | 1.6 | 0.40 | 54.20 | 66.08 | 3.28 | 326.0 | 2,497,000 |
0.3 | 0.77 | 5,929,000,000 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 246 | 1.7 | 0.41 | 53.58 | 64.81 | 3.21 | 316.4 | 2,443,000 |
0.4 | 0.82 | 5,185,000,000 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 261 | 1.8 | 0.44 | 51.42 | 58.35 | 2.98 | 291.7 | 2,271,000 |
0.6 | 0.99 | 3,455,000,000 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 299 | 2.0 | 0.51 | 41.88 | 45.54 | 2.27 | 221.1 | 1,748,000 |
1.0 | 1.29 | 1,412,000,000 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 343 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 23.96 | 23.15 | 1.07 | 109.9 | 853,000 |
Measured + Indicated | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cutoff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.72 | 6,941,000,000 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 228 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 58.29 | 72.53 | 3.49 | 357.1 | 2,672,000 |
0.2 | 0.73 | 6,835,000,000 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 231 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 58.15 | 72.08 | 3.49 | 354.5 | 2,666,000 |
0.3 | 0.76 | 6,456,000,000 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 240 | 1.7 | 0.41 | 56.92 | 70.57 | 3.42 | 344.6 | 2,615,000 |
0.4 | 0.81 | 5,693,000,000 | 0.44 | 0.35 | 253 | 1.8 | 0.43 | 55.21 | 64.06 | 3.18 | 320.3 | 2,431,000 |
0.6 | 0.97 | 3,734,000,000 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 291 | 2.0 | 0.50 | 44.44 | 49.22 | 2.40 | 237.7 | 1,848,000 |
1.0 | 1.29 | 1,440,000,000 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 342 | 2.4 | 0.60 | 24.12 | 23.61 | 1.08 | 112.0 | 867,000 |
Pebble Project | Page 177 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Inferred | Metal Grades | Contained Metal | ||||||||||
Cutoff CuEq (%) | CuEq (%) | Tonnage | Cu (%) | Au (g/t) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (g/t) | Re (ppm) | Cu (Blbs) | Au (Moz) | Mo (Blbs) | Ag (Moz) | Re (Kg) |
0.1 | 0.45 | 6,435,000,000 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 174 | 1.1 | 0.28 | 28.22 | 47.38 | 2.47 | 232.1 | 1,789,000 |
0.2 | 0.48 | 5,819,000,000 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 190 | 1.1 | 0.30 | 27.57 | 44.34 | 2.44 | 212.2 | 1,763,000 |
0.3 | 0.55 | 4,454,000,000 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 226 | 1.2 | 0.36 | 24.54 | 35.80 | 2.22 | 170.4 | 1,603,000 |
0.4 | 0.68 | 2,646,000,000 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 269 | 1.4 | 0.44 | 19.24 | 25.52 | 1.57 | 119.1 | 1,154,000 |
0.6 | 0.89 | 1,314,000,000 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 292 | 1.8 | 0.51 | 13.90 | 15.63 | 0.85 | 75.6 | 673,000 |
1.0 | 1.20 | 361,000,000 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 377 | 2.3 | 0.69 | 5.41 | 5.22 | 0.30 | 26.3 | 251,000 |
· | David Gaunt, P. Geo, a qualified person who is not independent of Northern Dynasty is responsible for the estimate. |
|
|
· | Copper equivalent (CuEq) calculations use the following metal prices: US$1.85 /lb for Cu, US$902 /oz for Au and US$12.50 /lb for Mo, and recoveries: 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone). |
|
|
· | Contained metal calculations are based on 100% recoveries. |
|
|
· | The base case Mineral Resource estimate (bolded) is reported above a 0.30% CuEq cut-off. |
|
|
· | The Mineral Resource estimate is constrained by a conceptual pit shell that was developed using a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm and is based in the following parameters: 42 degree pit slope; metal prices and recoveries for gold of US$1,540.00/oz and 61% Au, for copper of US$3.63/lb and 91% Cu, for silver of US$20.00/oz and 67% Ag and for molybdenum of US$12.36/lb and 81% Mo, respectively; a mining cost of US$1.01/ton with a US$0.03/ton/bench increment and other costs (including processing, G&A and transport) of US$6.74/ton. |
|
|
· | The terms "Measured Resources", "Indicated Resources" and “Inferred Resources” are recognized and required by Canadian regulations under 43-101. The SEC has adopted amendments to its disclosure rules to modernize the mineral property disclosure required for issuers whose securities are registered with the SEC under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, effective February 25, 2019, that adopt definitions of the terms and categories of resources which are "substantially similar" to the corresponding terms under Canadian Regulations in 43-101. Accordingly, there is no assurance any mineral resources that we may report as Measured Resources, Indicated Resources and Inferred Resources under 43-101 would be the same had we prepared the resource estimates under the standards adopted under the SEC Modernization Rules. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves or be legally or economically mineable. In addition, Inferred Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies, or economic studies except for a Preliminary Economic Assessment as defined under 43-101. |
|
|
· | The Mineral Resource estimates contained herein have not been adjusted for any risk that the required environmental permits may not be obtained for the Pebble Project. The risk associated with the ability of the Pebble Project to obtain required environmental permits is a risk to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the mineralization and the classification of the estimate as a Mineral Resource. |
Pebble Project | Page 178 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑1: Block Model (red line); Drill Hole Collars and Re-analyses: Lacking (grey), Existing (yellow), 2020 Pulps (red)
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
14.2 Geological Interpretation for Estimation
The Pebble deposit extends for a strike length of approximately 13,000 ft, a width of 7,700 ft, and to a depth of at least 5,810 ft. Metal distribution within the Pebble deposit is affected by lithology, alteration, weathering and structure such that the distribution cannot be constrained on the basis of a single attribute. Further, the distribution of each of the metals differs in accordance with the differing response of those metals to the thermal and chemical environments prevailing at the time of deposition. Therefore, for the purpose of resource estimation domains were developed for each of the five metals.
Pebble Project | Page 179 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
These domains are defined by deposit orientation, geology alteration and grade. Three boundaries are common to all metals: 1) the north-south divide that separates the deposit into east and west portions and marks a change in the dip of the stratigraphy from flat lying to gently east dipping, 2) the east-trending fault (ZE Fault) that divides the eastern portion of the deposit into two zones, and 3) the north-northeast trending ZG Fault which constrains the deposit to the east. The shape and location of the domain boundary differs among the metals but in general is gently east-dipping and separates an upper higher-grade zone (copper, gold and silver) from a lower grade zone; this lower-grade zone underlies both western and eastern parts of the deposit. East of the east-west divide the higher-grade zone is divided into a north and a south domain by the ZE Fault. In the case of molybdenum, in contrast to the other metals, the upper, western zone is lower- grade and the underlying zone is higher grade. The domaining developed for molybdenum was used for rhenium estimation given the very high statistical and spatial correlation between these two metals.
There are two additional domains for copper: leached and supergene; both are located in the near-surface western portion of the deposit and both have been interpreted based on copper speciation data. Copper grade distribution is further constrained by two lower-grade domains that overlie portions of the east and west halves of the deposit. The gold domains also contain a very small low-grade domain immediately above the western higher-grade domain.
The bulk density domains are described in Section 14.6.
The domains are tabulated in Table 14‑2.
As a general statement domain code 40 will identify lower-grade portions of the deposit, domain code 41 will identify upper, higher-grade portions in the western half of the deposit, whereas domain codes 42 and 43 will identify the northern and southern quadrants respectively in the eastern half of the deposit.
Table 14‑2: Pebble Deposit Metal Domains
Domain
|
Code
|
Description
|
Ag low grade | 40 | Hypogene at depth |
Ag moderate grade | 41 | West part near surface |
Ag Northeast | 42 | East part, north of ZE fault |
Ag Southeast | 43 | East part, south of ZE fault |
Au low grade | 40 | Hypogene at depth |
Au moderate grade | 41 | West part near surface |
Au Northeast | 42 | East part north of ZE fault |
Au Southeast | 43 | East part south of ZE fault |
Cu Leach | 1 | Cu/leach |
Cu Supergene | 2 | Cu/supergene |
Cu low grade | 40 | Hypogene at depth |
Cu moderate grade | 41 | Hypogene West near surface |
Cu Hypogene Northeast | 42 | East part north of ZE fault |
Cu Hypogene Southeast | 43 | East part south of ZE fault |
Mo/Re low grade | 40 | Above 70 ppm cap |
Mo/Re high grade | 41 | Below 70 ppm cap west |
Mo/Re high grade Northeast | 42 | Above 70 ppm cap, east part north of ZE fault |
Mo/Re high grade Southeast | 43 | Above 70 ppm cap, east part south of ZE fault |
Separate variables were set up in the block model for each of the metals, each metal domain and for bulk density (noted as SG0 to SG3 and SG10 in Section 14.6). This approach allowed for the application of a unique suite of search strategies and kriging parameters to each metal domain based on that domain’s geostatistical characteristics.
The distribution of drill holes relative to the extent of the block model is shown in Figure 14‑2.
Pebble Project | Page 180 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑2: Pebble Deposit Plan View of Drill Holes and Block Model Extent (red rectangle)
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
14.3 Inclusion of Rhenium in the Project Database
The rhenium drill data used in that metals estimation has in part been generated by regression using the correlation with molybdenum. Table 14‑3 shows the correlation coefficients between rhenium and each of 21 possible predictors in the Pebble analytical database. The only strong correlation is with molybdenum at +0.87. The correlations between rhenium and other elements are weak and non-existent.
Table 14‑3: Correlation coefficients between rhenium and other elements
Ag | Al | As | Ba | Ca | Cd | Co |
+0.02 | +0.02 | +0.02 | 0.00 | −0.09 | −0.02 | −0.07 |
| ||||||
Cr | Cu | Fe | K | Mg | Mn | Mo |
−0.04 | +0.16 | −0.14 | 0.00 | −0.12 | −0.13 | +0.87 |
| ||||||
Na | Ni | Pb | Sb | Sr | V | Zn |
−0.08 | −0.07 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.10 | 0.00 |
Pebble Project | Page 181 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑3 shows a scatterplot of rhenium versus molybdenum on a log-log scale. The linear relationship between the logarithms of the two elements results in the regression equation having the following form when expressed in terms of the raw, untransformed variables (with both measured in units of parts-per-million):
Figure 14‑3: Rhenium Versus Molybdenum
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
14.4 Regression Validation
Subsequent to the development of the regression formula, rhenium assays for 50 withheld samples were provided so that the reliability of the prediction could be assessed using data that had not played any role in the development of the regression equation (Srivastava, 2020).
Figure 14‑4 shows the rhenium grades predicted by the regression equation versus the rhenium assays reported by the laboratory.
Pebble Project | Page 182 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑4: Rhenium predictions versus actual rhenium assays for withheld validation samples
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
The blue dots in Figure 14‑4 are the 50 withheld validation sample assays from the initial data base. For these 50 samples, there is a small bias, with the predicted rhenium values being slightly conservative at about 15% lower than the actual assays. The correlation between the actual assays and the predictions is an excellent +0.97.
Predictions for small volumes are more uncertain than predictions made for larger volumes such as the 75 x 75 x 50 ft blocks used in the resource block model. In order to test the reliability of the rhenium predictions for larger volumes withheld analyses were also combined into 50 ft to 60 ft lengths which is the approximate height of resource blocks. The correlation coefficient is +0.99 at the scale closer to the size of resource blocks confirming the following regression equation produces excellent predictions of rhenium at the scale of the sample interval and even better predictions at the scale of the resource blocks: hat the following regression equation at:
Re = 0.002269 · Mo0.951
The regression equation was used to populate missing rhenium analyses into the drill database and these values along with the existing rhenium results were used to estimate rhenium into the Pebble block model.
Pebble Project | Page 183 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14.5 Exploratory Data Analysis
14.5.1 Assays
Global descriptive statistics for all non-zero copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, and rhenium assays are presented in Table 14‑4.
Table 14‑4: Pebble Deposit Assay Database Descriptive Global Statistics
Statistic (Non-zero)
|
Length (ft)
|
Ag (ppm)
|
Au (g/t)
|
Cu (%)
|
Mo (ppm)
|
Re (ppm)
|
Mean | 9.97 | 1.57 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 191.3 | 0.33 |
Median | 10.00 | 1.00 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 130 | 0.22 |
Standard Deviation | 1.86 | 5.02 | 1.50 | 0.31 | 298.26 | 0.49 |
Coefficient of Variation | 0.19 | 3.20 | 4.63 | 0.94 | 1.56 | 1.49 |
Kurtosis | 23.31 | 30,529 | 41,613 | 28.36 | 2,455 | 1,285 |
Skewness | 2.1 | 155.3 | 189.9 | 2.9 | 29.00 | 20.26 |
Minimum | 0.001 | 0.1 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.20 | 0.001 |
Maximum | 55 | 1030 | 334.8 | 9.29 | 32,200 | 43.93 |
Count | 59,105 | 58,876 | 59,114 | 58,912 | 59,114 | 58,093 |
Descriptive statistics were generated for each of the metal domains and these are summarized graphically as box-and-whisker plots in Figure 14‑5 to Figure 14‑9.
Pebble Project | Page 184 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑5: Pebble Deposit Copper Assay Domain Box-and-Whisker Plots
Note: M = arithmetic mean; Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 185 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑6: Pebble Deposit Gold Assay Domain Box-and-Whisker Plots
Note: M = arithmetic mean; Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 186 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑7: Pebble Deposit Molybdenum Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots
Note: M = arithmetic mean, Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 187 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑8: Pebble Deposit Silver Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots
Note: M = arithmetic mean; Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 188 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑9: Pebble Deposit Rhenium Assay Box-and-Whisker Plots
Note: M = arithmetic mean; Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 189 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
As described in Section 14.2, there are four basic domains for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver and rhenium, plus additional leach and supergene domains for copper. A north-south soft boundary separates the flat-lying western portion of the deposit from the gently east-dipping eastern portion of the deposit and it is for this reason that the deposit is broadly divided into east and west halves. The eastern portion of the deposit is divided into northern and southern quadrants by an east-west fault (the ZE fault) which is always treated as a hard boundary between these two zones.
For copper, gold, and silver the western half of the deposit has a flat-lying, near surface high-grade domain (41) which is underlain by a low-grade domain (40). As indicated on the box-and-whisker plots (Figure 14‑5, Figure 14‑6, Figure 14‑8) there is a marked difference in mean grades for these zones and, as such, these domains are separated by a planar, gently east-dipping hard boundary that extends into the eastern portion of the deposit beneath the northeast and southeast hypogene domains.
For molybdenum and rhenium, the west half of the deposit has a thin, flat-lying near-surface low-grade domain (40) that is underlain by a higher-grade domain (41) as shown by the grades in the box-and-whisker plots (Figure 14‑7 and Figure 14‑9). These domains are separated by a planar, flat-lying hard boundary that extends into the eastern portion of the deposit into the upper reaches of the northeast and southeast hypogene domains.
The box-and-whisker plots also indicate that the fault-bounded domains (42, 43) have similar average grades for all metals; however, their separation into domains by a hard boundary is required due the displacement along the ZE fault plane. The copper leach zone is also clearly distinguishable although the supergene zone is not markedly different from the other high-grade domains. Five of the six domains are shown in Figure 14‑10. This east-west section is located north of the east west trending ZE fault so zone 43 is not visible. The east-west divide is clearly visible between zones 41 in the west and 42 in the east.
Figure 14‑10: Pebble Deposit Copper Grade Domains
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 190 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14.5.2 Capping
The determination of appropriate capping levels is subjective but is commonly established by reference to cumulative frequency plots of the metal assays. Prominent breaks in the plot line, particularly at the upper end, infer a sub-population of values separate from the main population. The break in the trend defines the capping value and all assays above that point are reduced to the capping value.
Capping values applied to the Pebble assays were determined for each domain and are shown in Table 14‑5.
Table 14‑5: Pebble Deposit Capping Values
Code
|
Explanation
|
Units
|
Cap
|
40 | Ag - Hypogene at depth | g/t | 35 |
41 | Ag - Hypogene West near surface | g/t | 19 |
42 | Ag - North of ZE fault | g/t | 13 |
43 | Ag - South of ZE fault | g/t | 70 |
40 | Au - Hypogene at depth | g/t | 2.8 |
41 | Au - Hypogene West near surface | g/t | 7.0 |
42 | Au - North of ZE fault | g/t | 7.7 |
43 | Au - South of ZE fault | g/t | 4.3 |
1 | Cu - Leach | % | 0.25 |
2 | Cu - Supergene | % | 2.2 |
40 | Cu - Hypogene at depth | % | 0.8 |
41 | Cu - Hypogene West near surface | % | 2.0 |
42 | Cu - North of ZE fault | % | 2.4 |
43 | Cu - South of ZE fault | % | 2.4 |
40 | Mo - Below 70 ppm cap | ppm | 300 |
41 | Mo - Above 70 ppm cap west | ppm | 2100 |
42 | Mo - Above 7 0ppm cap, north of ZE fault | ppm | 2800 |
43 | Mo - Above 70 ppm cap, south of ZE fault | ppm | 2800 |
40 | Re - Below 70 ppm cap | ppm | 0.7 |
41 | Re - Above 70 ppm cap west | ppm | 3.0 |
42 | Re - Above 70ppm cap, north of ZE fault | ppm | 3.9 |
43 | Re - Above 70 ppm cap, south of ZE fault | ppm | 5.8 |
Pebble Project | Page 191 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14.5.3 Composites
Samples were composited to 50 ft lengths to match the anticipated bench height during mining. Although the compositing is not intended to ensure the composite intervals will coincide with the benches, the composite length results in grades that match the resolution of those that can be expected from bench-scale sampling. The number of composites and their mean values are given in Table 14‑6.
Table 14‑6: Pebble Deposit Composite Mean Values
Metal | Composites | Mean |
Ag (g/t) | 16,210 | 1.17 |
Au (g/t) | 12,254 | 0.31 |
Cu (%) | 16,184 | 0.24 |
Mo (ppm) | 16,170 | 140 |
Re (ppm) | 11.914 | 0.32 |
Bulk Density (g/cm3) | 9,830 | 2.62 |
14.6 Bulk Density
The database contains values for 9,830 bulk density measurements. These measurements were made on 0.1 m samples of drill core selected from locations throughout the Pebble deposit so as to reasonably reflect deposit-wide variations in rock mass. These values were not composited because they are spatially isolated and not appropriate for compositing; hence were employed directly in the interpolation process. Five separate bulk density domains were identified:
· | pyrite cap within the western portion of the deposit (SGZ1); |
|
|
· | pyrite cap within the eastern portion of the deposit (SGZ2); |
|
|
· | cretaceous hanging wall (SGZ3); |
|
|
· | tertiary unmineralized rock east of the ZG1 Fault (SGZ10); and |
|
|
· | tertiary unmineralized rock west of the ZG1 Fault (SGZ11). |
Bulk density measurements within these domains were interpolated into the block model using ordinary kriging (OK) and then used to estimate tonnages.
14.7 Spatial Analysis
Variography was completed on composited drill results on a per metal, per domain basis. The Pebble variography and search ellipse parameters are presented in Table 14‑7 and Table 14‑8, respectively.
Pebble Project | Page 192 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 14‑7: Pebble Deposit Variogram Parameters
Domain | Variogram Weights | S1 Axis Range (ft) | S2 Axis Range (ft) | ||||||
S0 | S1 | S2 | Major | Semi-major | Minor | Major | Semi-major | Minor | |
Ag40 | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 750 | 475 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ag41 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 450 | 360 | 475 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ag42 | 0.08 | 0.34 | 0.26 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 700 | 2,250 | 1,500 |
Ag43 | 0.13 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 1,300 | 800 | 1,200 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Au40 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 700 | 700 | 350 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Au41 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 250 | 250 | 200 | 1,200 | 850 | 800 |
Au42 | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 1,100 | 1,500 | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Au43 | 0.20 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 900 | 600 | 450 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cu1 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.21 | 700 | 700 | 350 | 700 | 700 | 350 |
Cu2 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 900 | 520 | 520 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cu40 | 0.15 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 1,400 | 1,300 | 550 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cu41 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 450 | 700 | 450 | 4,000 | 1,300 | 1,300 |
Cu42 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.30 | 370 | 500 | 700 | 1,400 | 1,100 | 700 |
Cu43 | 0.12 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 1,500 | 1,300 | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mo40 | 0.28 | 0.72 | 0.00 | 900 | 200 | 450 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mo41 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 600 | 1,000 | 500 | 1,700 | 1,000 | 1,600 |
Mo42 | 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.35 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 | 1,200 |
Mo43 | 0.47 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 1,300 | 1,900 | 900 | 1,900 | 2,000 | 1,000 |
Re40 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.73 | 150 | 150 | 120 | 1500 | 900 | 700 |
Re41 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 160 | 260 | 325 | 900 | 700 | 575 |
Re42 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 1200 | 1200 | 1100 |
Re43 | 0.38 | 0.05 | 0.57 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 1700 | 1700 | 850 |
SG0 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 1,350 | 1,350 | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SG10 | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 1,350 | 850 | 950 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SG1 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 640 | 485 | 450 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SG2 | 0.37 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 1,700 | 1,280 | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SG3 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 1,825 | 1,610 | 900 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pebble Project | Page 193 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 14‑8: Pebble Deposit Search Ellipse Parameters
Domain | Ellipse Orientation (°) | Ellipse Dimensions (ft) | ||||
Bearing | Plunge | Dip | Major | Semi-major | Minor | |
Ag40 | 120.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 565 | 355 | 1,125 |
Ag41 | 180.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 340 | 270 | 355 |
Ag42 | 130.0 | 0.0 | -60.0 | 525 | 1,690 | 1,125 |
Ag43 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 975 | 600 | 900 |
Au40 | 0.0 | -0.5 | 0.0 | 510 | 510 | 260 |
Au41 | 70.0 | 0.0 | -0.5 | 800 | 600 | 560 |
Au42 | 290.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 825 | 1,110 | 600 |
Au43 | 79.0 | -17.0 | -10.0 | 715 | 460 | 350 |
Cu1 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 550 | 530 | 270 |
Cu2 | 30.0 | 0.0 | -0.5 | 675 | 390 | 400 |
Cu40 | 72.0 | -30.0 | -28.0 | 1,100 | 1,020 | 425 |
Cu41 | 53.0 | -20.0 | -79.0 | 2,900 | 950 | 950 |
Cu42 | 290.0 | 40.0 | -0.5 | 1,023 | 830 | 540 |
Cu43 | 310.0 | 58.0 | -17.0 | 1,180 | 1,030 | 400 |
Mo40 | 160.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | 720 | 155 | 350 |
Mo41 | 180.0 | 0.0 | -90.0 | 1,200 | 800 | 1,200 |
Mo42 | 130.0 | 0.5 | -90.0 | 900 | 890 | 900 |
Mo43 | 143.0 | -68.0 | -26.0 | 1,230 | 1,430 | 710 |
Re40 | 79.0 | -7.0 | -19 | 1500 | 900 | 700 |
Re41 | 340 | 0 | 0 | 900 | 700 | 575 |
Re42 | 324 | 29 | -78 | 1200 | 1200 | 1100 |
Re43 | 60 | 0 | -80 | 1700 | 1700 | 850 |
SG0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 600 |
SG10 | 40.0 | 0.0 | -90.0 | 1,050 | 450 | 550 |
SG1 | 88.0 | 6.0 | 40.0 | 450 | 350 | 325 |
SG2 | 117.0 | -34.0 | 22.0 | 1,300 | 1,000 | 370 |
SG3 | 80.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1,300 | 1,200 | 660 |
14.8 Resource Block Model
The block model parameters are set out in Table 14‑9.
Pebble Project | Page 194 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 14‑9: Pebble Deposit 2020 Block Model Parameters
Origin
|
Coordinates
|
Dimensions
|
Number
|
Size (ft)
|
Rotation (°)
|
X | 1396025 | Columns | 279 | 75 | 0 |
Y | 2147800 | Rows | 246 | 75 | - |
Z | -5500 | Levels | 150 | 50 | - |
14.9 Interpolation Plan
Grade interpolation using OK was carried out in three passes: the search ellipse used for the first pass had axes that measured 95% of the variogram range (those shown in Table 14 7), the second pass used search ellipse axes equal to 150% of the range and the third pass used search ellipse dimensions equal to 300% of the range.
The first and second passes were limited to a minimum of eight and a maximum of 24 composites, with a maximum of three composites from any one drill hole. For the third pass the minimum number of composites was set to five.
Domain boundaries were ‘hard’ (interpolation using composites only from within a given domain) with the exception of the east-west divide. The domain restrictions are set out in Table 14‑10.
Table 14‑10: Pebble Deposit Domain Interpolation Data Sources
Domain Estimated | Domains Sourced |
Ag40 | Ag zone 40 |
Ag41 | Ag zone 41, 42, 43 |
Ag42 | Ag zone 42, 41 |
Ag43 | Ag zone 43, 41 |
Au40 | Ag zone 40 |
Au41 | Au zone 41, 42, 43 |
Au42 | Au zone 42, 41 |
Au43 | Au zone 43, 41 |
Cu1 | Cu zone 1 |
Cu2 | Cu zone 2 |
Cu40 | Cu zone 40 |
Cu41 | Cu zone 41, 42, 43 |
Cu42 | Cu zone 42, 41 |
Cu43 | Cu zone 43, 41 |
Mo40 | Mo zone 40 |
Mo41 | Mo zone 41, 42, 43 |
Mo42 | Mo zone 42, 41 |
Mo43 | Mo zone 43, 41 |
Re40 | Mo zone 40 |
Re41 | Mo zone 41, 42, 43 |
Re42 | Mo zone 42, 41 |
Re43 | Mo zone 43, 41 |
Pebble Project | Page 195 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14.10 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
The resource estimate is constrained by a conceptual pit that was developed using a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm and is based on the parameters set out in Table 14‑11.
Table 14‑11: Pebble Deposit Conceptual Pit Parameters
Parameter
|
Units
|
Cost ($)
|
Value
| |
Metal Price | Gold | $/oz | - | 1,540.00 |
Copper | $/lb | - | 3.63 | |
Molybdenum | $/lb | - | 12.36 | |
Silver | $/oz |
| 20.00 | |
Metal Recovery | Copper | % | - | 91 |
Gold | % | - | 61 | |
Molybdenum | % | - | 81 | |
Silver | % | - | 67 | |
Operating Cost | Mining (mineralized material or waste) | $/ton mined | 1.01 | - |
Added haul lift from depth | $/ton/bench | 0.03 | - | |
Process | ||||
-Process cost adjusted by total crushing energy | $/ton milled | 4.40 | - | |
-Transportation | $/ton milled | 0.46 | - | |
-Environmental | $/ton milled | 0.70 | - | |
-G&A | $/ton milled | 1.18 | - | |
Block Model | Current block model | ft | - | 75 x 75 x 50 |
Density | Mineralized material and waste rock | - | - | Block model |
Pit Slope Angles | - | degrees | - | 42 |
14.11 Mineral Resource Classification
Mineral Resources are classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred. For a block to qualify as Measured, the average distance to the nearest three drill holes must be 250 ft or less of the block centroid. For a block to qualify as Indicated, the average distance from the block centroid to the nearest three holes must be 500 ft or less. For a block to qualify as Inferred it will generally be within 600 ft laterally and 300 ft vertically of a single drill hole. Blocks were plotted according to the above criteria and then individual 3D solids were created encompassing the block extents while eliminating outliers. These solids were then used to assign the final block classification.
14.12 Copper Equivalency
The Mineral Resource estimate was tabulated on the basis of CuEq; gold and molybdenum are converted to equivalent copper grade and those equivalencies are added to the copper grade. Neither silver nor rhenium grades were estimated prior to 2014 and 2020 respectively; therefore, to permit a direct comparison between previous resource estimates, the minor economic contribution of these metals was not included in the current CuEq calculation. To further maintain the comparison between the previous and current estimates, the CuEq formula is predicated upon the metal prices and metal recoveries used in the 2011 estimate. This does not affect the actual metal grades reported, only their equivalent copper grades when calculating the copper equivalent value.
Pebble Project | Page 196 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Metallurgical testing determined that metal recoveries in the eastern portion of the deposit (west of State plane easting 1405600) can be expected to be higher than those for the western portion of the deposit. Therefore, separate equivalency estimates were made for the western and eastern portions of the deposit. The formulae used for the conversion are given as follows:
Where:
· | Pebble West Au recovery = 69.6%; |
|
|
· | Pebble East Au recovery = 76.8%; |
|
|
· | Pebble West Cu recovery = 85%; |
|
|
· | Pebble East Cu recovery = 89.3%; |
|
|
· | Pebble West Mo recovery = 77.8%; |
|
|
· | Pebble East Mo recovery = 83.7%; |
|
|
· | Cu price = $1.85/lb; |
|
|
· | Au price = $902/oz; |
|
|
· | Mo price = $12.50/lb; |
|
|
· | all metal prices are based on the estimate in the 2011 PEA; |
|
|
· | g/oz = 31.10348; and, |
|
|
· | lb/% = 22.046. |
Pebble Project | Page 197 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
14.13 Block Model Validation
The block model was inspected visually for correspondence between composite grades and block grades. This inspection was carried out on vertical sections at 100-foot intervals both east-west and north-south. There is close agreement between composite and block grades. By way of example, Figure 14‑11 shows the correlation between block and composite copper grades for vertical section 2158700 N.
|
Figure 14‑11: Pebble Deposit Vertical Section Showing Block and Composite Copper Grades; Section Line 2158700N
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
The second type of validation consisted of swath plot analysis in which the variation in metal grade for both estimated blocks and informing samples is compared along a nominated section. The comparison for copper, gold, molybdenum and rhenium presented in Figure 14‑12 to Figure 14‑15 shows that there is reasonable agreement between the metal grades and the informing samples.
Pebble Project | Page 198 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑12: Copper Swath Plot at 2157000N
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Figure 14‑13: Gold Swath Plot at 2157000N
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 199 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 14‑14: Molybdenum Swath Plot at 2157000N
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Figure 14‑15: Rhenium Swath Plot at 2157000N
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 200 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
14.14 Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimates
The Mineral Resource estimates may ultimately be affected by a broad range of environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-economic, marketing and political factors pertaining to the specific characteristics of the Pebble deposit (including its scale, location, orientation and polymetallic nature) as well as its setting (from a natural, social, jurisdictional and political perspective).
Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource estimate include:
· | changes to the geological, geotechnical and geometallurgical models as a result of additional drilling or new studies; |
|
|
· | the discovery of extensions to known mineralization as a result of additional drilling; |
|
|
· | changes to the Re:Mo correlation coefficients and resultant regression equation due to additional drilling; |
|
|
· | changes to commodity prices resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction; and |
|
|
· | changes to the metallurgical recoveries resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. |
The Mineral Resource estimates contained have not been adjusted for any risk that the required environmental permits may not be obtained for the Project. The risk associated with the ability of the Project to obtain required environmental permits is a risk to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the mineralisation and the classification of the estimate as a Mineral Resource.
Pebble Project | Page 201 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
This section is not relevant to this report.
Pebble Project | Page 202 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16 MINING METHODS
16.1 Introduction
The 2022 PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
16.2 Mine Plan Inputs
16.2.1 Block Model
The mining team was provided with a 75 x 75 x 50 ft block model.
16.2.2 Pit Slope Angle
Pit slope angles are based on work completed by SRK in 2012 (SRK, 2012) report and outlined in Section 16.3.
16.2.3 Surface Topography
Northern Dynasty provided digital topographical drawings, as shown in Figure 16‑1, which also shows the Upper Talarik limits and proposed open pit outlines.
16.2.4 Pit Optimization Parameters
The conceptual economic, technical and operational parameters used for open pit and mining schedule optimizations are provided in Table 16‑1.
Pebble Project | Page 203 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 16‑1: Proposed Open Pit
Note: Prepared by Tetra Tech Canada Inc., 2021
Pebble Project | Page 204 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑1: Pit Optimization Parameters
Item | Units | Value | |
Mill Production Rate |
| ton/d | 180,000 |
Metal Price | Gold | US$/oz | 1,600 |
Copper | US$/lb | 3.00 | |
Molybdenum | US$/lb | 9.00 | |
Silver | US$/oz | 18.00 | |
Metal Recovery | Copper | % | Variable |
Gold | % | Variable | |
Molybdenum | % | Variable | |
Silver | % | Variable | |
Concentrates | Copper Concentrate Grade | % Cu | 26.0 |
Moisture Content – Cu Concentrate | % | 8.0 | |
Gold in Cu Concentrate | g/ton | Variable | |
Silver in Cu Concentrate | g/ton | Variable | |
Molybdenum Concentrate Grade | % Mo | 50.0 | |
Moisture Content – Mo Concentrate | % | 8.0 | |
Transportation | Cu Concentrate | ||
- Pumping from Mine Site to Marine Terminal | $/wet ton | 5.72 | |
- Ocean transportation costs | $/wmt | 45.35 | |
- Doré | $/oz | 1.00 | |
Mo Concentrate | |||
- Trucking from Mine Site to Marine Terminal | $/wet ton | 0.00 (Using returning traffic) | |
- Ocean Transportation Costs | $/wet ton | 75.28 | |
Metal Payable | Copper in Cu Concentrate | % | 96.15 |
Gold in Cu Concentrate | % | 97.00 | |
Silver in Cu Concentrate | % | 90.00 | |
Gold in Doré | % | 99.85 | |
Silver in Doré | % | 99.50 | |
Mo in Mo Concentrate | % | 98.50 | |
Marketing | Concentration Losses | % | 0.15 |
Insurance | % of value | 0.10 | |
Representation | US$/wet ton of concentrate | 2.27 | |
Treatment, Smelting and Refining Terms | Treatment of Cu Concentrate | US$/dry ton of concentrate | 77.11 |
Refining of Cu in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable lb | 0.085 | |
Refining of Au in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable oz | 7.00 | |
Refining of Ag in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable oz | 0.50 | |
Refining of Au/Ag Doré | US$/payable oz | 1.00 | |
Roasting of Mo in Mo Concentrate | US$/payable lb | 3.00 |
Pebble Project | Page 205 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Item | Units | Value | |
Operating Cost | Mining (Ore or Waste) at 950 ft elevation | US$/ton mined | 1.01 |
Added Mining Cost by Depth | US$/ton mined/bench | 0.03 | |
Process Cost Adjusted by Crushing Energy | US$/ton milled | Variable | |
Site facilities | US$/ton milled | 0.59 | |
Environmental | US$/ton milled | 0.56 | |
Road maintenance | US$/ton milled | 0.02 | |
Port & logistics | US$/ton milled | 0.68 | |
Tailings | US$/ton milled | 0.02 | |
Water Treatment | US$/ton milled | 0.64 | |
G&A | US$/ton milled | 0.61 | |
Block Model | Block Dimension | ft x ft x ft | 75 x 75 x 50 |
Specific Gravity | - | Variable | |
Mining Dilution | % | 0.50 | |
Mining Recovery | % | 99.00 | |
Pit Slope Inputs |
|
| See Section 16.3 |
16.3 Mine Design
Slope design recommendations are provided in SRK (2012) and summarized as follows:
· | Maximum stack height (MSH) = 400 ft; |
|
|
· | At a minimum, a geotechnical berm of 65 ft should be used separate the various stacks; |
|
|
· | Inter-ramp angle (IRA) = variable, depending on kinematics and rock mass stability, ranging from 40º to 55°; |
|
|
· | Bench face angle (BFA) = variable, kinematically controlled, expected break-back angles in the range of 75º to 55°; |
|
|
· | Bench height (BH) = double-benching (100 ft) in all sectors, with the exception of the YGs-Weak rocks which should be single-benched (50 ft). Fault-zones are considered ‘weak’ and need to be single-benched at a rate of one below and three above, and should be further investigated and applied at the feasibility level; and |
|
|
· | Bench width (BW) = is scaled according to the rock mass condition, typically in the range of 30 to 50 ft) for the 25-year pit. |
Recommended slope designs are shown in Figure 16‑2 and Figure 16‑3.
Pebble Project | Page 206 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 16‑2: Pit Wall Slope for Cretaceous North West Sector
Note: Prepared by SRK, 2012.
Pebble Project | Page 207 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 16‑3: Pit Wall Slope for Cretaceous North Sector
Note: Prepared by SRK, 2012
16.3.1 Minimum Working Area
Benches were designed to accommodate 80 yd3 electric cable shovels and 400-ton haulage trucks. In narrow areas and at the pit bottom, where mining widths are reduced, Tetra Tech recommends the use of a 53 yd3 wheel loader.
Pebble Project | Page 208 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16.3.1.1 Haul Road
Main haul roads for the Pebble Project were designed to accommodate 400-ton haulage trucks with two-way traffic. Haul road design details are provided in Table 16‑2 and Figure 16‑4. Ramps were designed with a maximum grade of 10%.
Table 16‑2: Haul Road Width
Traffic | Two-way (ft) |
Running Surface | 112.0 |
Safety Berm | 18.0 |
Total | 130.0 |
Figure 16‑4: Two-way Haul Road
Note: Prepared by Tetra Tech Canada Inc., 2021
16.3.2 Pit Hydrology/Dewatering
An allowance has been included in the mining operating cost to account for pit dewatering costs.
16.3.3 Pit Design Results
The final pit includes 1,291 million tons of Mineral Resources with a LOM strip ratio of 0.12. A material summary from the final pit is provided in Table 16‑3 and the final pit is shown in Figure 16‑5.
Pebble Project | Page 209 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑3: Open Pit Design Results
Material | Mass (Mton) | Cu (%) | Au (oz/ton) | Mo (ppm) | Ag (oz/ton) | Re (ppm) |
Mineralized Material | 1,291 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 154 | 0.04 | 0.28 |
Overburden | 60 | - | - | - | - | - |
Waste rock | 93 | - | - | - | - | - |
Figure 16‑5: Final Open Pit
Note: Prepared by Tetra Tech Canada Inc., 2021
Pebble Project | Page 210 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16.4 Mine Plan
The open pit mine for the Proposed Project would be a conventional drill, blast, truck, and shovel operation with an average mining rate of approximately 70 million tons per year and an overall stripping ratio of 0.12 ton of waste per ton of mineralized material.
The open pit would be developed in stages, with each stage expanding the area and deepening the previous stage. The final dimensions of the open pit would be approximately 6,800 ft long and 5,600 ft wide, with the depth to 1,950 ft.
Mining would occur in two phases – preproduction and production.
The mine operation would commence during the last year of the preproduction phase and extend for 20 years during the production phase.
The preproduction phase would consist of dewatering the pit area and mining of non-economic materials overlying the mineralized material from the initial stage of the open pit. Dewatering would begin approximately one year before the start of preproduction mining. Approximately 33 million tons of material would be mined during this phase (Table 16‑4).
Table 16‑4: Mined Material – Preproduction Phase
Material Type | Quantity |
Overburden | 22 million tons |
Waste rock | 11 million tons |
The production phase encompasses the period during which economic-grade mineralized material would be fed to the process plant to produce concentrates for shipment and sale. The production phase is planned to last for 20 years. Mineralized material would be mined and be fed through the process plant at a rate of 180,000 tons/day. The open pit would be mined in a sequence of increasingly larger and deeper stages. Approximately 1.4 billion tons of material are planned to be mined during the production phase (Table 16‑5).
Table 16‑5: Mined Material – Production Phase
Material Type | Quantity |
Overburden | 38 million tons |
Mineralized material process plant feed | 1,291 million tons |
Waste rock | 82 million tons |
A detailed annual production forecast is shown in Table 16‑6 and Figure 16‑6. The mining forecast was generated using five pushbacks and was based on a maximum processing capacity of 180,000 tons per day. Based on the selected ultimate pit, final pit design and the generated production schedule, the Pebble Project’s total LOM is 21 years, including 1 year of preproduction stripping followed by 20 years of production. Over the 21-year LOM, the pit would produce 1,291 million tons of mineralized material and 153 million tons of overburden and waste rock. The LOM stripping ratio (defined as waste material mined, in tons, divided by mineralized material mined, in tons) is 0.12:1.
Pebble Project | Page 211 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑6: Production Forecast
Year | Total Material Mined Mtons | Plant Feed Mtons | Waste Mtons | Strip Ratio | Copper % | Gold oz/ton | Molybdenum ppm | Silver oz/ton | Rhenium ppm |
-1 | 33.07 | - | 33.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 62.75 | 43.81 | 18.93 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 168 | 0.04 | 0.29 |
2 | 70.55 | 65.72 | 4.83 | 0.07 | 0.38 | 0.01 | 197 | 0.04 | 0.35 |
3 | 70.55 | 65.72 | 4.83 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 235 | 0.04 | 0.42 |
4 | 70.55 | 65.72 | 4.83 | 0.07 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 147 | 0.04 | 0.26 |
5 | 70.53 | 65.72 | 4.81 | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 132 | 0.05 | 0.23 |
6 | 70.52 | 65.72 | 4.80 | 0.07 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 192 | 0.04 | 0.34 |
7 | 70.55 | 65.72 | 4.83 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 165 | 0.05 | 0.30 |
8 | 70.54 | 65.72 | 4.82 | 0.07 | 0.32 | 0.01 | 180 | 0.04 | 0.34 |
9 | 72.75 | 65.70 | 7.06 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 100 | 0.04 | 0.19 |
10 | 71.66 | 65.72 | 5.94 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 126 | 0.04 | 0.23 |
11 | 70.72 | 65.72 | 5.00 | 0.08 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 144 | 0.04 | 0.26 |
12 | 72.32 | 65.72 | 6.61 | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 154 | 0.04 | 0.28 |
13 | 72.74 | 65.72 | 7.02 | 0.11 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 169 | 0.04 | 0.30 |
14 | 72.75 | 65.70 | 7.05 | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 159 | 0.05 | 0.29 |
15 | 72.69 | 65.72 | 6.97 | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 89 | 0.05 | 0.16 |
16 | 72.75 | 65.65 | 7.10 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 127 | 0.04 | 0.23 |
17 | 72.73 | 65.72 | 7.01 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 166 | 0.04 | 0.30 |
18 | 72.75 | 65.62 | 7.13 | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 74 | 0.04 | 0.13 |
19 | 65.72 | 65.72 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 182 | 0.04 | 0.32 |
20 | 64.06 | 64.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 184 | 0.03 | 0.32 |
Total / Average | 1,443.23 | 1,290.60 | 152.63 | 0.12 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 154 | 0.04 | 0.28 |
Pebble Project | Page 212 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 16‑6: Production Forecast
Note: Prepared by Tetra Tech Canada Inc., 2021
16.5 Blasting
Open pit blasting would be conducted using either emulsion blasting agents manufactured on site or, in dry conditions, a blend of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO). The preference would be to use the emulsion blasting agent because of its higher density and superior water resistance. Initial operations during the preproduction phase may use pre-packed emulsion blasting agents or a mobile bulk emulsion manufacturing plant until the permanent explosives plant is completed.
Ammonium nitrate prill would be shipped to the site in containers and stored separately as a safety precaution. All explosive magazines would be constructed and operated to meet mine safety and health regulations. The ammonium nitrate prill would be converted to solution in the explosives plant and transported to the blasting site in a mobile mixing unit. There it would be mixed with diesel fuel and emulsifying agents as it is discharged into the blast holes. The emulsion would become a blasting agent only once it is sensitized using the sensitizing agent while in the drill hole.
Based on knowledge of the rock types in the Pebble deposit, blasting would require an average powder factor of approximately 0.5 pounds per ton of rock. Blasting events during the preproduction phase would occur approximately once per day. The frequency would increase during the production phase, with events occurring as often as twice per day.
Pebble Project | Page 213 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16.6 Mine Waste Rock Management
Waste rock material with a mineral content below an economically recoverable level that is removed from the open pit, exposing the higher-grade production material. Waste rock would be segregated by its potential to generate acid. NPAG and non-metal leaching (ML) waste rock may be used for embankment construction. PAG and ML waste rock would be stored in the pyritic TSF until mine closure, when it would be back hauled into the open pit.
Quantities of waste material mined are outlined in Table 16‑7. During the preproduction phase, approximately 33 million tons of non-mineralized and mineralized material would be removed from the open pit. Non-mineralized waste and overburden would be stockpiled or used in construction, mineralized waste would be stockpiled and relocated to the pyritic TSF once complete, or if grades are sufficient, stockpiled for milling once the mill is complete. Material would be stockpiled within the pit footprint, or in designated stockpiles as appropriate.
Overburden is the unconsolidated material lying at the surface. At the Pebble deposit, the overburden depth ranges from 0 to 140 ft. Overburden removal would commence during the preproduction phase and would recur periodically during the production phase at the start of each pit stage. The overburden would be segregated and stockpiled in a dedicated location southwest of the open pit. A berm built of non-mineralized rock would surround the overburden to contain the material and increase stability. Overburden materials deemed suitable would be used for construction. Fine- and coarse-grained soils suitable for plant growth would be stockpiled for later use as growth medium during reclamation. Growth medium stockpiles would be stored at various locations around the mine site and stabilized to minimize erosion potential. Details on how the PAG material would be reclaimed are provided in Section 18.
Table 16‑7: Overburden and Waste Rock mined over the LOM
Material | Preproduction | Production | Total |
Overburden, million tons | 22 | 38 | 60 |
Waste rock, million tons | 11 | 82 | 93 |
Total, million tons | 33 | 110 | 153 |
16.7 Mining Equipment
16.7.1 Mine Equipment Fleet
The Project production fleet would use the most efficient mining equipment available to minimize fuel consumption per ton of rock moved. Most mining equipment would be diesel-powered. This production fleet would be supported by a fleet of smaller equipment for overburden removal and other specific tasks for which the larger units are not well-suited. Equipment requirements would increase over the life of the mine to reflect increased production volumes and longer cycle times for haul trucks as the pit is lowered. All fleet equipment would be routinely maintained to ensure optimal performance and minimize the potential for spills and failures. Mobile equipment (haulage trucks and wheel loaders) would be serviced in the truck shop; track-bound equipment (shovels, excavators, drills, and dozers) would be serviced in the field under appropriate spill prevention protocols. Track-mounted electric shovels would be the primary equipment unit used to load blasted rock into haulage trucks. Each electric shovel is capable of mining at a sustained rate of approximately 30 million tons per year.
Wheel loaders are highly mobile, can be rapidly deployed to specific mining conditions, and are highly flexible in their application.
Pebble Project | Page 214 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Diesel off-highway haulage trucks would be used to transport the fragmented mineralized material to the crusher.
Track-mounted drill rigs are used to drill blast holes into the waste rock and mineralized material prior to blasting. Hole diameters would vary between 6 and 12 in. Drill rigs may be either electrically powered, as is the case for the larger units, or diesel powered.
This equipment would be supported by a large fleet of ancillary equipment, including track and wheel dozers for surface preparation, graders for construction and road maintenance, water trucks for dust suppression, maintenance equipment, and light vehicles for personnel transport. Other equipment, such as lighting plants, would be used to improve operational safety and efficiency.
The equipment selection, sizing, and fleet requirements were based on anticipated site operating conditions, haulage profiles, cycle times and overall equipment utilization. Large mining equipment have been selected to match the production schedule. In determining the number of units for the major equipment such as drills, shovels and trucks annual operating hours have been calculated and compared to the available hours for the equipment. Mine support equipment such as track dozers, motor graders, water trucks and snow and sanding trucks have been matched with major mining equipment. Equipment additions and replacements have been determined for each piece of major and support equipment.
16.7.2 Operating Hours
Mining is assumed to operate 365 days per year, with 2 shifts per day and 12 hours per shift. As shown in Table 16‑8, the expected delays per shift are 177 minutes.
Table 16‑8: Operational Delays per Shift
Delay | Time (min) |
Weather | 24 |
Breaks | 60 |
Shift Change | 30 |
Blasting | 30 |
Communication | 2 |
Training | 1 |
Fuel, Equipment Moves, Other | 30 |
Total | 177 |
16.7.3 Primary Equipment
Loading would be performed using the 80 yd3 cable shovels and hauling would be performed using the 400-ton haulage trucks.
Blasthole drilling would be performed using 12.25 in. electric rotary drills as primary drilling equipment, and smaller 6.5 in. rigs would be used for wall control. Blasting would be performed using ANFO and emulsion with mix proportions of 0.85 and 0.15, respectively.
Pebble Project | Page 215 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The primary equipment requirements for the LOM are summarized in Table 16‑9.
Table 16‑9: Primary Equipment Requirements
Year | Electric Drills 12.25" | Electric Cable Shovels 80 yd3 | Wheel Loader 53 yd3 | Haulage Trucks 400 ton |
-1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
9 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
11 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
12 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
13 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 15 |
14 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
16 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
17 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
18 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
19 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
20 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
16.7.4 Support and Ancillary Equipment
The selection of support equipment takes into account the size and type of the main fleet for loading and hauling, the geometry and size of the pit and the number of roads and WDs that would operate at the same time. It reflects experience at operations of similar size and also considers the specific characteristics of the Pebble Project.
The support equipment requirements and the mine ancillary equipment fleet requirements for the LOM are summarized in Table 16‑10 and Table 16‑11, respectively.
Pebble Project | Page 216 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑10: Support Equipment Requirements
Equipment | Maximum Fleet Size |
Track Dozer 850 hp | 3 |
Wheel Dozer 684 hp | 2 |
Grader 24 ft | 2 |
Water Truck 52,000 gal | 2 |
Wall Control Drill (6.5") | 1 |
Blasthole Stemmer | 2 |
Table 16‑11: Ancillary Equipment Requirements
Equipment | Maximum Fleet Size |
Vibratory Compactor | 1 |
Integrated Tool Carrier | 1 |
Excavator | 1 |
Motivator | 1 |
Flatbed Truck | 1 |
Fuel/Lube Truck | 2 |
Mechanics Service Truck | 2 |
Welder Truck | 2 |
Tire Service Truck | 2 |
Snow/Sand Truck | 2 |
Pickup Truck | 10 |
Mobile Crane | 2 |
Rough Terrain Forklift | 2 |
Shop Forklift | 2 |
Light Plant | 8 |
Dispatch System | 1 |
Mobile Radios | 100 |
Cable Reeler | 1 |
Pebble Project | Page 217 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
16.8 Mining Labour
Salaried and hourly labour requirements for the mine were determined for each labour category. The machine operator and maintenance labour complement reflects employees on payroll (as opposed to on-site) and aligns with a two-week-on/one-week-off shift schedule. Each shift would be 12 hours long.
The average ratio of maintenance labour complement to operator labour complement was estimated at 0.63:1. The maintenance labour estimate is based on historical ratios between equipment operators and maintenance mechanics and electricians. All other labour and staff numbers were estimated from experience with existing mines and anticipated operating conditions for the Project.
A benefit package of 40% was applied to both salaried staff and the hourly labour base rates. The labour burden consists of vacation, statutory holidays, medical and health insurance, employment insurance, long-term disability insurance, overtime, shift differential and other factors.
Table 16‑12 shows the maximum salaried staff requirements during the LOM. The hourly mining operator and maintenance labour on payroll is shown in Table 16‑13.
Table 16‑12: LOM Maximum Number of Employees
Position | Maximum Number of Employees |
Mine Management | 1 |
Technical Services Staff | 21 |
Operations Staff | 12 |
Maintenance Staff | 9 |
Total | 43 |
Pebble Project | Page 218 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 16‑13: Operator and Maintenance Staff on Payroll
Year | Operators | Maintenance | Total |
-1 | 62 | 58 | 120 |
1 | 82 | 68 | 150 |
2 | 88 | 71 | 159 |
3 | 90 | 72 | 162 |
4 | 89 | 72 | 161 |
5 | 91 | 72 | 163 |
6 | 95 | 74 | 169 |
7 | 96 | 75 | 171 |
8 | 101 | 77 | 178 |
9 | 90 | 72 | 162 |
10 | 93 | 73 | 166 |
11 | 95 | 74 | 169 |
12 | 100 | 77 | 177 |
13 | 105 | 79 | 184 |
14 | 107 | 80 | 187 |
15 | 95 | 74 | 169 |
16 | 97 | 75 | 172 |
17 | 102 | 78 | 180 |
18 | 98 | 76 | 174 |
19 | 102 | 78 | 180 |
20 | 108 | 80 | 188 |
Pebble Project | Page 219 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
17 RECOVERY METHODS
17.1 Summary
The processing plant is designed with a feed rate of 180,000 tons per day. The feed material would be processed to produce two principal products, a copper-gold flotation concentrate and a molybdenum flotation concentrate, as well as a tertiary gravity gold concentrate through the following unit processes:
· | primary crushing; |
|
|
· | grinding with SAG and ball mills; |
|
|
· | bulk copper-gold-molybdenum flotation; |
|
|
· | gravity concentration in the regrind circuit of the bulk rougher concentrate, and |
|
|
· | molybdenum flotation to separate a copper-gold flotation concentrate and a molybdenum flotation concentrate. |
Figure 17-1 shows a simplified process flowsheet of the entire process route.
Run-of-mine material would be delivered to one of two primary gyratory crushers to reduce the material to a nominal particle size P80 of 145 mm. The crushed material from both crushers would be delivered via a single overland conveyor to a covered stockpile.
Coarse material would be reclaimed from the stockpile onto two SAG mill feed conveyors and into the SAG/ball milling/pebble crushing (SABC) circuit. The SAG mills would grind the mill feed material and would discharge the slurry onto the associated SAG mill discharge screen where the oversize pebbles would be conveyed to the pebble crushing building. Crushed pebbles would be sent to the pebble crushing screen. SAG mill discharge screen and pebble crushing screen undersize would be pumped with the ball mill discharge to cyclones that would produce an overflow fraction P80 of 135 µm for the downstream flotation processes.
Bulk rougher scavenger flotation would be carried out through two trains of eight 630 m3 flotation cells. The bulk (copper-gold-molybdenum) concentrate would then be reground to a P80 of 25 µm prior to cleaner flotation. Cyclone underflow from the regrind circuit would be treated with a gravity concentrator to produce a gravity gold concentrate that would be pumped to geotextile dewatering bags for dewatering.
Regrind cyclone overflow would be treated by three stages of cleaner flotation with the final bulk concentrate to be thickened prior to molybdenum separation. The molybdenum rougher product would be reground with a high intensity grinding (HIG) mill producing a P80 of 25 µm product. By selective molybdenum flotation and four stages of cleaning, final molybdenum and copper-gold concentrates would be produced. Molybdenum concentrate would be thickened, filtered, dried and containerized at mine site for shipment. Copper-gold concentrate would be pumped to the port via a concentrate pipeline, where it would be thickened and filtered prior to bulk loading into barges for transhipment.
Pebble Project | Page 220 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 17-1: Simplified Process Flowsheet
Note: Prepared by Ausenco, 2021.
Pebble Project | Page 221 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
17.2 Process Design Criteria
The process design criteria are summarized in Table 17-1.
Table 17-1: Major Process Design Criteria
Criteria | Units | Value |
Daily Process Rate | tons/d | 180,000 |
Operating Days per Year | d/y | 365 |
Life of Mine (LOM) | y | 20 |
Feed Grades | ||
Copper | % Cu | 0.46 |
Gold | g/t Au | 0.47 |
Molybdenum | % Mo | 0.03 |
Concentrate Grades | ||
Copper concentrate grade | %Cu | 26 |
g/t Au | 16 | |
Molybdenum concentrate grade | %Mo | 50 |
Gravity gold concentrate grade | g/t Au | 44 |
Comminution Characteristics | ||
JK A x b | - | 46.0 |
Bond ball mill work index, BWi | kWh/t | 13.0 |
Bond abrasion index Ai, average | g | 0.297 |
Primary Crushing | ||
Availability | % | 75 |
Primary crushing rate | tons/h | 10,000 |
Circuit arrangement | gyratory | |
Primary crushing product particle size, P80 | mm | 145 |
Grinding | ||
Availability | % | 92 |
Grinding process rate | tons/h | 8,152 |
Circuit arrangement | SABC | |
Primary grind product size, P80 | µm | 135 |
Flotation/Regrind/Gravity | ||
Availability | % | 92 |
Flotation circuit feed rate | tons/h | 8,152 |
Cu-Mo bulk flotation circuit arrangement | rougher/regrind/3-stage cleaner | |
Cu-Mo bulk rougher concentrate regrind size, P80 | µm | 25 |
Proportion of cyclone underflow to gravity (by weight) | % | 35 |
Mo flotation circuit arrangement | rougher/regrind/4-stage cleaner | |
Mo rougher concentrate regrind size, P80 | µm | 25 |
Concentrate dewatering | ||
Cu concentrate filter cake moisture content | % | 8.5 |
Gravity concentrate moisture | % | 15 |
Molybdenum concentrate dryer product moisture | % | 5 |
* The PDC was developed in metric units and then converted into US units in the process description write-up.
Pebble Project | Page 222 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
17.3 Process Plant Description
17.3.1 Primary Crushing
Mineralized material would be delivered by haulage trucks to each of the two 60 ft x 110 ft fixed primary gyratory crushers. The crushers would be set to produce a product P80 of 145 mm. Located underneath each primary crusher would be the crusher discharge vault and an apron feeder that would control the rate of discharge onto the sacrificial conveyor belt below.
The crushing plant is designed for an operating availability of 75%. Each crusher would have a typical operating range of 5,000-6,000 tons/h depending on the ROM material size distribution. Each crusher would discharge onto a common main overland conveyor via a respective transfer conveyor. Each primary crushing station would be equipped with a rock breaker, dust control equipment and sumps for surface run-off collection.
The major primary crushing equipment is as follows:
· | two 60 ft x 110 ft primary gyratory crushers; each fitted with a 1,500 kW drive; and |
|
|
· | discharge vault apron feeders and sacrificial belt conveyors. |
17.3.2 Stockpile
Primary crusher product would be conveyed by the overland conveyor to the stockpile located adjacent to the grinding and flotation building. The covered stockpile would have a live capacity of 90,000 tons or 12 hours of mill operating time.
Under normal operation mill feed material would be reclaimed by two lines of three apron feeders onto two reclaim conveyor belts to the two grinding lines.
17.3.3 Primary Grinding
Two identical trains of SAG mill, followed by a conventional ball mill and pebble crusher (collectively SABC circuit) would receive reclaimed mill feed material from the coarse ore stockpile (COS). (Note that the term ore in this context refers only to mineralized feed material but is labelled as ore to conform with industry convention for naming of the stockpile; no economic surety is implied.) Each train would have an average throughput of 90,000 short tons per day. The equipment for the two primary grinding lines would comprise:
· | two 42 ft diameter x 27 ft effective grinding length (EGL) SAG mills each with 30 MW gearless drive; |
|
|
· | screens, conveyors and feeders; |
|
|
· | one pebble crusher surge bin; and |
|
|
· | three 933 kW pebble crushers. |
Pebble Project | Page 223 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The reclaimed material would be fed to each SAG mill feed chute at which point process water and lime would also be added. An automatic ball charging system would deliver SAG mill balls when required. Each SAG mill would discharge onto a pair of SAG mill discharge screens. For each SAG mill, the screen undersize would gravitate to the cyclone feed pump-box, while the screen oversize pebbles would be conveyed to a common pebble crushing plant equipped with a trio of crushers. Crushed pebbles would be conveyed to a surge-bin from where they would be split to one screen for each SAG mill. Similar to the SAG discharge screens, the crushed pebble screen undersize would discharge into the cyclone feed pump-box, while the screen oversize would return to the pebble crushers with the SAG screen oversize.
17.3.4 Secondary Grinding
Each SAG mill would feed a pair of ball mills via dedicated cyclone packs. Each pair of mills would share a common cyclone feed pump-box, which would split the slurry to one cyclone feed pump for each cyclone pack. The ball milling circuits would be designed to operate with a 300% circulating load. The major process equipment in the secondary grinding circuit comprises:
· | four 26 ft diameter x 40 ft long (EGL) ball mills, each driven by a 16 MW twin pinion drive; and |
|
|
· | pumps and hydrocyclone clusters for each ball mill. |
Process water and lime would be added to each grinding circuit cyclone feed pump-box to maintain cyclone feed density and cyclone overflow pH. The hydrocyclone underflow would gravitate to each ball mill feed chute where additional water would be added to maintain a ball mill solids density of 75%. The overflow from the quartet of hydrocyclone clusters would be transferred to the flotation feed conditioning tank using a common launder. The conditioning tank would also act as a distributor for the pair of eight-cell rougher-scavenger flotation tank cell lines as shown in Figure 17-1. The grinding circuit product would have a P80 of 135 µm.
17.3.5 Bulk Rougher Flotation
The flow from the conditioning tank would be split between the two parallel banks of bulk rougher flotation cells. Each bank would consist of eight 824 yd3 tank cells, totalling sixteen cells in all. The reagents that would be added include lime, fuel oil emulsion (molybdenum collector), sodium ethyl xanthate (SEX) and methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC). The copper-gold/molybdenum concentrate collected in the bulk roughing cells would be delivered to a set of HIG regrind mills. The tailings from each bank would gravitate to the twin tailings thickeners for dewatering prior to being pumped to the bulk TSF.
17.3.6 Bulk Concentrate Re-grind
The bulk rougher concentrate would flow to the bulk regrind mill pump-box which would deliver slurry to the regrind hydrocyclone cluster. The regrind mills would grind the bulk rougher concentrate to a P80 of 25 µm.
The overflow from the hydrocyclone cluster would flow by gravity to the bulk cleaner circuit, while the underflow of the hydrocyclones would flow to the regrind mill feed distributor. Approximately 35% of the underflow would be directed to three gravity concentrators for pyrite/gold recovery, with the non-pyrite portion returning to the cyclone feed pump box. The balance of the underflow would be directed to the HIG mills for regrinding. Gravity concentrate would be pumped to geotextile dewatering bags in a dewatering area. All the effluent that would be released from the geotextile bags in the dewatering process would be collected and reused.
Pebble Project | Page 224 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The major equipment would consist of the following items:
· | three 5,000 kW HIG mills; |
|
|
· | pumpbox and hydrocyclone cluster; and |
|
|
· | three centrifugal gravity concentrators. |
17.3.7 Bulk Concentrate Cleaner Flotation
The reground rougher concentrate would be further upgraded in a three-stage cleaner flotation circuit. The 1st cleaner flotation would be followed by cleaner-scavenger flotation. The first cleaner concentrate would advance to the 2nd cleaner stage, whilst the cleaner scavenger concentrate would return to the bulk regrind pumpbox. Cleaner scavenger tailings would report to the potentially acid generating (PAG) thickener for thickening prior to pumping to the pyritic TSF.
Concentrate from the 2nd cleaner would feed the 3rd cleaner flotation stage, whilst the 2nd cleaner tailings would be returned to the 1st cleaner. The 3rd cleaner concentrate would report to the bulk thickener, whilst 3rd cleaner tailings would be returned to the 2nd cleaner.
The same reagents used in the rougher flotation circuit would be applied in the cleaner circuit, with the addition of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC).
17.3.8 Molybdenum Flotation
Bulk copper-molybdenum concentrate thickener underflow would report to a molybdenum flotation circuit to separate the bulk concentrate into a copper/gold concentrate and a molybdenum concentrate. To allow selective flotation of the molybdenite, copper/gold bearing minerals would be depressed through the addition of dilute sodium hydrosulphide (NaHS). The circuit would involve rougher flotation in tank cells followed by open-circuit regrinding in a small HIG mill to a nominal product P80 of 25 µm. Regrind cyclone overflow would be refloated in a 4-stage column cleaning process. The concentrate of each column would feed the next stage column, while each column tail would return to the previous stage. The 4th cleaner column concentrate would report to the molybdenum concentrate thickener, while the 1st cleaner column tailing would return to the molybdenum rougher flotation stage. The rougher flotation tailing (final copper concentrate) would be pumped to the copper concentrate thickening and filtration plant located at the port facility. To minimize consumption of NaHS, all molybdenum flotation cells would use nitrogen instead of air. Other flotation reagents used in the molybdenum flotation circuit would include fuel oil emulsion and MIBC.
The major equipment would consist of the following items:
· | one 130 kW HIG mill; and |
|
|
· | one copper-molybdenum concentrate thickener of 108 ft diameter. |
Pebble Project | Page 225 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
17.3.9 Concentrate Dewatering and Filtration
The copper-gold concentrate would be pumped via pipeline to the marine terminal, where it would be thickened to 65% solids by weight in a high-rate thickener. Thickener underflow would feed a pair of copper concentrate pressure filters at port facility. The filtered concentrate at maximum 8.5% moisture would be conveyed and discharged into a concentrate storage shed and subsequently into barges for transhipment. The thickener overflow and filtrate would be combined and pumped back to the main process plant via return pipeline and would be used as part of the plant process water.
The molybdenum concentrate would be thickened in a high-rate thickener to 55% solids by weight at the plant site. The thickener underflow would feed the molybdenum concentrate filter press, where the moisture content would be reduced to 12%. The filtered concentrate would be further dewatered by a dryer to 5% moisture before being bagged, containerized and shipped to smelters.
The major equipment would consist of the following items:
· | copper concentrate thickener sized 108 ft diameter (at marine terminal); |
|
|
· | two copper concentrate filters with a cloth size of 6 ft width x 489 ft length (at marine terminal); |
|
|
· | molybdenum concentrate thickener sized 16 ft diameter (plant site); and |
|
|
· | one molybdenum concentrate filter with a cloth size of 3 ft width x 72 ft length (plant site), |
17.3.10 Tailings Management and Process Water Supply System
Two types of tailings would be generated by the recovery process, namely the bulk tailings, and the pyritic tailings. Each tailings stream would be thickened and pumped to separate TSFs. The diameters of the tailing’s thickeners are 325 ft and 207 ft for the bulk and pyritic tailings, respectively.
The overflow streams from each thickener would be pumped to the process water tank. Supernatant water in the bulk TSF and pyritic TSF would be reclaimed to the main water management pond. The bulk of this water would be pumped to the process water tank and any additional water volumes would be treated and discharged.
17.3.11 Reagents Handling and Storage
The reagents used within the process plant would include:
· | SEX; |
|
|
· | fuel oil; |
|
|
· | MIBC; |
|
|
· | quicklime; |
|
|
· | sodium hydrosulphide; |
|
|
· | CMC; |
Pebble Project | Page 226 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | polymer (thickener aid); |
|
|
· | antiscalant; |
|
|
· | dispersant (sodium silicate); and |
|
|
· | liquid Nitrogen. |
All reagent solutions would be prepared in a bermed containment area in a separate reagent preparation and storage facility. The reagent storage tanks would be equipped with level indicators and instrumentation to ensure that spills do not occur during preparation or operation. Appropriate ventilation, fire and safety protections would be provided at the facilities.
The liquid reagents (including fuel oil emulsion, CMC, MIBC and antiscalant) would be added in undiluted form to various process circuits via individual metering pumps. The solid reagents, including SEX and NaHS, would be mixed with fresh water to 10% and 25% solution strengths, respectively, in separate mixing tanks and stored in holding tanks before being added into the process circuits at various points using metering pumps. Quicklime would be slaked on site from bulk pebble quicklime, diluted to a 20% strength milk of lime and distributed to various addition points from a circulating loop.
Flocculant and dispersant would be dissolved, diluted to the appropriate strength, and added to various thickener feeds using metering pumps.
Liquid nitrogen would be used in the molybdenum flotation circuit to help maintain a reducing environment for copper sulphide depression.
17.3.12 Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories
The assay laboratory would be equipped with the necessary analytical instruments to provide routine assays for the mine, process and environmental departments.
The metallurgical laboratory would be set-up with all equipment and instruments required for routine test-work in support of plant optimisation.
17.3.13 Power Supply
A natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine plant would supply 270 MW of power to the mill site. Power at the marine terminal would be provided by three 2 MW natural gas fired reciprocating engine-based power generators. The power supply is discussed in detail in Section 18.7.1.
17.3.14 Fresh Water Supply
Fresh water would be supplied from the water treatment plant for the following applications:
· | fire water for emergency use; |
|
|
· | cooling water for mill motors and mill lubrication systems; |
|
|
· | reagent preparation; |
|
|
· | gland seal water; and |
|
|
· | gravity circuit. |
Pebble Project | Page 227 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The fire protection system would be designed to provide a water flow of 2,000 US GPM at 100 psi for two hours. Water to be used for gland water or for reagent preparation would undergo filtration and would be stored in a separate tank.
17.3.15 Air Supply
Air systems for the milling operation would be as follows:
· | a high pressure air compressor would be located at each of the two primary crushing areas to provide air for dust collection systems; |
|
|
· | high pressure air for various plant services would be supplied by three dedicated air compressors; |
|
|
· | high pressure air for filter pressing and drying of copper-gold and molybdenum concentrates would be supplied by dedicated air compressors; |
|
|
· | low pressure air for flotation cells would be supplied by blowers; and. |
|
|
· | instrument air would be dried and stored for use at the main process plant site. |
17.4 Process Control Philosophy
The process plant site process control systems would be based upon a distributed control system with PC-based operator interface stations. These stations would be staffed 24 hours per day and are located in the following four control rooms:
· | main process plant grinding and flotation control room; |
|
|
· | primary crusher #1 control room; |
|
|
· | primary crusher #2 control room; and |
|
|
· | copper concentrate filtration plant (located at marine terminal). |
Note that monitoring of the copper concentrate and return water pipelines would be done from both the copper concentrate filtration plant control room and the main process plant grinding and flotation control room.
Process control would be enhanced by the installation of an automatic sampling system. The system would collect samples from various streams for online analysis and daily metallurgical accounting.
For the protection of operating staff, a monitor and alarm system would monitor the level of hydrogen sulphide in and around the molybdenum flotation circuit.
Pebble Project | Page 228 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.1 Introduction
The Pebble Project is located in an area of Alaska with minimal development and would require construction of infrastructure at the mine site as well as power generation and transportation facilities.
The mine site infrastructure would include truck shop, maintenance facilities, offices, service roads, utilities and worker accommodations. Figure 18-1 provides an overview of mine site infrastructure for the Pebble Project, including tailings and water management facilities.
Natural gas-fired power plants would be constructed at both the mine and the marine terminal. The natural gas for power generation would be delivered by a pipeline extending across Cook Inlet to the marine terminal and then on to the mine site along the roadway corridor.
The transportation infrastructure would consist of a marine terminal facility located north of Diamond Point and a permanent access road, as well as a copper concentrate slurry pipeline system following the roadway from the mine site to the terminal.
The marine terminal facility would include marine infrastructure capable of handling barges for concentrate bulk transhipment as well as large ocean barges (400 x 100 ft) for transport of construction materials and operating supplies by container. Barge access from Cook Inlet to the marine terminal site would include a dredged channel and turning basin in front of the dock structures with a minimum 15 ft draft limit. Separate onshore facilities would include concentrate filtration and storage, power generation, maintenance facilities, offices and worker accommodations.
An all-weather 82-mile gravel road would connect the marine terminal facility with the mine site. It would follow a route along the north end of Iliamna Lake and would be designed to facilitate the transport of modules during construction and to enable access for truck haulage of equipment and supplies from the terminal facilities to the mine site during operation.
The transportation corridor would also include a buried natural gas pipeline extending from the terminal site to the mine to supply the natural gas-fired generating plant at the mine site. This same trench would be used to locate the fiber optic cable installed with the natural gas pipeline, the copper concentrate slurry pipeline, and the return water line running between the marine facility and the mine site. Figure 18-2 illustrates the general plan of the proposed infrastructure for the Pebble Project.
Pebble Project | Page 229 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 18-1: Mine Site Infrastructure
Note: Prepared by KP, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 230 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 18-2: Proposed Infrastructure
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
18.2 Access and Site Roads
There is currently no road infrastructure connecting the planned marine terminal site to the mine site. The proposed road infrastructure is classified into four categories:
· | The main access road from the marine terminal site to the mine site would be used to supply equipment and materials to the mine site from the marine facilities. The vehicle types to use these roads would be low-beds, B-trains, semi-trailer combinations and light/medium duty trucks. The main access road intersects the existing road north of the villages of Newhalen and Iliamna. This road would connect the mine site to those communities and to the Iliamna airport, for crew and air freight transport. |
|
|
· | The main access road would replace most of the existing State road from Williamsport to Pile Bay. The section being replaced extends from near Williamsport to just north of the Iliamna River. |
Pebble Project | Page 231 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Haul roads would be located at the mine site and would connect the infrastructure network such as the open pit, process plant and TSFs. These roads would be used by large haul vehicles for hauling mineralized material or waste material. |
|
|
· | Service roads would provide on-site access to mine infrastructure: the emulsion plant, explosives magazine, WTPs and conveyor systems. The vehicles anticipated to use these roads would be light/medium-duty trucks and service vehicles. |
18.2.1 Main Access Road
The proposed Pebble Mine access road alignment would be 82 mi long and traverse from the Diamond Point marine terminal site on Iliamna Bay, milepost (MP) 0.5, to the mine site (MP 82). Due to the evolution of the marine terminal site location, the current alignment begins at MP 0.5. The alignment interval from the marine terminal site to Williamsport (MP 3) is considered the coastal portion of the mine access road route. This section is along the west side of Iliamna Bay at the toe of the mountain slopes and partially within the intertidal zone. Mass rock excavation would be required, as would placement of rock fill with associated armor rock protection in the intertidal zone. At the head of Iliamna Bay and near Williamsport, the route turns northwesterly and climbs over Iliamna Bay Pass, through the Chigmit Mountains, and descends into the Chinkelyes Creek drainage (MP 8). A snowpack of 4-10 ft depth is typical for this area and avalanche hazards are recognized. Elevation of the road profile varies from sea level to 900 ft amsl. After crossing Chinkelyes Creek (MP 8), the route continues northwest as it roughly parallels Chinkelyes Creek to the crossing of Iliamna River (MP 14).
The existing Williamsport–Pile Bay Road is owned and maintained by the State of Alaska and would be used for construction access. Sections of the existing road would be upgraded and incorporated into the mine access alignment.
From the Iliamna River crossing to a point on the west side of Knutson Mountain (MP 39) the alignment continues westward, roughly paralleling the north shore of Iliamna Lake. The road route along this section is confined to lower elevations due the steep, mountainous terrain that rises rapidly from 100 ft amsl along the lake shore to elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 ft amsl. Avalanche hazards exist in isolated locations along the alignment. Between Iliamna River and Knutson Mountain the terrain is rugged and variable, with the ground conditions that are fair for road development. The terrain west of Knutson Mountain to Roadhouse Mountain (MP 54) is favorable to excellent for road construction and consists of outwash plains, ancient beach deposits and alluvial fan deposits.
The overall conditions for the remainder of the route from Roadhouse Mountain to the planned mine site (MP 82) are typically excellent for road construction. This section traverses gently rolling, open terrain that is commonly subject to windy conditions. Snow drifting would be a significant factor, which may be mitigated through use of snow fences, proper snow removal techniques and appropriate road profile and cross-section. As the access route wraps around Roadhouse Mountain it would cross tundra upland terrain to the Newhalen River crossing. After crossing the Newhalen River (MP 60.7) the route climbs out of a minor tributary valley of the Newhalen River and continues along upland terrain to the mine site. Figure 18-3 shows an overview map of the proposed road alignment.
Pebble Project | Page 232 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 18-3: Overview of Road Alignment from Diamond Point to Mine Site
Note: Prepared by Recon, 2021.
Pebble Project | Page 233 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The design of the Pebble Mine access road was predominantly dictated by the sizes and weights of vehicles and loads to be transported over the road, the majority of which would be conventional highway tractors and trailers. However, the principal controlling factor for much of the road design is the transport of large and heavy modules for mine construction.
The Pebble Mine access road would have a 30 ft clear travel surface, maximum grades of 8% with 6% preferred, and 700 ft typical minimum for horizontal curves with select curves being widened for module transport. The vertical curves would meet the requirements for modular carrier vertical articulation. Cut or fill slopes would vary from 0.5:1 to 2:1 depending on rock and soil type. Road embankments would vary from 3.5 to 25 ft thick, depending on quality of subgrade and if located in an intertidal zone. The surface course would be 2 in. minus crushed rock and 12 in. in depth. Armor rock would be used as appropriate in the intertidal zones.
The proposed road alignment traverses highly varied terrain types, thus, there would be several different construction methods employed throughout the project. In general, the western three-quarters of the road would be built by conventional cut/fill techniques using any suitable native subgrade material for development of the road prism. Typically, a subbase and final surfacing layer would be applied consisting of a crushed and/or screened material suitable for structural fill and surface maintenance and wear-course. At intervals not appropriate for cut/fill construction, an elevated fill section would be employed, particularly where snow drifting, or poor soils, are a concern. The mountainous sections would include significant rock excavation with an equipment fleet suitable for the terrain and volumes of rock to be excavated and placed. The coastal section involves a massive fill in the intertidal zone, including selective placement of large armor rock. Heavy equipment specific to this task would be employed. Although there are high volume exaction and fills, there are no apparent extreme conditions which would necessitate tunneling or unusual stabilization efforts.
The access road would include 17 bridges, eight of which would be single-span, two-lane bridges that range in length from approximately 40 to 90 ft. There would be one multi-span, 550 ft, two-lane bridge across the Newhalen River and eight other multi-span, two-lane bridges that range in length from approximately 125 to 245 ft. Road culverts at stream crossings are divided into categories based on whether the streams are fish-bearing. Culverts at streams without fish would be designed and sized for drainage only, in accordance with Alaska Department of Transport & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) standards. Culverts at streams with fish would be designed and sized for fish passage in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standards.
The natural gas pipeline, concentrate pipeline, water return pipeline, and fiber optic cable would be buried in a corridor adjacent to the access road. For bridged river crossings, the pipelines and fiber optic cable would be attached to the bridge structures.
Stream crossings requiring bridge construction would typically incorporate use of temporary bridges for construction access. Early mine site access would include a use of a ferry for crossing of the Newhalen River. Temporary infrastructure related to ferry operations would include short access roads and landing area pads.
18.2.2 Haul Roads
The Project requires a network of haul roads to connect the mine infrastructure such as the open pit, WSFs, mill plant site and TSFs. The haul road network was designed to separate haul traffic from access traffic.
The anticipated haulage trucks would have up to 400-ton payloads and an operating width of 32 ft. The haul roads would be 110 ft wide to allow for two-way traffic. For improved safety, fills greater than 10 ft high would be constructed with earth berms or concrete barriers. The haul roads would also be used by service vehicles accessing certain mine site infrastructure, such as the truck shop and process plant.
Pebble Project | Page 234 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.2.3 Service Roads
Approximately three miles of service roads would be constructed to provide service vehicles (i.e., light/medium-duty trucks and service vehicles) with access to mine infrastructure such as the emulsion plant, explosives magazine, TSFs and WTPs.
18.3 Tailings Storage Facilities
18.3.1 Introduction
Waste and water management at the Project would be an integrated system designed to safely contain these materials, to facilitate water treatment and discharge, and to provide adequate process water to support the operations. The system is planned to begin operation prior to start up and to continue operations through closure and post closure. The system would manage:
· | bulk tailings; |
|
|
· | pyritic tailings; |
|
|
· | PAG waste rock; |
|
|
· | process water; |
|
|
· | non-contact water for direct discharge; and |
|
|
· | contact water to be treated and discharged to the environment. |
The design of these facilities incorporates a significant climate record, extensive site investigation, and a number of features intended to ensure safe operation.
18.3.2 Tailings Overview
The bulk NAG and pyritic PAG tailings would be stored in separate TSFs constructed primarily within the North Fork Koktuli (NFK) Watershed (Figure 18-1). The principal objective of the design and operation of the TSFs is to provide secure containment for all tailings solids and PAG waste rock. Decant water from the tailings as they settle and precipitation falling onto or draining into the TSFs would be contained prior to transfer to the main water management pond (WMP). The design and operation of the TSFs are integrated with the overall water management objectives for the entire mine development, in that surface contact runoff from disturbed catchment areas is controlled, collected and either contained on site for use in the milling process, or treated and discharged to the environment. An additional requirement for the design and operation of the TSF is to allow for effective reclamation of the tailings impoundment and associated disturbed areas so that post closure land use objectives can be met at the end of mine operations. The bulk TSF would be closed and reclaimed at the end of operations. The pyritic tailings and the PAG waste rock would be re-located to the pit at the end of mining and the pyritic TSF decommissioned and reclaimed.
18.3.3 Site Selection
A multi-year, multi-disciplinary evaluation was completed to select the preferred TSF locations that meet all engineering and environmental goals while allowing for cost-effective integration into the site waste and water management plans. More than 35 tailings disposal options were evaluated against a range of siting criteria during this evaluation, including:
Pebble Project | Page 235 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | minimizing potential impacts to environmental resources; |
|
|
· | providing adequate storage capacity. The sites would accommodate the total volume of tailings and PAG waste rock for the 20-year life of the Project; |
|
|
· | proximity to the process plant and the open pit. The sites are near the process plant and the open pit which reduces power consumption, hauling distance, and the overall project footprint; and |
|
|
· | facilitating closure. Segregating the pyritic tailings and PAG waste in a separate TSF facilitates placement of these materials in the pit at the end of the mine life, thus eliminating the pyritic TSF from the long-term closure plan. |
18.3.4 Design Criteria
The TSFs would be designed to meet or exceed the standards of the current 2005 Guidelines for Cooperation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program (ADSP) and the draft 2017 version, as prepared by Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The TSFs would be designed to the standards of a Class I hazard potential dam (the highest classification).
The TSF design criteria include:
· | Providing storage for the 20-year mine life proposed project case resource - approximately 1.3 billion tons of tailings plus 93 million tons of PAG waste rock: |
| o | The bulk TSF would store approximately 1.1 billion tons; |
|
|
|
| o | The pyritic TSF would store approximately 157 million tons plus 93 million tons of PAG waste rock; |
· | The mill throughout is planned at 180,000 tons/d; |
| o | The bulk tailings output is approximately 155,000 tons/d; |
|
|
|
| o | The pyritic tailings output is approximately 25,000 tons/d; |
· | Providing storage for full containment of the probable maximum flood (PMF) event plus a freeboard allowance; |
|
|
· | Founding the TSF embankments on bedrock, with the overburden materials within the embankment footprints removed prior to construction; |
|
|
· | Designing the TSFs to safely withstand the earthquake loading conditions from the maximum credible earthquake; |
|
|
· | Thickened tailings disposal in the bulk and pyritic TSFs; |
|
|
· | A permeable bulk TSF main embankment to promote a depressed phreatic surface in the embankment and in the tailings mass in proximity to the embankment; |
|
|
· | A fully-lined pyritic TSF to maintain the pyritic tails and PAG waste in a sub-aqueous state to prevent oxidation; |
|
|
· | Limiting the volume of stored water within the bulk TSF under normal operating conditions and keeping the operating pond away from the dam face, with TSF reclaim water transferred to the main WMP; |
Pebble Project | Page 236 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | The inclusion of basin underdrains to provide preferred drainage paths for seepage flows; |
|
|
· | Providing seepage collection systems downstream of the TSF structures to minimize adverse downstream water quality impacts; |
|
|
· | The consideration of long-term-term closure at all stages of the TSF design process: |
| o | The bulk TSF main embankment seepage collection pond (SCP) collects seepage and runoff and transfers it to the main WMP; |
|
|
|
| o | The bulk TSF south embankment and the pyritic TSF seepage collection ponds collect seepage and runoff and transfers it to back into the TSFs; |
· | The inclusion of monitoring instrumentation for all aspects of the facility during operations and after closure; and |
|
|
· | Flattening of the downstream slopes to achieve a minimum factor of safety under static loading conditions of 1.8. |
18.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility Design
The TSF embankments would be zoned, earthfill/rockfill embankments constructed using select overburden and rockfill obtained from open pit stripping or local quarries. The starter embankments for both facilities would be constructed as part of the initial site construction works and would provide storage capacity for two years of operations. The TSF embankments would be expanded in stages throughout the mine life with each stage providing the required capacity for the period until the next stage of construction is completed. The bulk and pyritic TSF designs are summarized below.
18.3.5.1 Seismicity Analyses
Site-specific peak ground accelerations were determined for the mine site using the seismic database of the USGS probabilistic seismic hazard program for Alaska[1]. The deterministic seismic hazard analysis considered all known seismic sources and fault systems in the region of southern Alaska and applying a maximum earthquake magnitude to each potential source. The maximum design earthquake (MDE) events which were considered were:
· | M9.2 interface subduction earthquake associated with the Alaska-Aleutian Megathrust, peak ground acceleration = 0.16 g; |
|
|
· | M8.0 deep intraslab (in-slab) subduction earthquake, peak ground acceleration = 0.61 g; |
|
|
· | M7.5 shallow crustal earthquake on the mapped Lake Clark fault, peak ground acceleration = 0.32 g; and |
|
|
· | M6.5 maximum background earthquake (shallow crustal event assumed to occur directly beneath potential mine site facilities), peak ground acceleration = 0.56 g. |
____________________
1 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/ak/index.php#2007; Wesson et al, 2007
Pebble Project | Page 237 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Differences in ground motion characteristics for each of these MDEs were modeled to determine estimates of deformation in the downstream direction, with the analysis estimates of minimal deformation (<0.08 ft) of the bulk TSF Main Embankment.
18.3.5.2 Bulk TSF
The bulk TSF would store approximately 1.1 billion tons of bulk tailings. The TSF would consist of a main (north) embankment and a south embankment.
Initial construction of the earthfill/rockfill bulk TSF main embankment would include a cofferdam located upstream of the main starter embankment. The embankment foundation would be prepared by removing overburden materials prior to placement of embankment fill materials. The starter embankment would be constructed to a height of approximately 265 ft (elevation 1,450 ft above sea level) and would provide the storage capacity for approximately two years of bulk tailings production. The main embankment would be progressively raised during operations using the centerline construction method. The main embankment does not include a low permeability zone and would operate as a permeable structure to facilitate in the drainage of the tailings mass adjacent to the dam. The main embankment would include a sequence of engineered filter zones to provide the necessary filter requirements between adjacent fill materials and to control drainage and the phreatic surface. The overall downstream embankment slopes would be maintained at approximately 2.6H:1V (horizontal:vertical). The TSF basin would include an underdrain system constructed at various locations to provide preferred drainage paths for seepage flows.
The south embankment would be constructed in year three of operations and would be progressively constructed using the downstream construction method to facilitate the installation of a synthetic liner on the upstream face. The upstream face would be constructed at 3H:1V, and the downstream slope would be constructed at 2H:1V. Overburden materials would be removed below the embankment footprint. The earthfill/rockfill embankment would include engineered filter zones and a grout curtain to reduce seepage below the embankment. Tailings would be discharged from around the perimeter of the TSF to maintain the large tailings beaches and to promote surface drainage towards the east, away from the embankments, and towards the location of the closure spillway.
The bulk tailings would be discharged via spigots spaced at regular intervals along the interior perimeter of the bulk tailings cell, promoting beach development and allowing the supernatant pond to be maintained away from the main embankment. The bulk TSF would include a reclaim pumping system to manage the supernatant pond and limit the volume of water stored within the facility.
The final crest elevation for the bulk TSF embankments is approximately 1,730 ft above sea level. Embankment heights, as measured from lowest downstream slope elevation, would be 545 ft (main) and 300 ft (south).
18.3.5.3 Pyritic TSF
The pyritic TSF would store approximately 157 million tons of pyritic tailings and 93 million tons of PAG waste rock. The PAG waste rock would be placed around the perimeter of the basin with the pyritic tailings being discharged into the center of the facility at sub-aqueous discharge points with the level maintained just below the upper bench level for the PAG waste being stored. This placement methodology would result in PAG materials being exposed for less than two years before inundation with tailings and the water cover. The pyritic TSF would maintain a full water cover throughout operations to minimize the potential for oxidation of the pyritic tailings. The operating level of the supernatant pond would be managed via a floating reclaim system.
The pyritic TSF design would include a fully-lined basin with an underdrain system installed below the liner. The pyritic TSF would include three embankments, the north, south, and east, which would be progressively constructed using the downstream method. Upstream slopes would be 3H:1V to facilitate liner installation and the downstream slopes would be maintained at 2.6H:1V. The final crest elevation would be 1,620 ft above sea level. The final north embankment height would be 335 ft, the south embankment height would be 215 ft, and the east embankment height would be 225 ft.
Pebble Project | Page 238 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.3.5.4 TSF Closure
Closure of the bulk TSF would include a spillway located at the east side of the facility with the flows directed towards the north. Late in the operating phase, tailings discharge into the bulk TSF would be managed to allow for surface drainage toward the closure spillway to the maximum extent practical. As milling operations cease, free water would be pumped from the surface of the bulk tailings, and the tailings would be allowed to consolidate until the surface is suitable for equipment traffic on the surface. The tailings surface would then be re-graded as needed to facilitate drainage towards the closure spillway. A capillary break and growth medium would be placed over the surface of the tails prior to seeding for revegetation. Growth medium would also be placed on the bulk TSF embankments prior to seeding for revegetation.
Seepage water from the bulk TSF embankment seepage collection systems would be collected and directed to the main water management pond, or the pit lake throughout closure.
The pyritic tailings and PAG waste rock stored within the pyritic TSF would be transferred to the open pit during closure. The TSF embankments would be breached and contoured to prior to reclamation, which would include placement of growth medium and reseeding.
18.4 Water Management
18.4.1 Water Management Systems
The water management strategy for the Project uses water from within the Project area to the maximum practical extent. Contact water (mine drainage and process water) from the mine site would be collected and managed using various water management facilities. Mine drainage is defined as groundwater or surface runoff that has come into direct contact with mining infrastructure and requires treatment at the water treatment plants to meet discharge water quality standards prior to discharge to the environment. The primary water management systems and components include:
· | diversion channels; |
|
|
· | sediment ponds; |
|
|
· | seepage collection and recycle ponds; |
|
|
· | main water management pond; |
|
|
· | open pit water management pond; |
|
|
· | bulk and pyritic TSF reclaim systems; and |
|
|
· | water treatment plants. |
18.4.1.1 Diversion Channels
Diversion channels would direct non-contact water around the Project’s infrastructure, where possible, and directly discharge it to the downstream environment. This would reduce the amount of water collected within the mine site footprint for both operations and closure.
Pebble Project | Page 239 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.4.1.2 Sediment Ponds
Stormwater runoff from the overburden stockpiles, the growth medium stockpiles, and the quarries would be collected and treated locally at sediment ponds prior to release to the environment.
18.4.1.3 Seepage Collection and Recycle Ponds
Seepage collection and recycle ponds would be constructed downstream of the TSFs to collect and recycle seepage from the facilities. These include seepage recycle ponds would include grout curtains and low-permeability core zones, and downstream monitoring wells. Embankment runoff and TSF seepage collecting in the downstream seepage collection ponds would ultimately be transferred to the main WMP to be used in mining operations or treated for discharge.
18.4.1.4 Main Water Management Pond
The main WMP would be the primary water management structure at the mine site. It would be a fully-lined facility and constructed using quarried rockfill materials founded on bedrock. The main WMP embankment design is approximately 190 ft high with an overall downstream slope of approximately 2H:1V and an upstream slope of 3H:1V to accommodate the liner. It would be constructed to its final height during the initial construction period. In addition to the geomembrane liner the embankment would include a filter/transition zone. The basin and upstream embankment face would include a layer of materials above the liner to provide ice protection during freezing conditions. The operating capacity of the main WMP was sized to manage surplus water from the mine site and to supply water to the mining process over the full range of historic climate conditions.
18.4.1.5 Open Pit Water Management Pond
Groundwater and surface runoff collected in the open pit and from the surrounding area during operations would be directed to the open pit water management pond, prior to being treated at WTP #1. The open pit water management pond would be constructed using cut-and-fill methods and would be fully lined. The maximum height of the pond would be approximately 100 ft tall.
18.4.1.6 Bulk and Pyritic TSF Reclaim Systems
The bulk TSF would be operated with a minimum supernatant pond and the pyritic TSF would be operated with a minimum depth of approximately 5 ft in the supernatant pond to minimize the potential for oxidation of the pyritic tailings and waste rock. This would be achieved by pumping excess water to the main WMP to minimize the volume of water stored within these facilities.
18.4.1.7 Water Treatment Plants
Contact water would be treated using water treatment plants and then would be released to the environment. WTP#1, which would be located near the open pit, and WTP#2, to be located near the main WMP, would be operational during the operations period, while WTP#3, located near the open pit, would be operational during the closure period and for the long-term. WTP#1 would be decommissioned at the end of operations; WTP#2 would be decommissioned at the end of closure phase 1; and WTP#3 would be operational from closure phase 1, during phase 3, and during post closure. The detailed description of these facilities is presented on Section 18.4.
Pebble Project | Page 240 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.4.2 Site Wide Water Balance
The Pebble water balance consists of three primary models: the watershed model, the groundwater model, and the mine plan model. These three models collectively provide the means of quantifying the numerous water flows in the streams, in the ground, and in the various pipes, ponds, and mine structures associated with the mine development. The watershed model focuses on water flows throughout the NFK, SFK, and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) drainages. The groundwater model focuses on the detailed simulation and understanding of groundwater flows within those drainages, and serves to inform the watershed model, and vice versa. The mine plan model focuses on mine site water inflows and uses.
18.4.2.1 Watershed Model
The watershed model for the NFK, SFK, and UTC drainages considers both surface and groundwater. This model incorporates all key components of the hydrologic cycle, including precipitation as rain and snow, evaporation, sublimation, runoff, surface storage, and groundwater recharge, discharge, and storage. The primary input is monthly precipitation and temperature data collected at the Iliamna Airport from 1942 through 2017. The modelled annual precipitation series for the 76-year period of record is presented in Figure 18-4. The model was calibrated to measured site flow data collected at various locations in all three drainages over a nine-year period. The watershed model also provided input for the instream fish habitat-flow model, as well as the initial boundary parameters associated with groundwater recharge and runoff conditions for the groundwater model.
Figure 18-4: Modelled Annual Precipitation Series
Source: Knight Piésold, 2020
Pebble Project | Page 241 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.4.2.2 Groundwater Model
The groundwater model focuses on the sub-surface movement of water within the NFK, SFK, and UTC drainages. It models hydrogeological conditions in a more sophisticated and detailed manner than the watershed model, and its outputs provide a check of reasonableness for the watershed model. In addition, the groundwater model simulates groundwater flow rates and groundwater-surface water interactions throughout the study area, whereas the watershed model considers surface and groundwater flow rates only at the streamflow gaging stations.
18.4.2.3 Mine Plan Model
The mine plan model focuses on water movement within the Pebble Project footprint area. The Mine Plan Model is a site-wide water balance and considers all mine facilities including the bulk TSF, pyritic TSF, open pit, process plant, and the WMPs. This model tracks water movement throughout the Pebble Project footprint area including runoff from the mine facilities, water contained in the ore, groundwater inflows, evaporation and water stored in the tailings voids. The mine plan model was also the base model for the water quality model and is used to predict the flow regime on the mine site and whether there is a water surplus or deficit. It is also used to estimate the water storage capacity requirements for the mine under normal operating conditions and the amount of surplus water available for treatment and release to the surrounding environment.
The mine plan model uses inputs from the watershed model and the groundwater model that have been developed for the Project. Inputs from the watershed model were used to define the hydrologic parameters at the mine site and were used to determine groundwater recharge and surface water runoff. Inputs from the groundwater model were used to define the groundwater and seepage flow rates and directions in the Project area.
The mine plan model was developed using a monthly time step, using mean monthly temperature and total monthly precipitation inputs, allowing for the water management strategies to be assessed on a long-term scale. The mine plan model addresses the possible range of wet and dry conditions at the mine by incorporating climate variability, which is used to define the operating storage requirements for the water management facilities. The storm storage and freeboard requirements are considered in addition to the maximum operating pond storage requirements determined with the mine plan model.
The mine plan model indicates that there is sufficient water to satisfy the mill requirements without additional make-up water even under the driest climate conditions. The site-wide water balance demonstrates that the mine site is estimated to have an annual surplus while the volume of water requiring treatment is expected to vary based on the climatic conditions and the amount of water in the water management ponds. Operating rules would be used to limit the maximum amount of water that must be stored while maintaining a sufficient water supply during extended dry periods to maintain mill operations. The amount of water stored within the water management ponds during drier climate conditions would generally decrease, while during wetter climate conditions, the amount of water stored within the water management ponds would generally increase.
18.5 Water Treatment
The Pebble site receives an average of 54 in. of precipitation per year. A portion of the resulting runoff would be consumed in the process, primarily locked up in the tailings deposits, but the remainder, approximately 30 ft3/s on average, must be released back to the environment. To accomplish this, the proposed Project incorporates a sophisticated water management plan with water collection, treatment, and discharge. That plan requires attention to the annual and seasonal variability of the incoming flows and achieving very specific water quality standards for the released water.
Pebble Project | Page 242 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Temporary water treatment facilities would be in place during construction followed by three WTPs during the operations and closure phases of the Project (Table 18-1). The table correlates the water WTP number with the phase of mine life (in cases when a WTP serves in more than one phase), and influent stream treated (in cases when there is more than one influent stream to a WTP) and thus defines the WTP naming convention.
Table 18-1: Overview of Pebble WTPs during Operations, Closure, and Post-Closure
WTP Name | Phase of Mine Life | Influent Stream Treated | Notes |
WTP #1 | Operations Phase | Open Pit Water Management Pond |
|
WTP #2 | Operations Phase | Main Water Management Pond |
|
Closure Phase 1 | Main Water Management Pond |
| |
WTP #3 | Closure Phase 1 | Open Pit |
|
Closure Phase 2 | n/a | No surplus water to treat in Closure Phase 2 | |
Closure Phase 3 | Bulk Tailings Storage Facility - Main Seepage Collection Pond |
| |
Open Pit |
| ||
Closure Phase 4 (Post-Closure) | Bulk Tailings Storage Facility - Main Seepage Collection Pond |
| |
Open Pit |
|
18.5.1 Influent Stream Characteristics
18.5.1.1 Influent Water Quality
Predicted influent water quality varies based on the phase of mine life and the stream being treated. Influent water quality was predicted through a sequence of geochemistry testwork and modeling to determine source terms, modeling of hydrologic processes, and modeling of mineral processing. The resulting water quality predictions were then iterated with water treatment modeling to verify the long-term impact of WTP residuals returned to the mine water management system.
In general, there are two categories of water quality to be treated by the WTPs: a) water quality in which only specific metals, metalloids, and nonmetals exceed anticipated discharge limits; and b) water quality in which specific metals, metalloids, nonmetals, total dissolved solids (TDS), and sulfate exceed anticipated discharge limits. The metals, metalloids, and nonmetals that exceed anticipated discharge limits generally include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc.
18.5.1.2 Influent Flow Rate
Predicted Influent flow rates to the WTPs vary greatly based on the phase of mine life, the stream being treated, and the time of year. Predicted influent flow rates were developed through a sequence of hydrologic and mine water balance modeling. Predicted influent flows range from as little as 3,591 gallons per minute (gpm) (WTP#1 – average flow) to 20,646 gpm (WTP#2 – maximum flow).
A standardized treatment train with a capacity of 4,000 gpm was designed to enable standardization of equipment, parts, and operational practices. To accommodate the wide range in flow while avoiding water treatment equipment of varying size and capacity, WTPs were designed with multiple treatment trains installed in parallel to treat the influent flow, with the number of operating trains adjusted depending on seasonal and annual variations in flow.
Pebble Project | Page 243 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.5.2 WTP Processes
18.5.2.1 Base Treatment Train Processes
The base 4,000 gpm treatment train used in all WTPs would include the following treatment steps:
1. | Dissolved metals would be oxidized with potassium permanganate in a reaction tank, followed by co-precipitation with a ferric iron salt in a second reaction tank. Hydrochloric acid or lime would be added as needed to maintain the water pH for optimal precipitation. |
|
|
2. | A ballasted high-rate flocculator/clarifier would be used to separate out the co-precipitated solids. Most of the solids from the clarifier would be recycled back to the oxidation reaction tank. The balance of clarifier solids would be thickened and transferred to disposal. |
|
|
3. | Clarified water would then be treated with sodium hydrogen sulfide, lime, and a ferrous iron salt to further precipitate remaining metals, metalloids, and nonmetals under reducing conditions. |
|
|
4. | Water from the sulfide reaction tanks would be filtered with sand filters and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes to remove precipitated solids. Backwash from the sand filters and UF membranes would be thickened and transferred to disposal. |
Each base treatment train would include the necessary pumps, heat exchangers, instrumentation, chemical feed systems, control systems, and other appurtenances. UF membrane permeate would either be discharged to the environment or further treated by additional WTP-specific processes as described below:
18.5.2.1.1 WTP #1
A portion of the UF membrane permeate from WTP #1 base treatment trains would be further treated with four stages of reverse osmosis (RO) membranes to further remove TDS. Permeate from the fourth stage of RO membranes would be recombined with the main effluent stream for discharge to the environment. Brine from the fourth stage of RO membranes would be transferred to disposal.
18.5.2.1.2 WTP #2
UF membrane permeate from the WTP #2 base treatment trains would be further treated with full stream RO membranes for additional metals and metalloids removal as well as removal of TDS and sulfate. Permeate from the RO membranes would be discharged to the environment. Brine from the RO membranes would be concentrated with three stages of a brine concentration system consisting of calcium sulfate precipitation with lime softening, clarification, UF membranes, and RO membranes. Permeate from the RO membranes of each stage of brine concentration would be discharged to the environment. Brine from the third stage of brine concentration would be transferred to disposal.
18.5.2.1.3 WTP #3
WTP #3 would be constructed for use during closure and post-closure and would treat two influent streams separately within the same facility.
Pebble Project | Page 244 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The portion of WTP #3 treating water from the open pit during closure phase 1 would be treated by base treatment trains followed by nanofiltration (NF) membranes. Permeate from the NF membranes would be discharged to the environment. Brine from the NF membranes would be concentrated with three stages of a brine concentration system consisting of calcium sulfate precipitation with lime softening, clarification, UF membranes, and RO membranes. Permeate from the RO membranes of each stage of brine concentration would be discharged to the environment. Depending on the volume and concentration, brine from the third stage of brine concentration would either be transferred to disposal or sent to brine evaporation and crystallization systems to be converted into solid salt crystals.
The portion of WTP #3 treating water from the open pit during closure phase 1 is repurposed to treat water from the SCP during closure phase 3 and post closure with all of the same processes employed except the brine evaporation and crystallization system.
The portion of WTP #3 treating water from the open pit during closure phase 3 and post-closure would use only base treatment trains.
18.5.2.2 WTP Residuals Disposal
WTP residuals would include thickened sludge, thickened filter backwash, and RO brine in the case of WTPs that have RO membranes. During operations all WTP residuals would be disposed of in the pyritic TSF. During closure and post-closure all WTP residuals would be disposed of in the open pit. Solid salt crystals from the brine evaporation and crystallization systems of WTP #3 during closure phase 1 would be sent to an approved facility for disposal.
18.5.2.3 WTP Process Water Heating
WTPs would use waste heat from the mine site power plant for heating the water to be treated as well as for heating the building. WTPs would include a system of heat exchangers to add power plant waste heat to the process water prior to treatment. Heating the water even just several degrees Celsius would have a significant impact on treatment efficiency and could be especially critical during winter operation.
The WTPs would include a second set of heat exchangers to remove heat from treated water and recycle this heat back into the colder inlet water. This second set of heat exchangers would also help reduce treated water temperature to be better meet environmental conditions at the point of discharge.
18.5.3 WTP Buildings and Appurtenances
WTP buildings are envisioned to have pre-insulated metal panel wall and roof systems, concrete foundations, and concrete slab-on-grade floors.
WTPs would include treatment residuals processing equipment; treatment reagent storage, mixing, and dosing systems; a laboratory; spare parts storage; a workshop; backup electricity generation; and electrical and mechanical systems.
18.6 Mine Site Facilities
18.6.1 Mine Site Conditions and Design Criteria
The proposed mine site is located at an elevation of approximately 1,000 ft above sea level. Terrain in the mine site area features rolling hills and low mountains, separated by wide shallow valleys blanketed with glacial deposits and numerous streams and small, shallow lakes.
Pebble Project | Page 245 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The deposit is located at the head of three drainages: SFK, NFK and UTC. The SFK and NFK meet in a confluence several miles downstream of the mine site to form the Koktuli River, which in turn drains southwest to the Mulchatna River and then into the Nushagak River. The UTC, which drains the eastern portion of the deposit area, flows directly into Iliamna Lake.
The following key design criteria were applied for development of the mine site layout, and engineering design for supporting infrastructure:
· | minimize footprint; |
|
|
· | site runoff and drainage would be contained by perimeter ditches and directed to sedimentation ponds, then to either the TSF or the WTPs for reuse or release; |
|
|
· | minimize the difference in elevation and the horizontal distances between the open pit, mill site, crusher and TSF, with the intent of minimizing the capital cost and operating cost of the truck haul, conveyor haul and pipelines between these sites; |
|
|
· | snow loads: |
| o | ground snow load at the mine site = 130 lb/ft2 |
|
|
|
| o | ground snow load at the port = 160 lb/ft2 |
· | wind loads: |
| o | design wind speed at the mine site = 90 mi/h |
|
|
|
| o | design wind speed at the marine terminal = 104 mi/h |
· | seismicloads: |
| o | for the mine/mill site, the following design parameters will apply: S =0.559 g; S1 =0.206 g |
|
|
|
| o | for the marine terminal, the following design parameters apply: Ss =1.191 g; S1 =0.372 g |
The mine site would be developed in discrete areas: the open pit area, the process plant site, the mine services area, the two TSFs, and the three water collection ponds and two water treatment plants. A network of on-site roads and utilities would connect these sites.
The process plant and associated facilities would be located approximately 1,000 ft north of the open pit on level to rolling ground at the edge of the knoll which marks the north edge of the deposit. The site is covered with overburden, generally sand and gravel, and frost shattered bedrock. Site preparation would consist of levelling the site with cut to fill. The major components, such as the grinding mills, would be founded on bedrock. The current design includes a significant surplus of excavated rock, which offers an opportunity to reduce costs by utilizing this material as fill for haul roads or tailings embankment construction.
Pebble Project | Page 246 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.6.2 Mine Service Facilities
18.6.2.1 Truck Shop
The truck shop complex at the mine site would consist of a 700 ft long x 330 ft wide structural steel, pre-engineered building designed to accommodate facilities for repair, maintenance and rebuilding of both open pit mining equipment and light vehicles. The facility would house storage space for spare parts and consumables and offices for the mine supervisors, mine engineers and planning staff. Change facilities for mine personnel would also be provided.
The building would be covered with insulated profiled steel and founded on spread footings on rock.
The service bays of the truck shop complex would consist of:
· | twelve heavy vehicle repair bays; |
|
|
· | two heavy vehicle tire repair bays; |
|
|
· | two light vehicle service bays; and |
|
|
· | one welding bay. |
The truck shop would be equipped with two 50 ton overhead cranes that would provide service to both the heavy and light vehicle repair bays. The drive-through bays would be 55 ft wide x 75 ft long and provide for the full dump height of a 400 ton capacity haul truck. One of the bays would serve as a wash bay.
Other support facilities and shops for maintenance and repair would include the following:
· | lubricant storage building (including distribution system and used oil collection); |
|
|
· | machine shop/plate shop; |
|
|
· | electrical/instrument repair facilities; and |
|
|
· | compressor room to supply mill and instrument air to the facilities within the truck shop. |
The parts warehouse integrated into the truck shop would house materials, service parts and supplies for mine mobile equipment maintenance. The warehouse would have a ground floor area of 15,000 ft2 and an additional 2,000 ft2 of mezzanine space.
Men’s and women’s change facilities, complete with lockers, showers and washroom facilities, would be provided for the pit and truck shop crews and would be located on the ground floor.
Offices occupying an area of 16,000 ft2 would be located on the third floor of the truck shop complex for the pit supervisors as well as mine engineering and planning staff. A lunchroom equipped with fridge, stove, microwave, dishwasher and cupboards would also be on the ground floor.
Pebble Project | Page 247 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.6.2.2 Main Warehouse
The warehouse would be a rectangular, single-storey, pre-engineered building, 100 ft wide x 150 ft long x 23.5 ft high with a gross floor area of 15,000 ft2. An 80 x 80 ft mezzanine floor would be used for three offices, a filing/storage area, a washroom and an entrance corridor. A fenced yard, 150 x 200 ft, with two truck gates and one man gate would be provided on the north side of the process building.
18.6.2.3 Administration Building
The administration building at the mine site would be a two storey, pre-engineered building, 150 ft wide x 200 ft long. It would be located adjacent to and connected with the permanent camp complex via an Arctic-type access corridor. A total of 166 offices and cubicles would be provided for mine management and supervisory staff, as well as for human resources, accounting, procurement, information technology (IT) and safety staff. The ground floor would include a lunch room, training room and 64 offices, including 10 open cubicles and 44 closed offices. The second floor would include 51 offices, including 36 open cubicles and 44 closed offices. The building would be clad with insulated profiled steel and founded on spread footings on soil.
18.6.2.4 Process Administration
Administration offices for the process plant would be located within the process building and would occupy two floors totalling 25 ft wide x 232 ft long. The space would include 23 offices, 2 conference rooms, a lunch room, laboratory facilities, open working areas and washroom facilities.
18.6.2.5 Gatehouse Security
The gatehouse would be a rectangular, single storey, pre-engineered building, 26 ft wide x 50 ft long x 10 ft high, with a gross floor area of 1,300 ft2 and would provide a security checkpoint for all incoming and outgoing traffic to the process and mill site.
18.6.3 Water Systems
18.6.3.1 Fresh Water
Fresh water from groundwater wells would be pumped to sand filters located on the north side of the process plant building. Water from the sand filters would be added to the filtered water tank. From the filtered water tank, most of the water would be pumped to the clean service/firewater tank located in the same area and the balance would be used as cooling water for the grinding mills. From the clean service/firewater tank the fresh/filtered water would be distributed via underground pipelines to the process plant and the primary crusher raw water tank for use as process water.
18.6.3.2 Fire Water
The clean service/firewater tank would have a reserve in the lower portion of the tank that would be drawn from below the primary water nozzles. The fire-fighting reserve in each tank would meet a two-hour demand at 2,000 US gpm at 100 psi boost. Firewater pump skids complete with diesel-driven fire pump, jockey pump and controls would be installed. Dedicated fire mains complete with hydrants would be provided at the process plant and ancillary buildings, the camp, truck shop and the primary crushers. Fire extinguishers would also be provided throughout the facilities. Fire hose reels and cabinets would be installed throughout the process plant building and truck shop. Sprinkler systems would be installed in the warehouse, the main office and the truck shop.
Pebble Project | Page 248 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Fire alarm systems at the warehouse and truck shop would report to the plant control room or to the main gatehouse, both of which would be manned 24 hours a day.
18.6.3.3 Potable Water
Potable water at the mine site would be supplied from wells. The water would be pumped to the potable WTP, potable water tank and potable water pump house at the mill and then distributed to the various facilities, including the camp, administration building, warehouse, gatehouse, truck shop and process buildings.
18.6.3.4 Process Water Distribution
Process water would be a combination of surface water catchments and tailings reclaim water. Process water would be pumped from the tailings pond and various collection sumps to the process water ponds located on the west side of the process plant. Process water would be pumped from the process water pond and distributed via pipelines to the various areas of the process plant. In addition, fresh water added to the system via the clean service/firewater tank would be distributed via underground pipelines to the process plant as described in Section 18.6.3.1.
18.6.4 Medical and First Aid
First aid posts would be provided at the accommodations camp, truck, shop, process plant and the port. A full-time physician assistant would be in attendance at the first aid station at the camp and roaming first aid attendants/security staff would patrol the Pebble Project.
One ambulance and a fire truck would be located at each of the mine site and at the port. A tensioned fabric structure three-bay garage for the emergency vehicles would be located near the respective gatehouses. Patients requiring evacuation would be driven by ambulance to the clinic at Iliamna or flown from Iliamna to hospitals in Anchorage.
18.6.5 Camp
The first camp to be constructed at the mine site would be a 250-person fabric-type camp to support early site construction activities and throughout the pre-production phase as required for seasonal peak overflows. The main construction camp would be built in a double occupancy configuration to accommodate 1,700 workers. This facility would later be refurbished for 850 permanent single occupancy rooms for the operations phase.
The camp would include dormitories, kitchen and dining facilities, incinerator, recreation facilities, check-in and check-out areas, administrative offices and first aid facilities. The dormitory modules would be connected with field constructed or prefabricated, fire-rated egress corridors and would comply with all building and fire code requirements.
The mine would operate on a fly-in, fly-out basis, except for those personnel residing in the communities connected to the access road corridor. Non-resident personnel would be flown in and out of the Iliamna Airport and transported to the site by road. Workers would remain on site throughout their work period. Site rules would prohibit hunting, fishing, or gathering while on site to minimize impacts to local subsistence resources.
Pebble Project | Page 249 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.6.6 Cold Storage Building
Cold storage buildings are required for short- and long-term storage of supplies requiring protection from the elements, but not heated storage. Two buildings are required: one adjacent to the truck shop and one near the process plant maintenance facility. Both buildings would be unheated single-storey, fabric-clad structures, 75 ft wide x 150 ft long x 23.5 ft high.
18.6.7 Utilities and Services
18.6.7.1 Communications
The mine site would be connected to external networks via the fibre optic line contained in the natural gas pipeline trench and the sub-sea natural gas pipeline to the Kenai Peninsula. A backup satellite system rated to handle the full communications bandwidth would also be installed.
A communications network would be established utilizing fibre optic technology and wireless communication for voice, fax, Internet, and intranet traffic. The communications and IT infrastructure would include an Internet gateway, telephone private branch exchange system, Ethernet local area network, IT servers, desktop computers, a backup power system, copper and fibre cabling and site very high frequency (VHF) radio system.
Voice communications would be based on voice over internet protocol technology, using wide area network links. A VHF radio system would be installed with provision for handheld units, mobile units and base stations. A mobile phone cellular service would be included in the system.
18.6.7.2 Heating, Ventilation and Dust Control
18.6.7.2.1 Heating
Heating for buildings and facilities at the mine site would be provided primarily by heat recovery from a combined cycle gas turbine power plant. Waste heat from the power plant would be transferred by transfer pumps through a glycol circulating system throughout the plant site and truck shop areas. A boiler adjacent to the process plant building would be used as a supplemental heat source when required.
Remote buildings that are relatively small, such as small warehouses and gatehouses, would be heated with indirect fired gas heaters, or electric heaters if gas lines cannot be run to those locations.
18.6.7.2.2 Ventilation
Continuous ventilation would be provided for all personnel occupied and selected unoccupied spaces.
Ventilation systems would include make-up air units for continuous supply of tempered air, general exhaust fans for contaminant removal and, where appropriate, localized exhaust fans to remove contaminants directly. Glycol supply to the make-up air units would be the primary heat supply source.
Pebble Project | Page 250 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.6.7.2.3 Dust and Fume Control
Dust control systems would include hoods, ductwork, dry bag house-style dust collectors and/or wet scrubbers and enclosures designed to capture fugitive dust or fume emissions at the source. These systems would be designed and selected to reduce particulate emissions to meet applicable air quality regulations.
Dust collection within the process buildings, such as the coarse ore storage reclaim area and pebble crushers, would use wet scrubbers to collect airborne dust. The collected dust slurry would be pumped back to the process.
18.6.7.3 Solid Waste Disposal
18.6.7.3.1 Hazardous Waste
As part of the overall plant design, all hazardous wastes outside of tailings and waste rock would be segregated at the point of generation, placed into appropriate storage containers and shipped off-site to an appropriate recycling or disposal facility. A lined storage facility would be constructed within or near the site fuel storage facilities to store the hazardous waste held in segregation, pending periodic off-site shipment.
18.6.7.3.2 Non-hazardous Waste
Non-hazardous waste would be segregated into the following two streams:
· | Putrescible kitchen wastes, organic food wastes from kitchen facilities, would be segregated and burned daily in on-site incinerators (or a closed circuit digester system) to help limit wildlife attraction associated with disposal of food wastes; and, |
|
|
· | Non-putrescible waste, all other non-hazardous, inorganic garbage, would be collected and disposed of within an on-site landfill to be located in a suitable area that drains by gravity into the tailings impoundment. Non-hazardous garbage placed within this landfill would be periodically buried under a layer of soil or non-acid generating waste rock to prevent loss of garbage through wind action and to control drainage. |
Construction, operation and closure wastes would likely be managed under one waste management permit.
18.7 Gas Line and Power Supply
18.7.1 Power Supply
A natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine plant would supply power to the mine site. Power at the marine terminal would be provided by natural gas fired reciprocating engine-based power generators.
18.7.1.1 Power Plant Configuration and Design Details
The power plant design is based on the following criteria:
Pebble Project | Page 251 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | The power plant design includes multiple gas turbines, heat-recovery steam generators (HRSG), steam turbines operating in parallel completely with balance of plant equipment and systems. The power plant would be built in two phases. The first phase of the power plant was designed with N+1 redundancy to meet the initial mine site load demand of 270 MW net during the warmer summer period. The gross capacity of the power plant as installed would be about 318 MW at the summer ambient. The gross capacity would be somewhat higher at lower ambient. The plant is designed to support 270 MW net mine demand with any one gas turbine generator (GTG) or steam turbine generator (STG) outage scenario in degraded condition within the site specified ambient operating temperature range (N+1 redundancy). |
|
|
· | All gas turbines would be dry, low NOx, single fuel, designed for low emissions while firing pipeline-quality natural gas. The gas turbines would be provided with spray assisted inter-stage cooling (SPRINT) systems to augment power production during moderate to high ambient temperature conditions. |
|
|
· | Fuel gas is assumed to be delivered by the pipeline system at 725 psig, eliminating the need for additional, on-site gas compression to increase the minimum inlet pressure to the units. |
|
|
· | Natural gas is assumed to be of pipeline quality with a higher heating value/lower heating value ratio of 1.108. |
|
|
· | A degradation factor of 2% is assumed for the life of the power plant output in all cases for normal equipment degradation. |
The site parameters and fuel assumptions are summarized in Table 18-2.
Table 18-2: Site Parameters and Design Operating Conditions for Proposed Project Power Plant
Parameter | Basis |
Elevation | 1,500 ft amsl |
Primary Fuel | Natural Gas |
Design Basis Temperature/Relative Humidity | Summer 74°F/40%, Average 32°F/72% RH |
Plant Net Installed Capacity at Summer Ambient | 328 MW |
Fuel consumption at normal 270 MW net output | 55 MMSCFD |
Redundancy Requirements | N + 1 (2) |
Note:
| 1. | Includes a margin for degradation impacts and allowances. |
|
|
|
| 2. | N+1 redundancy means that the power plant is capable of delivering the guaranteed Net output even when One (1) Prime Mover – that is either the gas turbine (or) steam turbine is out of operation (planned maintenance or un-planned trip conditions). The use of the N+1 rating is a compromise from usual standard of N+2 due to the average temperature conditions at site, which are significantly lower than the based temperature used for the N+2 calculation. Power generation is anticipated to be more efficient at site than industry standards because of the low ambient temperatures. |
|
|
|
| 3. | MMSCFD – million standard cubic feet per day. |
18.7.1.2 Mine Site Power Plant Selection Process
The combined natural gas-fired turbine power plant was selected because:
· | it provides the lowest fuel consumption and life-cycle costs over the plant life, as compared to other options; |
|
|
· | it is a proven, readily available technology with high reliability ratings; The light weight of the units reduces shipping costs and transportation constraints; and, |
|
|
· | it is the cleanest and least carbon intensive solution for fossil-based generation to provide power for the scale of the Project. |
Pebble Project | Page 252 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.7.1.3 Plant Efficiency and Electrical Performance
The power plant operating capacity and performance are based on the mine and processing plant configuration as defined at initial start-up.
18.7.1.4 Dispatch Scenarios and Fuel Usage
Five GE LM6000 PF+ SPRINT gas turbines along with two condensing steam turbines would be required for mine operation. All units would be operating during normal operation (when available) to maintain the N+1 scenario. This mode of operation would have minimum impact on the electrical system when one prime mover – that is one GTG unit or one STG unit trips during operation to support the full load demand of the mining operation.
In the event of a unit trip, system frequency is expected to be maintained by a ramping up the load of the remaining operating gas turbines and steam turbines. If the gas turbines are maxed out on the load, additional duct firing in the HRSGs would increase the STG output to stabilize the frequency until the standby GT/ST unit is brought online.
18.7.1.5 Power Distribution
Power would be distributed throughout the mine site via 34.5 kV wood-pole overhead electrical power lines. A similar distribution arrangement would be used at the marine terminal, though at a significantly lower voltage of 4.16 kV. At both sites, power would be routed from the electrical substations to the distribution systems connecting the equipment, facilities and buildings.
18.7.1.6 Power Plant at Marine Terminal
The marine terminal power plant, which would consist of three 2 MW natural gas-fired engine generators in (N+1) configuration with heat recovery, would be located in close proximity to the substation.
Natural gas would be supplied to the marine terminal plant by an off-take from the pipeline that transports natural gas to the mine site.
18.7.2 Natural Gas Supply
18.7.2.1 Source and Pipeline Routing
The natural gas pipeline to supply the Project would originate from an existing natural gas pipeline on the west side of the Kenai Peninsula. The supply gas would be available at approximately 500 psig. This pressure is not sufficient to send the required gas volumes to the proposed mine and meet the required delivery pressure. A compressor station would be sited near the tie-in point with the existing natural gas pipeline at a location approximately 3 miles north of Anchor Point. This compressor station would have a gas turbine driven centrifugal gas compressor capable of providing the required gas at the required 725 psig delivery pressure. The selected pipe would be a nominal 12 in., 12.75 in. outside diameter (OD) pipeline.
Pebble Project | Page 253 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The natural gas pipeline would transition to a subsea pipeline from the compressor station, crossing Cook Inlet from east to west to landfall at Ursus Cove, then overland to Cottonwood Bay, and a crossing of the intertidal zone in Cottonwood Bay to the marine terminal site north of Diamond Point on Iliamna Bay. From there, a buried onshore pipeline would parallel the mine access road to the mine site. The approximate lengths of the offshore segments are provided below. The Anchor Point direct pipe shore crossing length assumes encased direct pipe exiting into the offshore trench at the 49 ft water depth contour. The Ursus Cove shore crossing assumes the shore crossing trench starts at the 16.5 ft water depth. The two shore crossings for the Cottonwood Bay crossing were assumed to be 300 ft long.
The natural gas pipeline segments would be:
· | Anchor Point onshore surfacing point to offshore direct pipe exit point (direct pipe shore crossing segment) is 7,334 ft; |
|
|
· | direct pipe exit point to Ursus Cove shore crossing trench (offshore segment) is 73.0 miles (385,272 ft); |
|
|
· | Ursus Cove trench shore crossing trench is 2,017 ft; |
|
|
· | Cottonwood Bay South side shore crossing trench is 300 ft; |
|
|
· | Cottonwood Bay crossing (offshore segment) is 17,424 ft; and |
|
|
· | Diamond Point shore crossing is 300 ft. |
The proposed route is shown in Figure 18-5.
Pebble Project | Page 254 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 18-5: Proposed Pebble Pipeline Route – Anchor Point Mine Site
Note: Prepared by NANA Worley, 2020.
The subsea portion of the Pebble Mine gas supply line would be a 12.75 in. OD x 0.812 in. API Spec 5L grade X52 pipeline. The heavy-wall pipe would ensure negative buoyancy and increase resistance against physical damage from external forces. The pipeline would have a 16-22 mils external anti-corrosion coating of fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) along the entire length of the offshore segments, with the exception of the direct pipe shore crossing segment at Anchor Point, which would have an abrasion resistant overcoating (ARO) consisting of 8-10 mils FBE anti-corrosion coating plus 40 mils of dual-layer FBE ARO top coating. The entire length would also have an internal liquid epoxy flow coating with a thickness of 2 mils.
Cathodic protection of the subsea pipeline would be provided by aluminum-zinc bracelet anodes. The anticipated life expectancy of the anodes would exceed the design life of the pipeline. Preliminary estimates indicate up to 160 tonnes of anode material may be needed for the Ursus Cove Route and Cottonwood Bay Crossing marine pipelines.
A fiber optic cable for communications is also required to be installed along the same offshore route and would be an armored subsea 24 strand fiber optic cable with a 1 in. diameter. The design life for the pipeline and fiber optic cable is 50 years.
Pebble Project | Page 255 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
On the west side of Cook Inlet, the Pebble Mine gas onshore supply line would be a 12.75 in. outside diameter x 0.250 in. API Spec 5L grade X 60 pipeline. The onshore portion of the pipeline would have an external anti-corrosion coating consisting of 8 - 20 mils FBE. Cathodic protection for the pipeline would be in the form of two magnesium ribbons installed in the pipe trench such that they have “visibility” of the pipeline. The pipeline would come ashore at Ursus Cove and then transit the peninsula between Ursus Cove and Cottonwood Bay for approximately 5.5 mi. The gas pipeline would be tapped for power generation at the Diamond Point marine terminal. The bulk of the natural gas would be routed west approximately 74 mi via buried pipeline adjacent and parallel to the road route (see Figure 18-5) to the power plant at the mine site.
The pipeline would be buried in a ditch with a minimum 30 in. of cover. Common resources would be used for construction.
18.7.2.2 Water Crossings
At minor stream crossings, when and where in stream construction would not affect downstream water quality, the pipeline would be installed under the water body. At larger stream crossings, the pipeline would be brought above ground and either supported on vehicle bridges or separate pipe bridges. Leak Detection System
Appropriate leak detection methods would be selected during front end engineering and design and could include combination of a reliable computational pipeline monitoring system and a periodic (passive) system such as intelligent internal pipeline inspection (smart-pigging).
18.8 Concentrate Slurry and Return Water Pipeline
The average production of copper concentrate from the process plant would be 560,000 tonnes per year, with transportation from the mine site to the terminal site at Diamond Point to utilize a slurry pipeline system. This system would be operated in batches to maintain pipeline velocity and is capable of transporting the planned peak rate of 880,000 ton/y copper concentrate slurry through the 81.6-mile distance following the same corridor as the main access road.
The slurry pipeline would be an 8.625 in. API 5L X 70 steel pipe with high density polyethylene (HDPE) internal liners, fed from a pump station at the mine site process plant. The pump station would require positive displacement pumps, with centrifugal slurry charge pumps and gland seal water pumps as supporting equipment. Slurry storage tanks are required at the pump station and the dewatering system at the terminal, which would include a thickener and filter press.
A choke station would be required at the terminal, consisting of a series of wear-resistant orifices to maintain backpressure and packed flow conditions in the pipeline during batching operations. Four pressure monitoring stations would be spaced along the length of the pipeline for leak detection.
Filtrate water from the slurry pipeline would be sent back to the mine site through a similar 8.625 in. HDPE lined steel return water pipeline at a maximum design rate of 615 gpm, and nominal operating rate of 410 gpm. This pipeline would have similar corrosion protection and safety controls to the concentrate pipeline with no intermediate pump station.
The selected pipeline diameter of 8.625 in. was confirmed through an optimization analysis as the lowest cost system for combined capital and operating expenditures. While a 6 in. diameter pipe may have been able to handle the required concentrate volumes, the resulting high pressure drop along the line length required an intermediate pump station and power generation at the midpoint. The slightly larger 8 in. line eliminates this pump station and can operate at a range of concentrations and flowrates with minimal additional investment for future expansion. At the currently planned throughput, the pipeline would operate at minimum slurry concentrations along with slurry-water batching to maintain the minimum velocity required to prevent solids deposition in the line.
Pebble Project | Page 256 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Both the slurry line and the return water line would be installed in a common trench with the natural gas line following the main access road from Diamond Point to the mine site. A dedicated fiber optic cable for controlling the pipeline operations and connecting to the pressure monitoring stations along the length would be buried in the same trench.
18.9 Marine Infrastructure
A new marine terminal facility would be constructed north of Diamond Point in Iliamna Bay on the west side of Cook Inlet. This greenfield site would be built to accommodate the delivery of equipment and supplies to the Pebble Project for construction, the export of concentrate and receipt of consumables (both containerized and break bulk) and diesel fuel via barge.
Figure 18-6 illustrates the marine terminal facilities site plan, showing the locations for the marine barge handling facility, the onshore terminal facility, and the transhipment location for mooring bulk vessels.
Figure 18-6: Proposed Marine Terminal Facilities Site Plan
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020.
Pebble Project | Page 257 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
18.9.1 Marine Barge Handling Facility
Marine terminal infrastructure would include an “L” shaped jetty, capable of handling barges for concentrate bulk transhipment as well as large ocean barges (400 x 100 ft) for transport of construction materials and operating supplies by container. Barge access from Cook Inlet to the marine site would include a dredged channel and turning basin in front of the dock structures with a minimum 15 ft draft limit. Figure 18-7 is a schematic showing the proposed layout of the marine facilities.
Figure 18-7: Schematic Rendering of the Marine Facilities
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020
The marine structures would include a main jetty area that would be constructed with 120 x 60 ft pre-cast concrete caissons. The jetty area would be connected to the shore via causeway. The jetty caissons would be placed 60 ft apart to allow water to flow around them and would be topped with pre-cast concrete beams and a concrete deck. The structure would be designed to accommodate the movement of heavy construction modules and mine equipment. In addition to the main jetty structure, a series of three caissons would be placed within the dredged basin to provide mooring and loading for the concentrate lighter barges. An overhead gantry structure would support an enclosed conveyor from the jetty to a barge loader mounted on the caissons. The jetty structures would be equipped with marine fenders and mooring bollards to safely berth a range of barge sizes, and a floating ramp system would be installed at the corner of the jetty to facilitate handling roll-on-roll off (ro-ro) barges where a forklift or truck can carry the cargo onto the dock and onto shore.
To prepare for caisson placement, the basin footprint under the caissons would be excavated and leveled to a depth of approximately 5 ft below the dredged basin or seabed using a barge mounted excavator. The approximately 58 ft high caissons would then be floated into place using a tug for guidance at high tide and seated on the leveled seabed on the falling tide or slowly lowered by pumping water into the caisson. Once placed, the caissons would be filled with coarse material from the dredging and additional quarried material of a size that would achieve proper compaction when filled to avoid settlement over time. The additional fill material would be sourced from onshore material sites. The construction sequence would have a narrow channel dredged to the jetty location for movement of the caissons, which would be followed by the completion of the dredged turning basin, and the balance of the access channel.
Pebble Project | Page 258 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Draft requirements for the concentrate and supply barges and tugs used during construction and operations are 15 ft. The dredged depth for the access channel and turning basin is 18 ft below mean lower low water to provide access to the jetty under all tidal conditions. This allows an additional 3 ft to accommodate for accumulated sedimentation between forecast maintenance dredging (estimated at 20 in. over 5 years) and over depth excavation. The channel would be approximately 2.9 mi in length and 300 ft wide (3 times the maximum expected barge width), while the turning basin would incorporate an area of approximately 1,100 ft by 800 ft. The total volume of dredged material for the initial dredging is estimated at 1,100,000 yd3. Maintenance dredging is expected to total 700,000 yd3 over twenty years (four times).
Handysize bulk carriers would be secured at a mooring point located in Iniskin Bay, which would include a spread mooring system using floating points attached to gravity anchors in approximately 45 ft deep water. Bulk concentrate would be transported in 6,000 tonne covered barges from the marine facility to the waiting ships which would be loaded with transshipment operations where wheel loaders on the barges would feed a reclaim conveyor and ship loading system on each barge. The conveyor discharge would include a telescoping spout to minimize dust as concentrate is loaded into the ship’s hold. Depending on the size of the shipment, about five to six trips by the barges would be required to load a bulk carrier, which would be anchored for three to four days at the lightering location.
Approximately 27 Handysize bulk carrier vessels would be required annually to transport concentrate to offshore markets. In addition to the outbound concentrate movement, up to 33 barge loads of supplies and consumables would be required annually to service the mine, as well as fuel barges delivering diesel every quarter. The marine facility operations would be subject to periodic ice build-up in the winter months, but two ice-breaking tugboats would be used to support year-round availability.
18.9.2 Onshore Terminal Facilities
Separate onshore terminal facilities would include concentrate filtration and storage, a pumping station for the water return pipeline, facilities to receive and store containers and fuel, as well as natural gas powered generators, maintenance facilities, employee accommodations, and offices. A schematic showing the proposed onshore facilities is provided in Figure 18-8.
Figure 18-8: Schematic Rendering of the Onshore Facilities
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2020.
Pebble Project | Page 259 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Specific features of the onshore facility include the following:
· | a concentrate slurry pipeline termination system including choke station, buffer tank, clarifier tank, filtration plant, and return water line pumping system; |
|
|
· | a concentrate conveyor system from the filter plant to move product into an “A-frame” storage shed with 50,000 tonnes of capacity; |
|
|
· | reclaim system from the concentrate storage shed including a fully enclosed “pipe conveyor” to transfer cargo to the barge loader at the marine facility; |
|
|
· | an open area material laydown yard for equipment and container storage for about 2,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU); |
|
|
· | a fuel storage depot with four 1,325,000 USG vertical storage tanks providing 5.3 million USG capacity; |
· | a truck shop combined with an emergency vehicle building (ambulance, fire truck); |
|
|
· | two 2 MW natural gas fired generators (plus backups) with heat recovery system plus and emergency diesel generator; |
|
|
· | an administration building with permanent camp facilities for local site employees; |
|
|
· | warehouse and cold storage buildings; |
|
|
· | domestic water storage and treatment facilities; |
|
|
· | refrigerated container storage racks; and |
|
|
· | a spill response container complete with spill response booms, pads etc. |
The alignment interval from the marine terminal to Williamsport (MP 3) is considered the coastal portion of the mine access road route. This section is along the west side of Iliamna Bay at the toe of the mountain slopes and partially within the intertidal zone. Mass rock excavation is required, as is placement of rock fill with associated armor rock protection in the intertidal zone.
18.9.3 Fuel Supply
Diesel fuel to support the mining operation and logistics systems would be imported to the Diamond Point terminal using marine barges and pumped to the 5.3 million USG capacity onshore storage facility. The expected maximum parcel size for delivery is 4 million USG, which would allow for one month of buffer for variations in barge arrivals in winter months.
Diesel fuel would be transferred from Diamond Point to the mine site using ISO tank container units, which have a capacity of 6,350 USG. These units would be loaded at the port and transported by truck to the mine site. Additional containers would be stored at the mine site to provide for a fuel reserve in the event of a supply disruption.
The main mine site fuel storage area would contain fuel tanks in a dual-lined and bermed area designed to meet regulatory requirements. Sump and truck pump out facilities would be installed to handle any spills. There would also be pump systems for delivering fuel to the rest of the mine site. Dispensing lines would have automatic shutoff devices, and spill response supplies would be stored and maintained on site wherever fuel would be dispensed.
Fuel would be dispensed to a pump house located in a fuel storage area for fueling light vehicles. It would also be dispensed to the fuel tanks in the truck shop complex, which are used for fueling of heavy mining equipment. These tanks would also be in a lined secondary containment area.
Pebble Project | Page 260 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
19.1 Introduction
The Project would produce copper-gold and molybdenum flotation concentrates and a precious metals gravity concentrate. The copper-gold concentrate would be transported via buried pipeline from the mine site to the marine terminal where it would be filtered, loaded onto the lightering barges, and then unloaded directly into the holds of Handysize bulk carriers for shipment to smelter customers in Asia and Europe. The molybdenum concentrate would be filtered at the mine site and placed in large sacks which are in turn placed in conventional shipping containers. The containers would be trucked to the port and shipped to refineries located outside Alaska. Other economically valuable minerals (gold, silver and palladium in the copper-gold concentrate and rhenium in the molybdenum concentrate) would be present and likely payable in the concentrates. The gravity concentrate would be treated in a manner similar to the molybdenum concentrate but shipped to precious metal specific refineries.
For the 2021 PEA, Northern Dynasty relied on published consensus long term pricing estimates and previous market analysis. The 2022 PEA utilized the same consensus long term pricing as was used in the 2021 PEA. A marketing plan and more precise terms of sale of the final products would be prepared during the next phase of study of the Pebble Project.
19.2 Metal Prices
The long-term metal prices used in the 2022 PEA economic analysis are shown in Table 19-1. These prices are consistent with current consensus forecasts, based on investigations by Northern Dynasty.
Table 19-1: Metal Prices
Metal Type | Unit | Long term Value ($) |
Copper | lb | 3.50 |
Gold | Oz | 1,600 |
Molybdenum | lb | 10 |
Silver | Oz | 22 |
Rhenium | kg | 1,500 |
Beginning in 2000, the copper market moved from an extended period of relatively stable prices to a period in which demand, particularly from China, resulted in copper prices moving well above the cost of production, peaking at about $4.71/lb in February 2011. Since that time, with the commodity boom led by Chinese growth over, global economic and political uncertainty has been a dominant theme and the copper price has fluctuated. Recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and global concerns over security of supply of minerals following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, led to a significant increase with the copper price breaching the $4.00/lb level in 2021 and reaching a record price of $5.02 in March 2022. However, economic concerns have since impacted the price and as of October 6, 2022, the spot copper price was approximately $3.49/lb. A recent consensus published by a major bank shows the median of the estimates of the long-term copper price to be $3.50/lb and average of $3.62/lb.
Pebble Project | Page 261 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The gold price rose from a range of $300 to $400/oz experienced in the 1990s and the first years of the 21st century to an average of $1,675/oz in 2012. With the global economic uncertainty due to COVID-19, gold prices rose to a record of $2,075/oz in March 2022. Since then a number of factors, including a strengthening U.S. dollar, have led to a decline, with the spot price on October 6, 2022 at approximately $1,713/oz. The recent analyst consensus for the long-term gold prices has a median of $1,650/oz and average of $1,648/oz.
Silver price trends have generally followed gold, given its similar use as a store of value, providing investors a hedge against inflation amid the current economic uncertainty. On October 6, 2022, the spot silver price was approximately $21/oz. The recent analyst consensus is for a long-term silver price with a median of $21.50/oz and an average of $21.39/oz.
Historically, the molybdenum price has averaged about $5.50/lb over the 25-year period leading up to the early years of the last decade. This average reflects the majority of years when molybdenum was at a lower price, with the average brought up by substantial spikes related to strikes or cuts of by-product production coupled with specific growth in molybdenum demand. In most years during this period, a floor price was established at the production cost of the highest cost primary producer; however, in the mid part of the last decade, the molybdenum price surged. Molybdenum prices peaked around $32/lb but have since dropped and, in 2021, averaged about $12/lb. At this price, it would seem that Chinese primary producers are operating at or below cost, establishing a floor price at a level of around $12/lb. On October 6, 2022, the spot molybdenum price was approximately $18.22/lb. Recent analyst consensus shows the median for the long-term molybdenum price to be $10.80/lb and an average of $10.71/lb.
Most rhenium is produced as a by-product of refining molybdenum concentrates. The primary uses are in superalloys for turbine engine components and as a catalyst in oil reforming for the production of high-octane hydrocarbons, important for lead-free gasoline. There are a range of other uses. Rhenium prices have shown a 10 year decrease (USGS, 2022). The rhenium price on October 5, 2022 was $1531/kg.
19.3 Smelter Terms
The assumed smelter/refinery terms in the 2022 PEA are shown in Table 19-2.
For copper concentrate, ocean transportation costs are assumed to be $50.00/wet tonne and concentrate moisture content was assumed to be 8%. For molybdenum concentrate, ocean transportation costs are assumed to be $171.12/wet tonne and concentrate moisture content was assumed to be 5%.
Pebble Project | Page 262 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 19-2: Smelter and Refinery Terms
Item | Units | Value | |
Metal Payable | Copper in Copper concentrate | % | 96.15 |
Gold in Copper concentrate | % | 97.00 | |
Silver in Copper concentrate | % | 90.00 | |
Molybdenum in Molybdenum concentrate | % | 100 | |
Marketing | Copper Concentrate Losses | % | 0.15 |
Molybdenum Concentrate Losses | % | 0.10 | |
Insurance | % of value | 0.15 | |
Representation | $/wet tonne of concentrate | 2.50 | |
Treatment Smelting and Refining Terms | Treatment of Cu concentrate | US$/dry tonne of concentrate | 70 |
Refining of Cu in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable lb | 0.07 | |
Refining of Au in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable oz | 7.00 | |
Refining of Ag in Cu Concentrate | US$/payable oz | 0.60 | |
Refining of Au/Ag Doré | US$/payable oz | 1.00 | |
Roasting of Mo in Mo Concentrate | US$/payable lb | 3.00 |
Copper is one of the most widely-used metals on the planet. China, Europe and the USA are the main global consumers of copper. The tight copper market continued through 2021 and into 2022 due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, interest rate hikes intended to slow inflation and the expectation of a recession in 2023 have impacted the market. In the longer term, the outlook for copper is very bullish. In July 2022, S&P Global published a report on the future of copper in which they forecast copper consumption would have to double by 2035 to achieve the aspirational goals of Net Zero by 2050. This view has been echoed by many other market analysts.
The copper concentrate market has seen significant structural imbalances in the recent past between a shortage in mine concentrate production and excesses in smelting capacity. Since 2000, there has been a significant expansion of smelting and refining capacity, particularly in China and India, resulting in benchmark treatment and refining levels being sub-economic, benefiting the miners. With increased smelter and refinery operating costs and copper concentrate surplus forecast in the near term from mine production, smelter terms moved upwards from the 2019 benchmark levels of $63.50/dmt and $6.35/lb to $70/dmt and $0.07/lb for 2021.
Smelter terms for copper are 96.15% payable with a minimum deduction of 1 unit (amount deducted has to equate to a minimum of 1% of the agreed concentrate copper assay). As the Pebble Project is expected to have an average copper concentrate grade of 26%, the 1 unit threshold should apply and has been assumed in the financial evaluation.
Payable gold and silver in the copper concentrate would depend on the ultimate smelter location. In Japan, Korea and India, for the Pebble Project’s expected concentrate specifications of 20 g/dmt for gold and 102 g/dmt for silver, gold is expected to be 97% payable and silver 90% payable. There is some variance in terms between Asia and Europe.
It is unlikely that any materially significant penalties would be applicable for the Pebble copper concentrate, particularly given the projected production volume.
Pebble Project | Page 263 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Molybdenum concentrates are generally sold at a percentage discount to the quoted price. This would depend on supply and demand fundamentals as well as on the quality of the particular concentrate. Discounts, for standard quality molybdenum concentrates, which normally capture all offsite costs, would typically range between 10-13% depending on grade and impurity levels with 12% assumed as an average. In addition, there has been a trend towards minimum and maximum dollar levels to be applied to the percentage deduction. The molybdenum deduction and discount are included in the $3/lb of payable molybdenum treatment charge.
The molybdenum concentrate is expected to contain approximately 1.8% Cu and significant rhenium, estimated at 861 ppm. Rhenium is included in the resource estimate, and therefore is estimated in the production forecast and used in the financial model. Not all of the major custom roasting operations can effectively recover rhenium, and thus it is likely that the rhenium content would be subject to a deduction.
Rhenium is one of the rarest elements present on earth. The occurrence of rhenium is mostly as a substitute for molybdenum in molybdenite and rarely occurs in native form or as its own mineral. Most of the rhenium is produced from porphyry copper-molybdenum-gold deposits across the world. The price of rhenium has decreased consistently for the last 9 years. Due to the low metal prices and low demand for rhenium during the global COVID-19 pandemic, many primary producers of rhenium are now focusing on secondary products. Based on USGS data, the price of the metal has decreased from approximately $4,500/kg in 2011 to $2,000/kg in 2016 to $1,000/kg in 2020. The rhenium value has been based on smelter terms of 90% payable with no treatment or refining charges.
The copper content in the molybdenum concentrate is subject to a penalty that is normally applied on a dollar scale, depending on the level. In theory, for example, at the indicated copper grade in the molybdenum concentrates, about one dollar in penalties would be added over and above the other charges. Therefore, if Northern Dynasty was able to sell molybdenum concentrate with a projected copper content of 1.8%, it should expect a discount of at least 5% greater, or up to 17% of the molybdenum price. In practice, at these levels of copper in molybdenum, the high probability is that the concentrate would have to be leached to reduce the content to around 0.45% with such a level of copper or less.
19.4 Concentrate Logistics
The average annual copper-gold concentrate output is estimated to be 559,000 tonnes (dry concentrate). Figure 19-1 illustrates the estimated copper concentrate output over the 20-year Project life.
Pebble Project | Page 264 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 19-1: Copper Concentrate Production
Note: Figure prepared by NDM, 2022.
The copper concentrate preliminary market distribution is anticipated to be:
· | China (50%); |
|
|
· | Japan (20%); |
|
|
· | Korea (5%); |
|
|
· | India (20%); and |
|
|
· | Europe (5%). |
The average annual molybdenum concentration production (dry concentrate) is estimated at 14,000 tonnes. Figure 19-2 illustrates the estimated molybdenum concentrate output over the Project life. The molybdenum concentrate would be loaded in 1 ton bags and loaded into containers which would be transported via truck to the marine terminal. Containers would be shipped via ocean barge to Seattle, WA, and then loaded onto container vessels with regular service to Asia.
Pebble Project | Page 265 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 19-2: Molybdenum Concentrate Production
Note: Figure prepared by NDM, 2022.
19.5 Contracts
19.5.1 Existing Contracts
No contracts for transportation or off-take of the concentrates are currently in place, but if and when they are negotiated, they are expected to be within norms for Alaska. Similarly, there are no contracts currently in place for supply of reagents, utilities, or other bulk commodities required to construct and operate the Project.
19.5.2 Royalties
The Pebble Partnership has signed a Royalty Agreement, whereby the Royalty Holder has the right to receive a portion of the future gold and silver production from the proposed Pebble Project for the life of the mine. The right can be exercised through five tranches, with each tranche providing the Royalty Holder with the right to 2% of the gold production and 6% of the silver production after accounting for notional payments of $1,500 per ounce of gold and $10 per ounce for silver. The Pebble Partnership will also retain a portion of the gold and silver when spot prices exceed $4,000 per ounce of gold and $50 per ounce of silver and when recovery rates exceed 60% for gold and 65% for silver. To date, the Royalty Holder has purchased the first tranche.
Pebble Project | Page 266 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
20.1 Project Setting
20.1.1 Jurisdictional Setting
The Pebble Project is located in Alaska, a State with a constitution that encourages resource development and a citizenry that broadly supports such development. Alaska has a strong tradition of mineral development and hard-rock mining. The Pebble deposit is located on State land that has been specifically designated for mineral exploration and development. The Project area has been the subject of two comprehensive land-use planning exercises conducted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR); the first in the 1980s and the second completed in 2005 and subsequently revised in 2013. ADNR identified five land parcels (including Pebble) within the Bristol Bay planning area as having “significant mineral potential,” and where the planning intent is to accommodate mineral exploration and development. These parcels total 2.7% of the total planning area (ADNR, 2013).
20.1.2 Environmental and Social Setting
The surface elevation over the deposit ranges from approximately 800 to 1,200 ft amsl, although mountains in the region reach 3,000 to 4,000 ft amsl. Vegetation generally consists of wetland and scrub communities with some coniferous and deciduous forested areas that become more common eastward toward the Aleutian Range.
The deposit area lies at a drainage divide between the Nushagak River and Kvichak River systems (Figure 20-1). The Nushagak River system drains to Bristol Bay at Dillingham, 220 river miles southwest of the deposit area. The Kvichak River system covers drains into Bristol Bay via the Kvichak River 140 river/lake miles to the southwest.
In the deposit area, the tributaries of the Nushagak River in the deposit area are the NFK, SFK, while the tributary of the Kvichak River is the UTC. The deposit area is within the uppermost reaches of these streams and their flow is small within the project footprint. Approximately 17 mi from the deposit area, the NFK and SFK streams merge to form the main Koktuli River. The Koktuli River is a tributary to the lower Mulchatna River, which drains Figure 20-1 via the lower Nushagak River to Bristol Bay at Dillingham. The UTC flows into Iliamna Lake, which in turn drains into Bristol Bay via the Kvichak River (Figure 20-1).
Pebble Project | Page 267 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 20-1: Bristol Bay Watersheds
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021
The Kvichak and Nushagak River systems are two of nine major systems that drain to Bristol Bay and support important Pacific salmon runs, most notably sockeye salmon (Jones et al., 2013). The Kvichak and Nushagak Watersheds total 22,965 mi2, of which the NFK, SFK and UTC Watersheds comprise only 355 mi2, or approximately 0.8% of the total Bristol Bay Watershed of 45,246 mi2 (USGS, 2013). Government data indicate that, over the past decades, the combined Kvichak and Nushagak river systems have contributed about 20 to 30% of total Bristol Bay sockeye salmon escapement. In 2019, these systems accounted for 23% of sockeye returns (ADFG, 2020). Thus, some 70 to 80% of Bristol Bay sockeye production is hydrologically isolated from any potential effects of the Pebble Project.
Based on field studies conducted by the Pebble Partnership over 10 years, along with other government studies, e.g., ADFG, (2009), independent consultants estimated the NFK, SFK and UTC Watersheds generally produce less than 0.5% of the total Bristol Bay sockeye run (harvest plus escapement). The NFK and SFK Watersheds, within which all major mine site infrastructure is located, produces less than 1/10th of 1% (or <0.1%) of all Bristol Bay sockeye.
Pebble Project | Page 268 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Wildlife using the deposit area includes various species of raptors and upland birds, brown bear, caribou and moose. Although no listed species are known to use the deposit area, several species listed under the Endangered Species Act—Steller’s eider, northern sea otter, Steller sea lion, humpback whale, and the Cook Inlet beluga whale—as well as harbour seals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are known to be present in Cook Inlet and some western Cook Inlet shoreline communities.
The deposit area and transportation corridor are isolated and sparsely populated. The Pebble deposit is located within the Lake and Peninsula Borough, which has a population of about 1,600 persons in 18 communities. The closest villages – Iliamna, Newhalen and Nondalton – lie approximately 17-19 miles from the deposit site. Pedro Bay, a small village 43 mi from the deposit, sits adjacent to the proposed transportation corridor. The population of Newhalen, the largest village, is about 215 full-time residents. A road connects the villages of Newhalen and Iliamna and extends to a proposed crossing of the Newhalen River just south of Nondalton. Otherwise, there are only local roads in the villages. Another road connects Williamsport on Iliamna Bay in Cook Inlet with Pile Bay at the east end of Iliamna Lake. Summer barges up the Kvichak River and on Iliamna Lake provide some freight service into the communities on Iliamna Lake. All of the communities are serviced by an airport or airstrip to provide year-round access. The airport serving Iliamna and Newhalen is a substantial facility that is available to a wide range of aircraft.
The total population within the Bristol Bay region is approximately 7,000. The largest population center of the region is Dillingham. It has a population size of about 2,300, or 30% of the region.
20.2 Baseline Studies – Existing Environment
Northern Dynasty began an extensive field study program in 2004 to characterize the existing physical, chemical, biological and social environments in the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas where the Pebble Project might occur. The Pebble Partnership compiled the data for the 2004 to 2008 study period into a multi-volume Environmental Baseline Document (EBD) (PLP, 2012). Supplemental environmental baseline reports (SEBD) incorporated data collected from the period 2009 to 2012. Additional monitoring data collected through 2019 was provided to USACE in support of the ongoing permitting process. These studies have been designed to:
· | fully characterize the existing biophysical and socioeconomic environment; |
|
|
· | support environmental analyses required for effective input into the Pebble Project design; |
|
|
· | provide a strong foundation for internal environmental and social impact assessment to support corporate decision-making; |
|
|
· | provide the information required for stakeholder consultation and mine permitting in Alaska; and |
|
|
· | establish a baseline for long- term monitoring to assess potential changes associated with future mine development |
Pebble Project | Page 269 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The baseline study program includes:
· | surface water hydrology; | · | wildlife; |
· | groundwater hydrology; | · | air quality; |
· | surface and groundwater quality; | · | cultural resources; |
· | geochemistry; | · | subsistence; |
· | snow surveys; | · | land use; |
· | fish and aquatic resources; | · | recreation |
· | noise; | · | socioeconomics; |
· | wetlands; | · | visual aesthetics; |
· | trace elements; | · | climate and meteorology; |
· | fish habitat – stream flow modelling; | · | Iliamna Lake |
· | marine; |
|
The following sections highlight key environmental topics; more detail is provided in the EBD, SEBD and the Project FEIS.
20.2.1 Climate and Meteorology
Meteorological monitoring data were collected from six meteorological stations located in the mine (Bristol Bay drainage) study area and three stations located in the Cook Inlet study area near Iliamna Bay (PLP, 2012). Meteorological monitoring in the area near the deposit occurs at an elevation between 800 to 2,300 ft amsl. Monitoring in the Cook Inlet study area occurs near sea level.
Data collected at all stations included wind speed and direction, wind direction standard deviation and air temperature. Collected data at stations where instrumentation has been installed include differential temperature, solar radiation, barometric pressure, relative humidity, precipitation and, in summer, evaporation. Meteorological monitoring was suspended at the Pebble 1 station in 2014, restarted in 2017, and the station shutdown and removed in 2022. A new monitoring station was installed near the then proposed Amakdedori marine terminal in 2017. The Amakdedori station was removed in 2022. Monitoring at the remaining stations was suspended in 2013 after sufficient baseline data was collected.
Mean monthly temperatures in the deposit area range from about 50.8°F in July to 11.4°F in January. The mean annual precipitation is estimated to be 54.6 in. per year, about one-third of which falls as snow. The wettest months are August through October.
20.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology and Quality
20.2.2.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The Bristol Bay drainage basin encompasses 45,246 mi2 in southwest Alaska. The map in Figure 20-2 shows the study area, which is principally defined as the 355 mi2 within the SFK, NFK and UTC drainages. The Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds constitute 51% of the Bristol Bay basin area (USGS 2013). The deposit location straddles the watershed boundary between the SFK and UTC and lies close to the headwaters of the NFK. The area studied near the deposit encompasses the drainages of these three watercourses as well as the headwaters of Kaskanak Creek (KC). While the deposit area and potential mine footprint does not affect the Kaskanak Creek headwaters, it was included in the study design to allow for comprehensive long term monitoring of mine operations.
Pebble Project | Page 270 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 20-2: Local Watershed Boundaries
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
Annual stream flow patterns in the mine study area are generally characterized by a bi-modal hydrograph with high flows in spring resulting from snowmelt and low flows in early to mid-summer resulting from dry conditions and depleting snowpacks. Frequent rainstorms in late summer and early autumn contribute to another high-flow period. The lowest flows occur in winter when most precipitation falls as snow and remains frozen until spring. Loss and gain of surface flow to groundwater plays a prominent role in the flow patterns of all study area creeks and rivers, causing some upstream sites to run dry seasonally while causing others to be dominated by baseflow due to gains.
During winter and summer low-flow periods, stream flows are primarily fed by groundwater discharge. Observed baseflows were higher during summers than winters due to snowmelt recharge of aquifers and intermittent rainstorms. Baseflows were lowest in late winter after several months without surface runoff. Low-flow conditions are also influenced by fluctuations in surface storage features such as lakes, ponds and wetlands; however, changes in surface storage are minimized during the late winter freeze.
Pebble Project | Page 271 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
20.2.2.2 Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality sampling within the study area occurred between 2004 and 2014 at numerous locations in the NFK, SFK, UTC and KC drainages. Stream samples were collected from 44 locations during 50 sampling events from April 2004 through December 2008. Lake and pond samples were collected from 19 lakes once or twice per year during 2006 and 2007. Seep samples were collected from 11 to 127 sample locations, depending on the year, two to five times per year. Altogether, over 1,000 samples were collected from streams, more than 600 samples from seeps, and approximately 50 samples from lakes.
Surface water in the study area is characterized by cool, clear waters with near-neutral pH that are well-oxygenated, low in alkalinity, and generally low in nutrients and other trace elements. Water types ranged from calcium-magnesium-sodium-bicarbonate to calcium-magnesium-sodium-sulphate. Water quality occasionally exceeded Alaska water quality criteria for trace elements such as copper and iron, likely due to mineralized rock in the area. Additionally, cyanide was present in detectable concentrations; there were consistently detectable concentrations of dissolved organic carbon; and no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or pesticides were found.
20.2.3 Groundwater Hydrology and Quality
20.2.3.1 Groundwater Hydrology
Beginning in 2004, Northern Dynasty established an extensive groundwater monitoring network across the study area. The Pebble Partnership expanded the monitoring network to refine the understanding of the groundwater flow regime; between 2004 and 2019 groundwater monitoring data were collected over variable periods of time at more than 500 monitoring locations.
The hydrostratigraphy of the Project area includes three main units: unconsolidated sediments, weathered bedrock, and competent bedrock. The unconsolidated sediments, deposited during multiple episodes of glaciation, have variable hydrogeologic properties ranging from highly permeable sands and gravels to very low permeability clays. The weathered bedrock unit, which outcrops along ridges and hilltops, tends to be more permeable than the underlying competent bedrock. No permafrost has been identified in the study area.
In 2019 six boreholes were drilled and instrumented to the northeast of the proposed open pit. The stratigraphy encountered in these holes was broadly similar, consisting of 90 to 100 ft of Quaternary glacial sediments overlying Tertiary conglomerate and Cretaceous granodiorite. Two 6 in. nominal diameter pumping wells were installed to target zones interpreted to be more permeable (i.e., weathered bedrock and Tertiary-Cretaceous contact). Monitoring wells were installed in the weathered bedrock and vibrating wire piezometers were installed in both bedrock units and unconsolidated sediments. Slug tests conducted in the two monitoring wells yielded hydraulic conductivity estimates for the weathered bedrock at this location ranging from the order of 10-3 to 10-5 ft/s.
In addition, a 72-hour pumping test was conducted in a previously installed pumping well in the bulk TSF SPC area. The pumping test was conducted at a rate of approximately 4 gpm, and drawdown was observed in the pumping well and at instruments located approximately 30 ft away. Hydraulic conductivity estimates from this test for the interpreted bedrock aquifer were on the order of 10-6 ft/s, comparable to values for weathered bedrock from previous studies at the site.
Pebble Project | Page 272 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Throughout the study area the water table mimics surface topography in a subdued fashion; it is generally located near or at ground surface in low-lying areas, and at greater depths near ridges and ridge tops. Flowing artesian conditions, where groundwater levels are above ground surface, are observed in some low-lying discharge areas. Groundwater elevations are typically observed to be lowest during the spring prior to snowmelt, and highest immediately following freshet and/or autumn rains. Groundwater-surface water interactions within the study area are complex due to the heterogeneous nature of the surficial geology and variable topography.
20.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater wells were located within the Pebble deposit resource area (10 wells at seven locations), and along the three surface water drainage basins identified as reflective of groundwater flow from the Pebble deposit resource area. Sample analysis shows high dissolved oxygen levels at most locations, with most median pH values ranging from 5.3 to 8.5. Sites with elevated trace metal concentrations were generally in the vicinity of the deposit. The EBD and SEBD compared the results of groundwater quality sampling with the most stringent benchmark water quality criteria derived from Title 18 of the Alaska Administrative Code, Chapter 75 (18AAC75), and Alaska Water Quality Criteria (ADEC, 2008).
20.2.4 Geochemical Characterization
Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership conducted a comprehensive geochemical characterization program to understand the ML and acid rock drainage (ARD) potential associated with the rock types present in the general deposit area within the Pebble Project study area. The ML/ARD study was designed to characterize the materials that could be produced from the mining and milling process at the Pebble deposit, including both waste rock and tailings material (PLP, 2012). Classification of acid generating potential is based on Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND, 1991) guidelines that classify rock as PAG, uncertain or non-PAG based on the neutralization potential ratio (NPR), defined as the neutralization potential (NP) divided by maximum potential acidity (MPA). Detailed characterization and classification of PAG and non-PAG materials enable engineers to design appropriate materials handling, sorting and storage strategies to ensure the long-term protection of water quality.
Acid-base accounting results indicate that the Tertiary units are dominantly non-PAG. Minor components of the Tertiary volcanic rocks (less than 1% based on testing) contain pyrite mineralization and have been found to be PAG and some generated acid in laboratory tests. The pre-Tertiary samples from the porphyry-mineralized rock from the deposit area have variable acid generation potential. Pre-Tertiary rock was found to be dominantly PAG due to elevated acid potential (AP) values resulting from increased sulphur concentrations and the low levels of carbonate minerals. In the pre-Tertiary samples, acidic conditions occur quickly in core with low NP. Field data suggest that the onset to acidic conditions is about 20 years, while laboratory kinetic tests show that the delay to the onset of acidic conditions is expected to be between a decade and several decades for PAG rock.
The majority of the overburden samples analyzed have been classified as non-PAG, with very low total sulphur content dominated by sulphide. For pre-Tertiary material, metal mobility tests identified copper as the main contaminant in the leachate. Subaqueous conditions also produced the dissolution of gypsum and iron carbonate, as well as arsenic leaching. Weathering of the mineralized pre-Tertiary material under oxidizing conditions produced an acidic leachate dominated by sulphate and calcium. Non-PAG tests indicated that the oxidation of pyrite resulted in low pH conditions, which increased metal mobility.
Pebble Project | Page 273 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
20.2.5 Wetlands
Section 404 of the CWA governs the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. USACE issues Section 404 permits with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Given the Pebble Project’s location and scope, the information required to support the Pebble Partnership’s Department of the Army permit application is significant. Accordingly, Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership conducted an extensive, multi-year wetlands study program at Pebble in both the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet drainages.
The study area is much larger than the deposit area. This entire study area has been mapped to determine the occurrence of wetlands and to characterize baseline conditions. Overall, water bodies, wetlands and transitional wetlands represent 9,826 acres, or 33.4%, of the study area. Of the 375 water features evaluated in the overall study area, 308 (82.1%) were classified as lakes or perennial ponds, the vast majority of which were open water. The remaining 67 water features (17.9%) were classified as seasonal ponds or the drawdown areas of perennial ponds, which were roughly evenly encountered as open water or partially vegetated/barren ground.
All wetlands delineation in the field for the transportation corridor has been completed.
20.2.6 Fish, Fish Habitat and Aquatic Invertebrates
Extensive aquatic habitat studies, initiated in 2004, were conducted from 2004 to 2013. Additional fish habitat studies were conducted on the NFK in 2018. They have varied in scope, study area and level of effort, as the information base has grown, and specific data needs have become more defined. The aquatic habitat study program encompassed the three main deposit area drainages (NFK, SFK and UTC) and the Koktuli River, and in and around Iliamna Lake. Completed studies include:
· | fish population and density estimates using various field methods (dip netting, electrofishing, snorkelling and aerial surveys); |
|
|
· | fish habitat studies (main-channel and off-channel transects and habitat preferences); |
|
|
· | fish habitats/assemblages above Frying Pan Lake; |
|
|
· | salmon escapement estimates; |
|
|
· | spring spawning counts and radio telemetry for rainbow trout; |
|
|
· | radio telemetry of arctic grayling to assess stream fidelity; |
|
|
· | overwintering studies for salmon, trout and grayling; |
|
|
· | Frying Pan Lake northern pike population estimate; |
|
|
· | geo-referenced video aquatic habitat mapping; |
|
|
· | intermittent flow reach, habitat and fish use; and |
|
|
· | fish tissue measurements for trace metals. |
Pebble Project | Page 274 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
20.2.6.1 Fish and Fish Habitat
20.2.6.1.1 Project Site
The deposit area is characterized by small headwater streams of poor-quality habitat and low fish density. Fish production is naturally limited by physical and chemical factors in these reaches, most notably intermittent flow with extreme low flow hydrology and oligotrophic conditions that constrain aquatic productivity. The lowest reaches of the three study area streams outside the deposit area have more stable hydrologic conditions and support numerous salmon and resident species.
The macro-invertebrate and periphyton studies near the Pebble deposit are part of the overall program of baseline investigations to describe the current aquatic conditions in the study area. Baseline information on macro-invertebrate and periphyton community assemblages is valued because the biota are essential components of the aquatic food web, and their community structure, particularly with respect to the more sensitive taxa, are an indicator of habitat and water quality.
The main objective of the macro-invertebrate and periphyton field and laboratory program was to characterize the diversity, abundance and density of macro-invertebrates and periphyton within freshwater habitats in the study area. Macro-invertebrates and periphyton were sampled in the study area in 2004, 2005 and 2007 as part of the environmental baseline studies for the Pebble Project. In 2004, 20 sites in the study area were sampled and of these, eight sites (five in the immediate vicinity of the deposit) were selected for continued sampling in 2005, and 10 were sampled in 2007.
20.2.6.1.2 Transportation Corridor
Data from the AWC and field observations by independent experts indicate that many, but not all, waters in the area support anadromous fish populations, including all five Pacific salmon species (Chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, and chum) plus rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char. Population densities vary based on stream size and morphology, which can restrict population sizes or limit access to upstream habitats.
20.2.7 Marine Habitats
20.2.7.1 Marine Nearshore Habitats
The nearshore marine habitat study area focused on areas in the lower Cook Inlet region. The western shorelines from Kameshak Bay north to Knoll Head are composed of a diversity of habitats, including steep rocky cliffs, cobble or pebble beaches and extensive sand/mud flats. Eelgrass is found at a number of locations and habitats; eelgrass, along with macro-algae, is an important substrate for spawning Pacific herring. Overall, the habitats in the study area provide a wide range of habitat types, resulting in a wide range of biological assemblages.
Data collected in Iliamna and Iniskin Bays in 2010 and 2011 indicate that Pacific herring are the predominant species present in the nearshore environment, primarily in Iniskin Bay. Chum and pink salmon are the predominant salmonids found in the bays, with smaller populations of coho and sockeye also present.
Pebble Project | Page 275 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
20.2.7.2 Marine Benthos
The littoral and subtidal habitats in lower Cook Inlet support diverse communities of marine and anadromous species of ecological and economic importance. The marine benthos study’s intent was to characterize benthic assemblages in marine habitats in the lower Cook Inlet region.
The marine investigations were undertaken over a five-year period from 2004 to 2008, and included several habitat sampling events, mostly in mid to late summer. Each intertidal habitat type provides feeding areas for different pelagic and demersal fish and invertebrates that forage over the intertidal zone during high tides. The estuarine and nearshore rearing habitats of juvenile salmonids are an important component of the intertidal zone, especially for pink and chum salmon that out-migrate from streams along the shoreline and elsewhere in Cook Inlet. Another important component of the intertidal zone is the substrate used for spawning by Pacific herring.
20.2.7.3 Nearshore Fish and Invertebrates
The study of nearshore fish and macroinvertebrates has been undertaken to collect baseline data on the abundance, distribution and seasonality of major aquatic species on the western side of Cook Inlet (PLP, 2012). Principal marine investigations were undertaken between 2004 and 2008. Additional herring spawn surveys were conducted in 2018. The study area is a complex marine ecosystem with numerous fish and macro-invertebrate species that use the area for juvenile rearing, refuge, adult residence, migration, foraging, staging and reproduction.
The study area also functions as a rearing area for juvenile Pacific herring. Herring was the dominant fish species, and young-of-the-year and one-year-olds were the dominant life stages found from March through November in the several sampling years, with peak occurrences noted during the summer (PLP, 2012).
The nearshore area is also a rearing area for juvenile salmon, which, as a group, were second to herring in abundance. Juvenile pink and chum salmon were the most abundant salmonid species and showed a typical spring and summer outmigration as young-of-the-year fish. Juvenile chum displayed a short outmigration period during May and June, while juvenile pink salmon remained in the area into August. Both species were largely gone by September.
20.3 Potential Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation Measures
The application of sound engineering, environmental planning and best management practices, including compliance with existing U.S. federal and State environmental laws, regulations and guidelines, will help ensure that all of the environmental issues associated with the development and operation of the Pebble Project can be effectively addressed and managed.
The major environmental pathways include air, water and terrestrial resources. During the preliminary stages of the Pebble Project, Northern Dynasty identified key environmental issues and design drivers that have formed the basis of baseline data collection, environmental and social analysis and continuing stakeholder consultations influencing the Pebble Project design. The effects assessment has confirmed these as important issues and design drivers and has identified mitigation measures for each. The key mitigation strategies for these drivers include:
· | Water: development of a water management plan that maximizes the collection and diversion of groundwater, snowmelt and direct precipitation away from the mine site. |
|
|
· | Wetlands: development of a project design and site selection which focussed on avoiding wetlands where possible and minimizing impacts where avoidance was not possible. |
Pebble Project | Page 276 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Aquatic habitats: development of a water management plan and habitat mitigation measures that includes strategies to effectively manage the release of treated water in compliance with anticipated regulatory requirements to maintain downstream flows and to maximize downstream fish habitat and aquatic environments. |
|
|
· | Air quality: implementation of air emissions and dust suppression strategies. |
|
|
· | Marine environment: minimize the port facility’s footprint in the intertidal zone, particularly in soft sediment intertidal areas. |
Direct integration of these and other appropriate measures into the Pebble Project design and operational strategies are expected to effectively mitigate possible environmental effects and minimize residual environmental effects associated with the construction, operation and eventual closure of any proposed mine at the Pebble Project.
20.4 Economy and Social Conditions
The Alaska economy is dependent on natural resources for both employment and government revenue. Oil and natural gas, mining, transportation, forestry, fishing and seafood processing, as well as tourism, represent a significant proportion of the overall private sector economy, with oil and gas contributing a significant majority of State government revenues on an annual basis.
Of the approximately 733,000 people living in Alaska on a full-time basis, more than half live in the greater Anchorage area. Approximately 15% of Alaska’s population is of Native ancestry.
The Pebble deposit is located in southwest Alaska’s Lake and Peninsula Borough, home to an estimated 1,500 people in 18 local villages. At more 30,000 mi2, the Lake and Peninsula Borough is among the least densely populated boroughs or counties in the country. There are no roads into the borough, and few roads within it, contributing to an extremely high cost of living and limited job and other economic opportunities for local residents.
The communities in closest proximity to Pebble are Nondalton, Iliamna, and Newhalen. Pedro Bay lies on the northern shore of Iliamna Lake, approximately 43 miles east of Iliamna and adjacent to the proposed transportation corridor. Igiugig and Kokhanok are the other two villages located on Iliamna Lake. While the Pebble Partnership has generated employment for residents of villages through the Lake and Peninsula Borough and broader Bristol Bay region over the past 15 years, those communities surrounding Iliamna Lake have provided the greatest proportion of the local workforce.
With Project infrastructure planned to connect the proposed mine site to the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen and Pedro Bay, these and other communities are expected to continue to be important sources of Project labour in future.
The Bristol Bay Borough is the only other organized borough in the Bristol Bay region, with about 844 full-time residents in three villages. A significant portion of the Bristol Bay region is not contained within an organized borough; the Dillingham Census Area comprises 11 different communities. About 7,000 people call the Bristol Bay region home, with the largest population center in Dillingham.
Most Bristol Bay villages have fewer than 150 - 200 full-time residents. A majority of the population is of Alaska Native descent and Yup’ik or Dena’ina heritage. Virtually all the region’s residents participate to some degree in subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering activities. Subsistence is considered to be central to Alaska Native culture and provides an important food source for local residents.
Pebble Project | Page 277 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
There are 13 incorporated first and second class cities in the Bristol Bay region and 31 tribal entities as recognized by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are also 24 Alaska Native Village Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, three of which – Alaska Peninsula Corporation, Iliamna Natives Limited, and Pedro Bay Corporation – hold surface rights for significant areas of land near the Pebble Project and along its proposed transportation infrastructure corridor. Separate Native Village Corporations are also centered in Igiugig (Igiugig Native Corporation) and Nondalton (Kijik Corporation).
The private sector economy of the Bristol Bay region is dominated by commercial salmon fishing. Although the resource upon which the industry is based remains healthy, the economics of the fishery have declined significantly over the past several decades due to the rise of global salmon aquaculture and various domestic policy and market factors. Ex-vessel prices for sockeye salmon, the dominant species in the Bristol Bay fishery, have fallen from an inflation-adjusted peak of $3.75/lb in 1988 to a 10-year average of just under $1.00/lb in the 1990s and $0.60/lb in the 2000s. In recent years, ex-vessel prices have exceeded $1.00/lb; the 2020 price was approximately $1.04/lb.
As a result of these declines, the percentage of Bristol Bay fishing licenses and related employment held by residents of the region has fallen precipitously, as has the region’s overall economic health. Bristol Bay’s economy today is characterized by a high proportion of non-resident labour and business ownership. Key private-sector industries are highly seasonal, such that unemployment among year-round residents is particularly high.
Bristol Bay communities also face among the highest costs of living in the US, due to the requirement to fly in many of the goods and commodities required for daily life, including fuel for heating homes and operating vehicles. Energy costs, in particular, are a significant deterrent to economic development.
As a result of a lack of jobs and economic opportunity in the region, Bristol Bay communities are slowly losing population as residents seek opportunities in other parts of the State. For example, between 2000 and 2010 the population of the Lake and Peninsula Borough declined 17% between 2000 and 2010, while the Bristol Bay Borough lost more than 23% of its population. These population outflows have continued through the most recent census period (2010-2020), with population losses of 9.5% in the Lake and Peninsula Borough and 15% in the Bristol Bay Borough. In several communities, schools have closed or are threatened with closure as a result of diminishing enrolment.
A subsistence lifestyle is practiced by the vast majority of residents of Bristol Bay communities, including fishing for salmon and other species, hunting of terrestrial mammals and birds, and gathering berries. Salmon, in particular, are considered a critically important resource for the region, from a cultural, economic and environmental perspective.
20.5 Community Consultation and Stakeholder Relations
Pebble Project technical programs are supported by stakeholder engagement activities in Alaska. The objective of stakeholder outreach programs undertaken by the Pebble Partnership are to:
· | advise residents of nearby communities and other regional interests about Pebble work programs and other activities being undertaken in the field; |
|
|
· | provide information about the proposed development plan for the Pebble Project, including potential environmental, social and operational effects, proposed mitigation and environmental safeguards; |
|
|
· | allow the Pebble Partnership to better understand and address stakeholder priorities and concerns with respect to development of the Pebble Project; |
Pebble Project | Page 278 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | encourage stakeholder and public participation in the USACE-led EIS permitting process for Pebble; and |
|
|
· | facilitate economic and other opportunities associated with advancement and development of the Pebble Project for local residents, communities and companies. |
In addition to meeting with stakeholder groups and individuals, and providing project briefings in communities throughout Bristol Bay and the State of Alaska, the Pebble Partnership’s outreach and engagement program includes:
· | workforce and business development initiatives intended to enhance economic opportunities for regional residents and Alaska Native corporations; |
|
|
· | initiatives to develop partnerships with Alaska Native corporations, commercial fishing interests and other in-region groups and individuals; |
|
|
· | outreach to elected officials and political staff at the national, State and local levels; and |
|
|
· | outreach to third-party organizations and special interest groups with an interest in the Pebble Project, including business organizations, community groups, outdoor recreation interests, Alaska Native entities, commercial and sport fishery interests, conservation organizations, among others. |
Through these various stakeholder initiatives, the Pebble Partnership seeks to advance a science-based project design that is responsive to stakeholder priorities and concerns, provides meaningful benefits and opportunities to local residents, businesses and Alaska Native corporations, and energizes the economy of Southwest Alaska.
20.6 Permitting
On December 22, 2017, the Pebble Partnership submitted a Department of the Army permit application to USACE for authorization to discharge fill material and conduct work in navigable waters, which requires approval under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the RHA. USACE confirmed that the permit application was complete on January 8, 2018 and an EIS was required to comply with its NEPA review of the Pebble Project. As the lead federal agency for the EIS, USACE identified other federal actions that would be required for the project and invited those agencies to participate in the EIS process. Other Federal, State, tribal, and local entities with jurisdiction or special expertise were also invited to participate as cooperating agencies to assist with EIS development. The NEPA EIS process included a comprehensive alternatives assessment that considered a broad range of development alternatives. The scoping phase of the EIS commenced on April 1, 2018, including 90 days for public comment. USACE issued the scoping report on August 31, 2018. The report outlined the numerous environmental, social, and cultural issues that would be carried forward for analysis in the EIS. In addition, the report identified a range of development alternatives that would be considered in addition to the initial proposal by the Pebble Partnership. The Project design and operating parameters for the Pebble Project and associated infrastructure described as follows are derived from Project Description submitted in June 2020 with the Revised Permit Application. This Project Description is the basis for USACE’s LEDPA determination and is attached to the FEIS published by USACE in July 2020.
The draft EIS was published on February 20, 2019. USACE initiated a public comment period, which included public hearings in affected communities and in Anchorage and was completed on July 2, 2019. More than 300,000 comments were received by USACE and were considered in the preparation of the FEIS. A preliminary FEIS was provided to cooperating agencies in February 2020.
Pebble Project | Page 279 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
On March 17, 2020, USACE informed the Pebble Partnership that its draft LEDPA would be the option which used a transportation route north of Iliamna Lake, versus the Pebble Partnership’s proposed project of a ferry crossing of Iliamna Lake to a port southeast of the lake. After consideration, the Pebble Partnership changed its proposed project to the LEDPA. The revised proposal eliminated the ferry crossing of Iliamna Lake and replaced it with an 82-mile road, concentrate pipeline, and water return pipeline paralleling the north shore of Iliamna Lake to a new marine terminal in Iliamna Bay. The alignment of the natural gas pipeline was also revised to come ashore at the proposed marine terminal and to follow the revised road route. These revisions required collection of additional environmental and engineering data. The revised Project Description was submitted to USACE on June 8, 2020 as part of it Revised Permit Application.
The Pebble Partnership was actively engaged with USACE through the permitting process, including numerous meetings regarding, among other things, compensatory mitigation. The Pebble Partnership submitted several draft compensatory mitigation plans (CMPs) to USACE, each refined to address comments from USACE and that the Pebble Partnership believed were consistent with mitigation proposed and approved for other major development projects in Alaska.
In late June 2020, USACE verbally identified a preliminary finding of significant degradation of certain aquatic resources, with the requirement of new compensatory mitigation. The Pebble Partnership understood from these discussions that the new compensatory mitigation plan for the Pebble Project would include in-kind, in-watershed mitigation and continued its work to meet these new USACE requirements.
The FEIS was published on July 24, 2020. The document was viewed by the Pebble Partnership as favourable in that it found impacts to fish and wildlife would not be expected to affect subsistence harvest levels, there would be no measurable change to the commercial fishing industry including prices, and a number of positive socioeconomic impacts on local communities.
USACE formally advised the Pebble Partnership by letter dated August 20, 2020 that it had made preliminary factual determinations under Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA that the Pebble Project as proposed would result in significant degradation to aquatic resources. In connection with this preliminary finding of significant degradation, USACE formally informed the Pebble Partnership that in-kind compensatory mitigation within the Koktuli River Watershed would be required to compensate for all direct and indirect impacts caused by discharges into aquatic resources at the mine site. USACE requested the submission of a new CMP to address this finding within 90 days of its letter.
In response, the Pebble Partnership developed a CMP to align with the requirements outlined by USACE. This plan envisioned creation of a 112,445-acre Koktuli Conservation Area on land belonging to the State of Alaska in the Koktuli River Watershed downstream of the Pebble Project. The objective of the preservation of the Koktuli Conservation Area was to allow the long-term protection of a large and contiguous ecosystem that contains valuable aquatic and upland habitats. If adopted, the Koktuli Conservation Area would preserve 31,026 acres of aquatic resources within the Koktuli River Watershed, which has been designated as an aquatic resource of national importance. The proposed conservation area was selected to protect and preserve physical, chemical, and biological functions found to be important during the project review. Preservation of the Koktuli Conservation Area was designed to minimize the threat to, and prevent the decline of, aquatic resources in the Koktuli River Watershed resulting from potential future actions, with the objective of ensuring the sustainability of fish and wildlife species that depend on these aquatic resources, while protecting the subsistence lifestyle of the residents of Bristol Bay and commercial and recreational sport fisheries. The revised CMP was submitted to USACE on November 4, 2020.
On November 25, 2020, USACE issued a ROD rejecting Pebble Partnership’s permit application. USACE determined the CMP to be “non-compliant” and the Project would cause “Significant Degradation” and be contrary to the public interest.
The Pebble Partnership submitted its request for appeal of the ROD on January 19, 2021. The request for appeal reflects the Pebble Partnership’s position that USACE's ROD and permitting decision, including its significant degradation finding, its public interest review findings, and its rejection of Pebble's CMP, are contrary to law, unprecedented in Alaska, and unsupported by the administrative record, in particular the Pebble Project FEIS. The specific reasons for appeal asserted by the Pebble Partnership include: (i) the finding of “Significant Degradation” by USACE is contrary to law and unsupported by the record; (ii) USACE’s rejection of the CMP is contrary to USACE regulations and guidance, including the failure to provide the Pebble Partnership with an opportunity to correct the alleged deficiencies; and, (iii) the determination by USACE that the Pebble Project is not in the public interest is contrary to law and unsupported by the public record.
Pebble Project | Page 280 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In a letter dated February 24, 2021, USACE confirmed the Pebble Partnership’s RFA is "complete and meets the criteria for appeal." USACE has appointed a Review Officer to oversee the administrative appeal process. The appeal process will now move to consideration by USACE of the merits of the appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by USACE based on the administrative record and any clarifying information provided, and the Pebble Partnership will be provided with a written decision on the merits of the appeal at the conclusion of the process. The appeal is governed by the policies and procedures of USACE administrative appeal regulations. While Federal guidelines suggest that an appeal should be completed within a year, the Pebble appeal has now been active for approximately 18 months. An appeal conference was held in July 2022. The timing for the final decision on the appeal remains uncertain.
In addition to USACE permits, the Project will require Federal permits from the US Coast Guard and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, as well as authorizations from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Several other federal approvals will also be required. There is no certainty that these federal permits and authorizations will be granted.
Numerous environmental permits and plans will also be required by various State and local agencies. The Pebble Partnership will work with applicable permitting agencies and the State of Alaska’s large mine permitting team to provide complete permit applications in an orderly manner. There is no certainty that these Federal permits and authorizations will be granted.
On September 9, 2021, the EPA announced they planned to reinitiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay, which would set aside the 2019 withdrawal of that action that was based on a 2017 settlement agreement between the EPA and Pebble Partnership. On May 25, 2022, the EPA issued its draft Proposed Determination (PD) for public comment. The public comment period on the PD was subsequently extended through September 6, 2022.
The Revised Proposed Determination would establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project and would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction”. Such EPA activity could negatively affect the ability of the Pebble Partnership to obtain required permitting and develop the Project, even if the appeal of the 2020 ROD is successful. There is no assurance that any challenge by the Company to the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination will be successfully. The inability to successfully challenge the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination may ultimately mean that the Pebble Partnership will be unable to proceed with the development of the Pebble Project as currently envisioned or at all.
In addition to the permits issued by USACE, the Pebble Project must receive an array of additional Federal permits from the US Coast Guard, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, as well as authorizations from NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and several other federal agencies.
Numerous environmental permits and plans will also be required by various State and local agencies. The State of Alaska utilizes a process for permitting mines through its large mine permitting team, with involvement from all State agencies required to issue permits for mine construction and operation. The Pebble Partnership will work with applicable permitting agencies and the large mine permitting team to provide complete permit applications in an orderly manner. Table 20-1 lists the types of permits that are expected to be required for the Pebble Project. Multiple permits of certain types may have to be applied for to accommodate the full scope of facilities.
Pebble Project | Page 281 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
In November 2014, Alaskan voters approved the Bristol Bay Forever public initiative. Based on that initiative, development of the Pebble Project requires legislative approval upon securing all other permits and authorizations.
Table 20-1: Permits Required for the Pebble Project
Agency | Approval Type | Project-related Examples |
Federal | ||
BATF | License to Transport Explosives | Construction explosives acquisition and use |
Permit and License for Use of Explosives | Construction explosives acquisition and use | |
BSEE | Right-of-Way Authorization for Natural Gas Pipeline | Subsea natural gas pipeline in OCS waters |
DHS | Airport Security Operations Plan | Iliamna Airport |
Port Facility Security Coordinator Certification | Marine terminal | |
Port Security Operations Plan | Marine terminal | |
EPA | Facility Response Plan (required to be submitted to EPA, however EPA does not provide plan approvals) | Fuel storage facilities, fuel transport on the mine roadway |
RCRA Registration for Identification Number | Storage and disposal of hazardous wastes | |
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (SPCC plans are not required to be submitted or approved by EPA. The plan will be reviewed and certified by a Professional Engineer licensed in Alaska) | Fuel storage facilities | |
FAA | Notice of Controlled Firing Area for Blasting | Construction and mining blasting activity |
FCC | Radio License | Radios |
MSHA | Mine Identification Number | Mine site |
Notification of Legal Identity | Mine site | |
NMFS | Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation documentation | Necessary in areas where mine, road, or marine terminal activity affect essential fish habitat |
USACE | Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material into Waters of the U.S. | Fill into wetlands for a variety of facilities at the mine, road, pipelines, marine terminal |
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Construction of any structure in or over any Navigable Waters of the U.S. | Road bridges and causeway; marine terminal docking and ship-loading facilities and maintenance dredging. | |
USCG | Facility Response Plan | Fuel storage facilities |
Fuel Offloading Plan; Person in Charge Certification | Offloading fuel from barges at the port | |
Hazardous Cargo Offloading Plan; Port Operations Manual Approval | Offloading hazardous cargo from ships | |
Navigation Lighting and Marking Aids Permit | Port facilities | |
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 Construction Permit for a Bridge or Causeway across Navigable Waters | Bridge along road | |
USDOT | Registration for Identification Number to Transport Hazardous Wastes | Transport of hazardous wastes to approved disposal site |
USFWS | Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Programmatic Take Permit | May be necessary in areas where mine, road, or marine terminal activity may disturb eagles |
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation documentation | May be necessary in areas where mine, road, or marine terminal activity may disturb migratory birds | |
USFWS/NMFS | Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Authorization | May be necessary at the marine terminal and for sub-sea pipeline construction where activities could disturb northern sea otter, Beluga whale, Steller sea lion, Steller’s eider |
Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take Authorization; Letter of Authorization | May be necessary at marine terminal where activities could disturb northern sea otter, Beluga whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall’s porpoise |
Pebble Project | Page 282 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Agency | Approval Type | Project-related Examples |
State | ||
ADEC | Alaska Solid Waste Program Integrated Waste Management Permit/Plan Approval | Tailings disposal, waste rock disposal, landfills |
Reclamation Plan Approval and Bonding | Required prior to construction. | |
Alaska Solid Waste Program Solid Waste Disposal Permit; Open Burn Permit | Construction waste material disposal | |
Clean Water Act Section 402 Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Discharge Permit | Water discharges from water treatment plans at the mine site. | |
Approval to Construct and Operate a Public Water Supply System | Mine and port, and construction camps | |
Clean Air Act Air Quality Control Permit to Construct and Operate – Prevention of Significant Deterioration | Power plant and other non-mobile air emissions; fugitive dust; applicable to mine, road, and port | |
Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit | Power plant and other non-mobile air emissions; fugitive dust; applicable to mine and road | |
Clean Air Act Title I Operating Permit | Non-mobile air emissions; stationary sources, fugitive dust; applicable to port and Kenai compressor station | |
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification | Certification of the Section 404 Permit. | |
Clean Water Act Section 402 Stormwater Construction and Multi-Sector General Permit; Stormwater Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan | Surface water runoff discharges at mine, road, and marine terminal | |
Food Sanitation Permit | Mine and port, and construction camps | |
Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (ODPCP or “C” Plan) | Fuel storage and transfer facilities, port and mine | |
ADF&G | Fish collection permits for monitoring | Required for construction and monitoring |
Fish Habitat Permit | Required for most work in anadromous streams and for most work in resident fish streams that might affect fish passage. | |
ADNR | Alaska Dam Safety Program Certificate of Approval to Construct a Dam | Tailings dam, seepage control dams |
Alaska Dam Safety Program Certificate of Approval to Operate a Dam | Tailings dam, seepage control dams | |
Reclamation Plan Approval and Bonding | Required prior to construction. | |
Lease of other State Lands | Any miscellaneous other state lands to be used by the Pebble Project – none identified at this time | |
Material Sale on State Land | Materials removed from quarry sites for construction | |
Mill Site Permit | All facilities on State lands | |
Mining license | All facilities on State lands | |
Miscellaneous Land Use Permit | All facilities on State lands | |
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Review | Area of Potential Effect | |
Pipeline Rights-of-Way Lease | Natural gas, concentrate, and water return pipelines on State lands and natural gas pipeline in State waters | |
Fiber Optic Cable Right-of-Way Lease | Fiber Optic Cable on State lands and in State waters | |
Powerline Right-of-Way Lease | Powerlines to support electric power distribution | |
Road Right-of-Way Lease | Road between mine and marine terminal | |
Temporary Water Use Permit; Permit to Appropriate Water | Surface and groundwater flow reductions | |
Tidelands Lease | Port structures below high tide line | |
Upland Mining Lease | All facilities on State lands |
Pebble Project | Page 283 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Agency | Approval Type | Project-related Examples |
ADOL | Certificate of Inspection for Fired and Unfired Pressure Vessels | |
ADOT&PF | Driveway Permit | Road |
Utility Permit on Right-of-Way | Natural gas pipeline on the Kenai Peninsula | |
ADPS | Approval to Transport Hazardous Materials | Transport of hazardous materials along the road |
Life and Fire Safety Plan Check | Mine and port | |
State Fire Marshall Plan Review Certificate of Approval | For each individual building | |
Local | ||
KPB | Conditional Use Permit | |
Floodplain Development Permit | ||
Multi-Agency Permit Application | ||
L&PB | Lake and Peninsula Borough Development Permit | Mine and road area within the Lake and Peninsula Borough |
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G = Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADOT/PF = Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
ADPS = Alaska Department of Public Safety
BATF = U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
BSEE = Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
DHS = U.S. Department of Homeland Security
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA = Federal Aviation Administration
FCC = Federal Communications Commission
FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
L&PB = Lake and Peninsula Borough
MSHA = U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG = U.S. Coast Guard
USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
20.7 Closure
The Pebble Partnership’s core operating principles are governed by a commitment to conduct all mining operations, including reclamation and closure, in a manner that adheres to socially and environmentally responsible stewardship while maximizing benefits to State and local stakeholders. The Pebble Partnership has adopted a philosophy of “design for closure” in the development of the Project that incorporates closure and long-term post-closure water management considerations into all aspects of the project design to ensure that all regulatory requirements, as well as landowner obligations, are met at closure.
Reclamation and closure of the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water, and the ADEC. A miner may not engage in a mining operation until the ADNR has approved a reclamation plan for the operation. The Pebble Partnership submitted a preliminary closure plan to USACE in support of the EIS analysis. Four phases of closure are envisioned for the project. This plan would be subject to analysis and review during the State’s permitting processes.
Pebble Project | Page 284 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Phase 1
Most of the structures required to support the mine operation would be removed during this phase. The key closure component of this phase is the decommissioning of the pyritic TSF. The co-disposed PAG waste rock and pyritic tailings would be relocated to the bottom of the open pit, thus preventing acid generation and providing safe long-term storage. Reclamation of the bulk TSF would also commence during this phase. After allowing for consolidation of the bulk tailings, reclamation of that facility would commence with covering the tailings with a capillary break and growth medium. WTP #1 would be reconfigured for long term closure requirements. Water collection, treatment and discharge would continue per the operations phase.
Phase 2
Phase 2 would commence with completion of the relocation of the pyritic tailings and PAG waste rock at which point the site of the pyritic tailings storage facility would be reclaimed. The main Water Management Pond would be decommissioned at this point and the site reclaimed. At this point, all water from the bulk TSF would be diverted to the open pit, which would be allowed to fill to a defined control level, at which point Phase 3 would commence. No water treatment and discharge would occur during this phase.
Phase 3
The primary activity during Phase 3 would be to collect contact water, divert it to the open pit, and treat the surplus for discharge. The quality of the surface runoff water from the bulk TSF would be monitored during this phase and once it reaches discharge water quality, the next phase would commence.
Phase 4
Phase 4 would consist of long term water treatment and monitoring. The surface runoff from the bulk TSF would be allowed to discharge directly, while seepage from the facility and open pit runoff would be collected in the open pit, treated and discharged.
Additional information regarding reclamation, closure, and bonding costs is presented in Sections 21, 22 and 24.
Pebble Project | Page 285 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
21.1 Introduction
The following basic information pertains to the estimate of both capital and operating costs:
· | Base date for these estimates is Q1 – 2021. |
|
|
· | All costs are expressed in United States dollars ($ or US$). |
|
|
· | United States to Canadian (C$) currency exchange rate used is US$0.75 = C$1.00. |
|
|
· | Estimate accuracy is reflective of the stage of project development at ±50%. |
|
|
· | All estimates are based on average production of 180,000 tons/d milled. |
|
|
· | Operating and sustaining capital costs are based on a 20-year project life cycle. |
|
|
· | Cost estimate is based on an engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) implementation approach, with selected scope areas being developed under discrete engineer, procure and construct (EPC) packages. |
21.2 Capital Cost Estimate
21.2.1 Estimate Responsibility
The overall capital cost estimate was developed by Ausenco with contributions from a team of engineers from the following companies:
· | Tetra Tech: development of the mining costs; |
|
|
· | Knight Piésold: site excavation, and the TSF and overall site water management; |
|
|
· | HDR: water treatment plant facilities; |
|
|
· | Nana Worley Parsons/Intecsea: natural gas pipeline and power generation; |
|
|
· | RECON: on-site and off-site roadway infrastructure; |
|
|
· | Northern Dynasty: Owner’s costs and input to execution strategy. |
Pebble Project | Page 286 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.2 Summary
The total estimated initial capital cost for the design, construction, installation, and commissioning of the Pebble Project is $6.05 billion, which includes all direct, indirect, Owner’s, growth and contingency costs.
Sustaining capital investment in the Proposed Project is limited to incremental TSF expansions and replacement of mobile equipment for mining and road maintenance, over the life of mine. These life cycle costs are applied in the financial model on a year by year basis, with a cumulative total of $1.5 billion including indirect, Owner’s and contingency costs.
Mine closure and reclamation costs are not included in the capital or operating costs but are factored into the financial model to account for long-term water treatment plant requirements.
A breakdown of capital cost figures by major work area is presented in Table 21-1.
Table 21-1: Summary of Capital Cost Estimate
Area Description | Initial Capital (US$M) | Sustaining Capital (US$M) | Total Capital to Y20 (US$M) |
Site General | 116.0 | n/a | 116.0 |
Power Supply | 532.4 | n/a | 532.4 |
Natural Gas Line | 246.4 | n/a | 246.4 |
Open Pit Mining | 229.1 | 218.7 | 447.8 |
Ore Handling to Mill | 91.5 | n/a | 91.5 |
Process Plant | 736.3 | n/a | 736.3 |
Earthworks, Tailings and Water Mgmt. | 1,008.2 | 1,085.2 | 2,093.4 |
Water Treatment Plants | 269.7 | n/a | 269.7 |
On-site Infrastructure | 228.8 | n/a | 228.8 |
Concentrate Pipeline | 188.5 | n/a | 188.5 |
Marine Terminal Site | 245.7 | n/a | 245.7 |
External Access Roads | 296.1 | n/a | 296.1 |
Subtotal Direct Costs | 4,188.7 | 1,304.0 | 5,492.9 |
Indirect Costs | 857.2 | 45.2 | 902.4 |
Owner’s Costs | 325.0 | 10.0 | 335.0 |
Contingency and growth | 678.4 | 162.8 | 841.2 |
Total Capital Cost | 6,049.3 | 1,521.9 | 7,571.2 |
21.2.3 Direct Costs
Direct capital costs are those directly attributed to a specific scope of work for the project, and would typically be inclusive of installed equipment, material, labour and supervision directly or immediately involved in the physical construction of the permanent facility.
Pebble Project | Page 287 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Each of the contributing parties noted in Section 21.2 have provided the direct costs associated with the works in their respective areas following a traditional engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) execution strategy, with indirect costs, Owner’s costs and contingency to be applied separately. The exception to this is for the power generation and gas pipeline scopes which have been priced to reflect the intent to construct these as separate EPC packages that do not have indirect costs applied. Supplemental information and breakdown of costs for specific work areas are provided in the following sub-sections to provide clarity where certain costs have been allocated.
21.2.3.1 Site General Capital
The estimate of capital costs for the site general development is predominantly driven by the costs of site preparation, earthworks, and on-site access roads. These were estimated by Knight Piésold as part of their effort on tailings and water management, making use of the same equipment, and includes sustaining costs for the roads as the mine site grows over time. The balance of site general capital is for the establishment of power distribution, site wide controls and communications systems, the cost of which was factored by Ausenco from a previous estimate provided by Northern Dynasty. The cost breakdown has been shown in Table 21-2: Site General Capital.
Table 21-2: Site General Capital
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) |
Site earthworks general construction | 64.9 |
Access and haul roads | 38.4 |
Electrical power distribution, site wide controls and communications | 12.7 |
Total | 116.0 |
21.2.3.2 Power Generation and Natural Gas Pipeline
The capital cost estimates for the supply and installation of the power generation equipment at both the mine site and marine terminal site, along with the installation of a compressed natural gas pipeline across Cook Inlet to the mine site have been provided by Nana Worley Parsons with support from their affiliate company Intecsea for the sub-sea pipeline. These estimates are based on preliminary designs and historical information for the installation of combined cycle gas generators.
The on-shore gas pipeline would be installed in a common trench with the concentrate slurry and water return pipes where the excavation and backfill costs are included in the off-site access road estimate.
A breakdown of the costs by work area is provided in Table 21-3, and all figures are based on an all-inclusive EPC delivery for each segment which would not attract any indirect construction costs.
Table 21-3: Power Generation and Natural Gas Pipeline Capital Cost Summary
Capital Category | Initial Cost ($M) |
Mine site power generation plant | 521.9 |
Marine terminal site power generation plant | 10.5 |
Off-Shore natural gas pipeline (sub-sea placement) | 169.4 |
On-shore natural gas pipeline (trenching in roads) | 77.0 |
Total Direct Costs | 778.8 |
Pebble Project | Page 288 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.3.3 Open Pit Mine Capital Costs
The estimate of initial capital cost for the development of the open pit mine area includes all mobile equipment purchase, and miscellaneous mining infrastructure, as well as pre-production stripping costs expected prior to the process plant going into production.
The sustaining capital costs include all equipment purchases necessary to manage the growth in the pit from the first year of production onward as well as fleet replacements. The cost breakdown has been shown in Table 21-4.
Table 21-4: Mining Direct Capital Cost Estimate
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) | Sustaining Cost (US$M) | Total Capital Cost (US$M) |
Pre-production stripping | 66.2 | n/a | 66.2 |
Mine equipment capital | 156.6 | 218.7 | 375.3 |
Miscellaneous mine capital | 6.3 | n/a | 6.3 |
Total | 229.1 | 218.7 | 447.8 |
21.2.3.4 Mineralized Material Handling and Process Plant Capital Cost Estimate
The capital cost estimates for these areas were developed by Ausenco using the conceptual design layout, design criteria, and flow sheet developed for this project. Process and major mechanical equipment costs were derived using recent similar copper projects, and historical budget quotes on file from vendors. Delivery and installation of process equipment was a factored cost relative to the total purchase price of equipment. The costs of the pumps for copper concentrate pipeline transport were included in the pipeline area, and the filtration plant costs for this system were included in the marine terminal area.
Earthworks and excavation costs for site preparation were included in the site general costs; there are no sustaining capital items associated with this area, as mill liner replacements are part of regular maintenance and included in the operating cost estimate. A summary of the direct capital costs is shown in Table 21-5.
Table 21-5: Ore Handling and Process Plant Capital Cost Summary
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) |
Primary Crushing to Stockpile Feed | 91.5 |
Stockpile, Grinding, Pebble-Crushing | 433.0 |
Cu-Mo Flotation, Regrind, Bulk & Pyritic Tailings Thickeners | 190.7 |
Mo Flotation | 34.5 |
Thickening & Mo Concentrate Filtration | 39.0 |
Water & Air Systems | 17.5 |
Reagents | 21.6 |
Total Direct Costs | 827.8 |
Pebble Project | Page 289 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.3.5 Tailings and Water Management
The estimate of capital costs for the TSF and general water management on the site was prepared by Knight Piésold using nominal unit rates for construction of work areas and quantities developed from their preliminary design of the facilities. The initial capital was broken out into earthworks and mechanical systems for water management, along with purchase of mobile excavation and hauling equipment that would be transitioned to the mining fleet following the initial construction. A similar estimate of the cumulative sustaining capital for both the TSF and mechanical equipment was also prepared. The cost breakdown is shown in Table 21-6.
Table 21-6: Tailings and Water Management Direct Capital Cost Estimate
Capital Category | Initial Cost ($M) | Sustaining Cost ($M) | Total Capital Cost ($M) |
Earthworks | 639.0 | 967.9 | 1,606.9 |
Mechanical equipment | 100.3 | 117.4 | 217.7 |
Mobile equipment purchase | 268.9 | n/a | 268.9 |
Total | 1,008.2 | 1,085.2 | 2,093.4 |
21.2.3.6 Water Treatment Plants
HDR developed the capital cost estimate for the WTPs through the entire mine life based on the assumptions shown in Table 21-7, using reference data developed for a mine WTP designed by HDR that used many of the same water treatment processes and a similar parallel treatment train approach. The costs for the benchmark WTP were developed using manufacturer quotes for major equipment and detailed material take-off and unit prices for the divisions of construction.
Capital costs for each WTP were developed by factoring the differences in flow and water quality from the benchmark WTP, escalating costs to Q1 2021 US dollars, and by adding costs for the additional processes for the Project. Factoring was based on installed capacity and maximum flows.
Table 21-7: Water Treatment Plants Direct Capital Cost Estimate
WTP # | Phase of Mine Life | Influent Stream Treated | Direct Costs ($M) | Notes |
WTP #1 | Operations | Open Pit WMP | 64.7 | Included in direct capital cost summary |
WTP #2 | Operations | Main WMP | 205.0 | Included in direct capital cost summary |
WTP #3 | Closure Phase 1 | Open Pit | 107.7 | Operations Phase WTP#1 base treatment trains would be reused for WTP#3 Closure Phase 1. This is not included in the initial or sustaining capital. |
Closure Phase 2 | n/a | n/a | No further WTP investment in Closure Phase 2. | |
Closure Phase 3 | Bulk TSF Main SCP | n/a | 2 trains from the Closure Phase 1 Open Pit stream WTP systems are repurposed for Bulk TSF Main SCP stream starting in Closure Phase 3. | |
Open Pit | 103.0 | 2 of the base trains from Closure Phase 1 Open Pit stream WTP are repurposed for Closure Phase 3/4. This is not included in the initial or sustaining capital. | ||
Closure Phase 4 (Post-Closure) | Bulk TSF Main SCP | n/a | No additional capital investment in Phase 4. | |
Open Pit | n/a | No additional capital investment in Phase 4. |
Pebble Project | Page 290 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.3.7 On-site Infrastructure
The cost of on-site general infrastructure and temporary facilities required during construction was factored by Ausenco from a previous estimate for site development provided by Northern Dynasty.
The provision of a 2,300 person construction camp is based on 50/50 permanent and temporary facilities with the full cost of $115 million being carried in the temporary construction area.
The cost breakdown is shown in Table 21-8.
Table 21-8: On-Site Infrastructure Direct Capital Cost Estimate
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) |
Site buildings | 73.5 |
Site services and utilities | 15.0 |
Plant mobile fleet (not including mining equipment) | 9.0 |
Temporary facilities for construction | 131.3 |
Total | 228.8 |
21.2.3.8 Concentrate Pipeline
The capital cost estimate for the copper concentrate slurry pipeline system was developed by Ausenco using the conceptual design developed for this project, along with unit rates for construction established from similar projects and historical budget quotes on file from vendors.
The costs for the thickening and filtration plant at the end of this system are included in the marine terminal area. Trenching costs for the installation of the pipeline are included in the external road construction cost. A summary of the direct costs for this area is presented in Table 21-9.
Table 21-9: Concentrate Slurry Pipeline Direct Capital Costs
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) |
Slurry and return water pipeline supply and installation | 115.0 |
Pumping station supply and installation | 70.0 |
Fiber optic cable for pipeline system control | 3.5 |
Total | 188.5 |
Pebble Project | Page 291 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.3.9 Marine Terminal Site
The capital cost estimate for the marine terminal site was developed by Ausenco using the conceptual design developed for this project, along with unit rates for construction established from similar projects and historical budget quotes on file from vendors.
A summary of the direct costs for this area is presented in Table 21-10.
Table 21-10: Marine Terminal Facilities Direct Capital Costs
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) |
Site civil works and utilities | 12.8 |
Auxiliary buildings | 6.1 |
Fuel receiving and storage system | 9.5 |
Mobile equipment | 9.1 |
Concentrate filtration plant | 38.5 |
Concentrate handling, storage, and barge loading | 58.1 |
Power distribution, lighting, and controls system | 8.3 |
Marine infrastructure (incl. dredging and tug purchase) | 103.3 |
Total | 245.7 |
21.2.3.10 External Access Roads
The capital cost estimate for the external access road was developed by Alaska-based road consultant, RECON, which has been involved with the Project for years and had previously prepared a design for this route. Costs were based on typical unit rates of construction for the region with locally sourced materials from borrow pits along the route. Mobile equipment acquired for the construction of the roadway would be retained for maintenance, with the replacement of this equipment included in sustaining capital. For the Base Case, sustaining capital costs for external access roads were assumed to be provided by third party infrastructure partners and were reflected in annual lease payments.
A summary of the initial and sustaining capital costs for this area are presented in Table 21-11.
Table 21-11: External Access Roads Direct Capital Cost Estimate
Capital Category | Initial Cost (US$M) | Sustaining Cost (US$M) | Total Capital Cost (US$M) |
Permanent access road construction | 274.9 | n/a | 274.9 |
Temporary bridges | 14.7 | n/a | 14.7 |
Mobile equipment purchase | 6.5 | 16.7 | 23.2 |
Total | 296.1 | 16.7 | 312.8 |
Pebble Project | Page 292 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.2.4 Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are those that are required during the Project delivery period to enable and support the construction activities. Ausenco has estimated a total of $857.2 million which represents an average of 20.5% of the total direct costs, which is built up from a distribution of the following elements and rates against the applicable construction activities as shown in Table 21-12.
Table 21-12: Distribution of Indirect Costs
Indirect Cost Category | % of Direct | Applied to Direct Costs |
Engineering and Procurement (EP) | 8.0% | All - excluding EPC, mining equipment & 75% of TSF |
Construction Management (CM) | 4.0% | All - excluding EPC packages and mining |
Construction Indirect costs | 10.0% | All - excluding EPC, mining, marine infrastructure |
Freight and Logistics | 7.7% | All – excluding EPC, mining, TSF, marine & roads |
First fills | 1.0% | Mill feed material handling + process + p/l stations + con handling |
Spares | 1.0% | Mill feed material handling + process + p/l stations + con handling |
Start up and commissioning | 0.75% | Mill feed material handling + process + p/l stations + con handling |
Vendor representation at site | 0.40% | Mill feed material handling + process + p/l stations + con handling |
21.2.5 Owners Costs
Owner’s costs are costs borne by the Owner in support and execution of the Project.
The Project execution strategy involves an EPCM organization supervising one or more general contractors. Ausenco assumed an allowance of $325 million for Owner’s costs, which equates to approximately 8% of direct costs and was confirmed by Northern Dynasty. Some of the items included are home office staffing, home office travel, home office general expenses, field staffing, field travel, general field expenses, environmental baseline monitoring and Owner’s contingency.
21.2.6 Contingency on Capital
The total contingency amount of $678.4 million is equal to an average of 16.2% of total direct costs and is reflective of a range between 15% and 20% being applied to the individual work areas based on the level of detail and construction cost risk associate with each area.
21.3 Operating Costs
21.3.1 Summary
The average annual operating cost for the Project is estimated to be $706.4 million per year over the proposed 20 year life assuming a 2% gold / 6% silver Royalty, which equates to $10.97/ton milled, based on the 180,000 ton/day plant capacity. The average annual operating cost for the Project is estimated to be $705.5 million per year over the proposed 20 year life assuming a 10% gold / 30% silver Royalty, which equates to $10.96 /ton milled, A very small difference in operating costs is due to the Royalty’s estimated impact on participation payments. A summary of the individual components that make up this estimate is presented in Table 21-13 and is based on a combination of first-principal calculations, experience and historical pricing, reference projects and factors as appropriate for a PEA.
Pebble Project | Page 293 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 21-13: Summary of Annual Average Operating Cost Estimate
Operating Area | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | ||
Annual Cost (US$M) | Unit Cost (US$/ton milled) | Annual Cost (US$M) | Unit Cost (US$/ton milled) | |
General & Administrative | 56.8 | 0.88 | 56.8 | 0.88 |
Open Pit Mining | 112.7 | 1.75 | 112.7 | 1.75 |
Mineralized Material Handling & Process Plant | 269.0 | 4.17 | 269.0 | 4.17 |
Tailings Operation & Maintenance | 10.0 | 0.16 | 10.0 | 0.16 |
Water Treatment Plant | 21.5 | 0.33 | 21.5 | 0.33 |
Concentrate Pipeline | 1.9 | 0.03 | 1.9 | 0.03 |
Marine Terminal | 15.7 | 0.24 | 15.7 | 0.24 |
External Access Roads | 27.8 | 0.45 | 26.9 | 0.44 |
Consumables Freight Costs | 10.2 | 0.16 | 10.2 | 0.16 |
Infrastructure Leases | 180.8 | 2.80 | 180.8 | 2.80 |
Total | 706.4 | 10.97 | 705.5 | 10.96 |
21.3.2 General & Administrative
The estimate of general and administrative (G&A) costs for the operation of the Project is based on previously-developed information provided by Northern Dynasty for this project and factored to suit the currently-planned milling rate with labour and expenses updated for the current market. The labour costs are inclusive of base salaries and overhead burdens at 30%. Head office salaries are based on a normal 40 hour week in Anchorage, while site based costs include for remote work with a 2 & 1 rotation (2 weeks on – 1 week off) for both salaries and headcount.
While this summary includes the mine site, any G&A labour cost and headcount associated with the marine terminal is included in the operations summary for that area.
A summary of the individual cost areas is presented in Table 21-14.
Pebble Project | Page 294 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 21-14: Summary of Annual G&A Operating Cost Estimate
Operating Area | Head Count | Annual Cost (US$M) | Unit Cost (US$/ton milled) |
Administration Office | 27 | 3.33 | 0.05 |
Mine Site Services | 40 | 5.52 | 0.09 |
Materials & Other Directs | n/a | 7.60 | 0.12 |
Overheads | n/a | 28.83 | 0.45 |
Labour Transportation | n/a | 11.44 | 0.18 |
Total | 67 | 56.8 | 0.88 |
21.3.3 Power Supply Costs
The capital costs for installation of natural gas line and power generation equipment have been included in the overall project development, and the combined operating costs of these assets are charged to the individual operating areas at the rate of $0.066/kWh for power consumption.
21.3.4 Mining
Mining costs were estimated by Tetra Tech from historical equipment productivity calculations and, more generally. Annual equipment utilization hours were derived from calculated available hours less estimated operating delays and then applied to the hourly equipment costs to estimate the direct mining operating costs.
Pre-production stripping costs of $66.2 million were included in the initial capital cost estimates for mining and are not included in these average operating costs and production rates.
Open pit mining costs are summarized in Table 21-15.
Table 21-15: Open Pit Mine Operating Costs
Open Pit Category | Unit Rate (US$/ton mined) | Life of Mine Cost (US$ M) | Average Cost (US$ M/year) | Average Rate (US$/ton milled) |
Drilling | 0.030 | 42.22 | 2.111 | 0.03 |
Blasting | 0.202 | 283.03 | 14.152 | 0.22 |
Loading | 0.137 | 191.59 | 9.580 | 0.15 |
Hauling | 0.476 | 667.12 | 33.356 | 0.52 |
Dewatering | 0.048 | 66.96 | 3.348 | 0.05 |
Support | 0.163 | 227.99 | 11.399 | 0.18 |
Ancillary | 0.029 | 40.54 | 2.027 | 0.03 |
Labour | 0.495 | 694.29 | 34.715 | 0.54 |
Other | 0.029 | 40.01 | 2.000 | 0.03 |
Total | 1.607 | 2,254 | 112.7 | 1.75 |
A summary of the average annual consumables included in the mine operating costs are presented in Table 21-16.
Pebble Project | Page 295 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 21-16: Mining Consumable Costs
Processing Cost item | Units | Annual Usage |
Electricity | MWh | 50,050 |
Diesel fuel | USG 1,000’s | 7,250 |
Lubricants | USG 1,000’s | 490 |
Tires | EA | 185 |
ANFO | Short Ton | 13,830 |
Emulsion | Short Ton | 2,590 |
Ausenco developed the estimate of operating costs for the mill feed material handling system and process plant based on historical costs from similar projects in a remote location. Processing costs for power, consumables, maintenance consumables and labour are summarised in Table 21-17.
Table 21-17: Processing Costs
Processing Cost item | Annual Cost ($M) | Annual Cost ($/ton milled) |
Power | 92.2 | 1.43 |
Operating consumables | 139.7 | 2.17 |
Maintenance consumables | 12.5 | 0.19 |
Labour | 24.6 | 0.38 |
Total | 269.0 | 4.17 |
21.3.4.1 Power
Power consumption was derived from calculated power draw of major mechanical equipment required for the process, plus an allowance for the remainder of the plant, based on typical flotation plants. The average on-line power draw is estimated at 160 MW.
Annual energy consumption is estimated at 1,400 GWh, or about $92.4 million at $0.066/kWh.
21.3.4.2 Consumables
Processing reagent and consumable costs were estimated based on the throughput with rates from the process design criteria and flow sheets. Costs for mill media, mill liners, and other plant consumables were estimated based on vendor information and benchmarking on similar plants.
A breakdown of these costs is summarized in Table 21-18.
Pebble Project | Page 296 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 21-18: Operating Consumable Costs
Consumable Cost item | Annual Cost (US$M) | Annual Cost (US$/ton Milled) |
Reagents | 53.6 | 0.83 |
Mill media | 64.7 | 1.00 |
Liners | 17.5 | 0.27 |
Filters, laboratory and miscellaneous. | 3.9 | 0.06 |
Total | 139.7 | 2.17 |
21.3.4.3 Maintenance Consumables
Annual maintenance spares and consumable costs were estimated at 2% of the $624 million total installed capital costs for mechanical equipment, plate work, support steel and electrics of, or $12.5 million per year.
21.3.4.4 Labour
Labour costs include all processing and maintenance costs (Table 21-19).
Costs were estimated from a breakdown of staffing positions, estimated at 120 in total, excluding G&A manpower.
Table 21-19: Labour Costs
Cost Centre | Number | Annual Cost (US$M) |
Operations staff and supervision | 18 | 3.7 |
Crushing, grinding & flotation crews | 56 | 7.9 |
Metallurgical laboratory | 26 | 3.7 |
Maintenance staff | 10 | 1.9 |
Maintenance personnel | 48 | 7.4 |
Total | 158 | 24.0 |
21.3.5 Tailings Operation & Maintenance
The operating and maintenance costs for the TSF facilities were estimated by Knight Piésold based on their preliminary design development and unit rates for similar operations. The average annual cost of $10.0 million includes labour and power and consumables for the operation and maintenance of the water management mechanical systems but does not include WTP costs.
Pebble Project | Page 297 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
21.3.6 Water Treatment Plant
HDR developed the water treatment plant operating cost estimate based on similar WTP facilities designed by HDR and was developed using mass balance-derived estimates for chemical reagents, a detailed electrical load analysis, and detailed estimates of operational manpower, consumables, and replacement parts.
Costs for each WTP were developed by factoring based on differences in flow and water quality from the similar WTP facilities designed by HDR, escalating costs to 2020 US dollars, and by adding costs for the additional processes that the current case has based on average flows.
A summary of the estimated annual WTP operating costs during mine production and through to mine closure are presented in Table 21-20.
Table 21-20: WTP Annual Operating Cost Summary
WTP # | Phase of Mine Life | Influent Stream Treated | Operating Costs ($M/a) | Notes |
WTP #1 | Operations | Open Pit WMP | 3.01 | Included in operating cost summary |
WTP #2 | Operations | Main WMP | 18.45 | Included in operating cost summary |
WTP #3 | Closure Phase 1 | Open Pit | 9.79 | Operations Phase WTP#1 base treatment trains would be reused for WTP#3 Closure Phase 1. |
Closure Phase 2 | n/a | 0.16 | No further WTP investment in Closure Phase 2. | |
Closure Phase 3 | Bulk TSF Main SCP | 9.18 | 2 trains from the Closure Phase 1 Open Pit stream WTP systems are repurposed for Bulk TSF Main SCP stream starting in Closure Phase 3. | |
Open Pit | 12.52 | 2 of the base trains from Closure Phase 1 Open Pit stream WTP are repurposed for Closure Phase 3/4. | ||
Closure Phase 4 (Post-Closure) | Bulk TSF Main SCP | 9.18 | No additional capital investment in Phase 4. | |
Open Pit | 3.62 | No additional capital investment in Phase 4. |
21.3.7 Concentrate Pipeline
Ausenco estimated the annual operating cost of the slurry pipeline and return water system at $1.9 million ($0.029/ton milled), which includes approximately $1.0 million in electrical power consumption, with the balance in maintenance materials and contract services for the pump and pipeline equipment.
Labour associated with the pipeline operations and maintenance is carried in the marine terminal.
21.3.8 Marine Terminal
Ausenco estimated the operating and maintenance costs for the marine terminal facilities based on nominal staff and crew requirements, power consumption costs, maintenance materials, as well as the supply of contract transhipment services to load the copper concentrate from transfer barges to ocean going bulk carriers anchored at deep water in Iliamna Bay.
A summary of the operating costs for the marine terminal is presented in Table 21-21.
Pebble Project | Page 298 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 21-21: Marine Terminal Operating Costs
Processing Cost item | Annual Cost (US$M) | Annual Cost ($/ton milled) |
Electrical power | 1.0 | 0.02 |
Maintenance consumables | 1.4 | 0.02 |
Labour | 10.5 | 0.16 |
Transhipment | 2.8 | 0.04 |
Total | 15.7 | 0. |
Electrical power costs are based on an average annual consumption of 12.1 GWh and the common rate for the project of $0.066/kWh. This includes the copper concentrate filter plant air compressors, and the downstream concentrate handling system, with the balance to lighting and general services.
Maintenance consumables are based on a percentage of capital on material handling equipment, an allowance for marine structures, and $230,000 annually for replacement filter cloth.
Site labour includes both management, operations, and maintenance crews for the marine terminal as well as the slurry pipeline system. A total of 71 site personnel were assigned to this site.
Due to the water depth in the area, the marine facilities are designed for barge access only, and loading of copper concentrate to bulk carriers must be done through barge transhipment. This would be done as an external service by a contractor that would supply the self-unloading barges and crews at an “all-in” rate. Based on historical data for similar operations, Ausenco has made an allowance of $2.8 million per year for this service using a nominal rate of $3.50/tonne of concentrate shipped.
21.3.9 External Access Roads
The operating cost estimate for the external access roads has been prepared by RECON, and is based on typical requirements for fuel, labour and materials usage to maintain the road surface and bridges for all-season traffic between the marine terminal and the mine site. The cost of mobile equipment is included in the initial capital cost, and replacement equipment in sustaining costs. Transportation rights and toll payments based on anticipated future commitments have also been included in the operating cost estimates.
21.3.10 Consumables Freight Costs
Ausenco has included an allowance in the operating costs for the transportation of consumable materials to the remote mine site. The capital costs include the purchase of standard shipping containers for use in moving cargo from either Prince Rupert, Vancouver or Seattle where consumables would be consolidated and “stuffed” into these containers for movement to the Pebble Project marine terminal by barge, and then moved to the mine site by truck.
This allowance is based on a nominal rate of $35/ton applied to approximately 130,000 tons of mine site and process plant consumables being moved to the site in containers per year.
Pebble Project | Page 299 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
22.1 Forward-Looking Information Cautionary Statements
The results of the economic analyses discussed in this section represent forward-looking information as defined under
Canadian securities law. The results depend on inputs that are subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented herein. Information that is forward-looking includes the following:
· | Assumed commodity prices and exchange rates. |
|
|
· | Proposed mine and process production plan. |
|
|
· | Projected mining and process recovery rates. |
|
|
· | Ability to market the three types of concentrate on favourable terms. |
|
|
· | Ability to control the levels of deleterious elements expected in some of the concentrate batches. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to initial capital costs, sustaining capital costs, on-site and off-site operating costs. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to closure costs and closure requirements, including water treatment requirements. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to timeframe of development. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to income, royalty, severance and other tax rates, the timing of costs and other deductions for tax purposes as well as other statutory tax rules and regulations. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to the value and timing of payments to and from precious metal stream and infrastructure development partners. |
|
|
· | Assumptions as to the ability to permit the project, including receipt of all required permits under the laws of the United States, from the USACE and meeting all relevant Federal, State and local regulatory requirements and that such permitted mine can be economically developed. |
|
|
· | Assumptions that the Revised Proposed Determination process initiated by the EPA under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act will ultimately not result in the prohibition or restriction of mining activities at the Pebble Project. |
|
|
· | Assumptions about environmental, permitting, legal and social risks including the ability to demonstrate that a mine at the Pebble Project can be developed and operated in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner. |
|
|
· | Assumptions about the ability to secure rights-of-way and legal access required for the infrastructure for the Pebble Project, including the transportation corridor. |
|
|
· | The uncertainties with respect to the effects of COVID-19 or similar future pandemic, including whether it could materially impact or delay the ability to obtain permitting for a mine at the Pebble Project. |
|
|
· | The uncertainty that any additional prepayment investments will be made under the Royalty Agreement. |
Pebble Project | Page 300 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Additional risks to the forward-looking information include:
· | Changes to commodity prices from what has been assumed including the volatility of copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and rhenium prices and share prices of mining companies. |
|
|
· | Changes to costs of production from what has been assumed. |
|
|
· | Unrecognised environmental risks. |
|
|
· | Unanticipated reclamation expenses. |
|
|
· | Unexpected variations in quantity of mineralization, grade, or recovery rates. |
|
|
· | Geotechnical or hydrogeological considerations during operations being different from what was assumed including the presence of unknown geological and other physical and environmental hazards at the Pebble Project. |
|
|
· | Failure of mining methods to operate as anticipated. |
|
|
· | Failure of plant, equipment, or processes to operate as anticipated. |
|
|
· | Failure to obtain key personnel and executives necessary to permit, construct, and operate the mine as anticipated. |
|
|
· | Changes to the timeframe of development and other factors which impact expected financial performance. |
|
|
· | Changes to assumptions as to the generation of electrical power, and the power rates used in the operating cost estimates and financial analysis. |
|
|
· | Ability to maintain the social licence to operate. |
|
|
· | Accidents, labour disputes, and other risks of the mining industry. |
|
|
· | The highly cyclical and speculative nature of the mineral resource exploration business. |
|
|
· | Outcomes to current and future litigation and potential claims by third parties to titles or rights involving the Pebble Project. |
|
|
· | Changes to interest rates and the ability to secure adequate financing on acceptable terms. |
|
|
· | Ability to continue to fund exploration and development activities and other operating costs. |
|
|
· | Changes to tax rates. |
Pebble Project | Page 301 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | Changes to applicable laws, regulations, and government policies or the introduction of new government regulations relating to mining, including laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and project legal titles. |
|
|
· | Receipt of all required permits, including the ability of the Pebble Partnership to appeal the USACE’s 2020 record of decision and to ultimately obtain a positive record of decision from the USACE that would enable the Proposed Project to proceed as envisioned. |
|
|
· | The ability of the Pebble Partnership to challenge the Revised Proposed Determination process initiated by the EPA under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. |
|
|
· | The possible inability to insure operations against all risks. |
|
|
· | The highly competitive nature of the mining business. |
The mine plan in the 2022 PEA is partly based on Inferred Mineral Resources that were considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the 2022 PEA based on these Mineral Resources will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
22.2 Summary
This report updates the Preliminary Economic Assessment as described in a Technical Report issued in October 2021. The primary update is to incorporate the Royalty Agreement announced on July 27, 2022.
The Project was assessed under two scenarios — a full capital cost scenario and a scenario in which the effective capital cost is reduced by engaging partners to provide primary infrastructure (access road, marine facility, natural gas pipeline, and mine site power plant). Given the latter scenario is the more likely route to development, it is defined as the Base Case. Using long-term metal price assumptions, the 20-year Base Case has an 18.1% pre-tax internal rate of return, a 4.6-year pre-tax payback on $4.4 billion initial capital, and a $3.5 billion pre-tax net present value at a 7% discount rate and an 15.6% post tax internal rate of return, a 4.8-year post tax payback on $4.4 billion initial capital, and a $2.2 billion post tax net present value at a 7% discount rate. A summary of results for the Base Case and Full Capital Case at long term metal prices is set out in Table 22-1.
As noted in Section 4.3, the Pebble Partnership has signed a Royalty Agreement, whereby the Royalty Holder has the right to receive a portion of the future gold and silver production from the proposed Pebble Project for the life of the mine. The right can be exercised through five tranches, with each tranche providing the Royalty Holder with the right to 2% of the gold production and 6% of the silver production after accounting for notional payments of $1,500 per ounce of gold and $10 per ounce for silver. The Pebble Partnership will also retain a portion of the gold and silver when spot prices exceed $4,000 per ounce of gold and $50 per ounce of silver and when recovery rates exceed 60% for gold and 65% for silver. To date, the Royalty Holder has purchased the first tranche. The financial analysis assesses the results under the existing first tranche and under the possible full five tranches to provide the range of possible outcomes.
Pebble Project | Page 302 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-1: Forecast of Proposed Project Results at Long Term Metal Prices – Summary
Description | Units | Base Case, 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | Base Case, 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | Full Capital Case, 2% Gold/ 6% Silver Royalty | Full Capital Case, 10% Gold/ 30% Silver Royalty |
Mine Life | years | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Mining Method |
| Open Pit | Open Pit | Open Pit | Open Pit |
Pre-tax NPV at 0% | $US M | 11,696 | 11,168 | 14,614 | 14,085 |
Pre-tax NPV at 5% | $US M | 4,942 | 4,681 | 5,394 | 5,133 |
Pre-tax NPV at 7% | $US M | 3,455 | 3,253 | 3,395 | 3,193 |
Pre-tax NPV at 8% | $US M | 2,869 | 2,689 | 2,612 | 2,433 |
Pre-tax NPV at 10% | $US M | 1,931 | 1,789 | 1,370 | 1,228 |
Pre-tax IRR | % | 18.1% | 17.6% | 13.3% | 13.0% |
Pre-tax Payback | years | 4.6 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 5.9 |
Initial Capital | $US M | 4,370 | 4,370 | 6,049 | 6,049 |
NSR per Ton Milled | $/ton | 24.48 | 24.06 | 26.28 | 25.85 |
Operating Cost Per Ton | $/ton | 10.97 | 10.96 | 8.31 | 8.29 |
C1 Copper Cost (co-product basis) | $/lb CuEq | 1.65 | 1.67 | 1.33 | 1.34 |
Production Rate | million ton/year | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 |
Post-tax NPV at 0% | $US M | 8,131 | 7,759 | 10,554 | 10,184 |
Post-tax NPV at 5% | $US M | 3,319 | 3,131 | 3,500 | 3,315 |
Post-tax NPV at 7% | $US M | 2,245 | 2,097 | 1,968 | 1,823 |
Post-tax NPV at 8% | $US M | 1,818 | 1,687 | 1,368 | 1,239 |
Post-tax NPV at 10% | $US M | 1,134 | 1,028 | 417 | 313 |
Post-tax IRR | % | 15.6% | 15.1% | 11.1% | 10.8% |
Post-tax Payback | years | 4.8 | 4.9 | 6.2 | 6.3 |
Strip Ratio | waste : ore | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
Total Processed | M ton | 1,291 | 1,291 | 1,291 | 1,291 |
Copper Equivalent Grade | % | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
Copper Grade | % | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 |
Gold Grade | oz/ton | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
Molybdenum Grade | ppm | 154 | 154 | 154 | 154 |
Note: Copper equivalent (CuEq) calculations use the following metal prices: US$1.85 /lb for Cu, US$902 /oz for Au and US$12.50 /lb for Mo, and recoveries: 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone).
Pebble Project | Page 303 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
22.3 Methodology
An economic model was developed to estimate annual pre-tax and post-tax cash flows of the project. Net present value (NPV) was calculated based on a 7% discount rate. By convention, a discount rate of 8% is typically applied to copper and other base metal projects, while 5% is applied to gold and other precious metal projects. Given the polymetallic nature of the Pebble deposit and the large contribution of gold to total project revenues, a 7% blended discount rate was selected and considered appropriate for the purposes of discounted cash flow analyses.
Production data includes all production, whether payable in the spot market under the Royalty Agreement to third party metal stream partners, or payable as a smelter deduction (see Section 4.3).
All amounts expressed are in US dollars in real terms unless otherwise stated. NPV is calculated by discounting cash flows to the start of construction using a mid-year convention. The commencement of project construction is the valuation date on which the NPV, internal rate of return (IRR) and other financial results are calculated.
Calendar years used in the economic analysis are provided for conceptual purposes only. Permits still must be obtained in support of operations and approval to proceed is still required from Northern Dynasty’s Board of Directors.
22.4 Inputs to the Cash Flow Model
The Project would consist of a 4.5-year pre-production construction period, followed by 20 years of production as outlined in the mine plan set out in Section 16. The NPV and IRR were calculated at the beginning of the construction period in
Year -4.5.
The cost and revenue estimates were assembled using real dollars, treating Year -4.5 as the base year. No escalation was applied to any of the estimates beyond this date.
The projected long-term consensus metal price assumptions included in Section 19.2 are provided for reference in Table 22-2.
Table 22-2: Forecast Long-Term Metal Price Assumptions
Metal Type | Unit | Value ($) |
Copper | lb | 3.50 |
Gold | Oz | 1,600 |
Molybdenum | lb | 10 |
Silver | Oz | 22 |
Rhenium | kg | 1,500 |
The financial results of the 2022 PEA were prepared based on a nominal 180,000 tons per day milling capacity. Forecast LOM production results are summarized in Table 22-3.
Pebble Project | Page 304 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-3: Proposed Project Production Life of Mine Forecast Summary
Description | Units | Values |
Mine Life | years | 20 |
Mining Method |
| Open Pit |
Production Rate | M ton/year | 66 |
Strip Ratio | waste:ore | 0.12 |
Total Processed | M ton | 1,291 |
Copper Equivalent Grade | % | 0.57 |
Copper Grade | % | 0.29 |
Gold Grade | oz/ton | 0.009 |
Molybdenum Grade | ppm | 154 |
Copper Recovery | % | 86.9 |
Gold Recovery | % | 59.9 |
Molybdenum Recovery | % | 75.3 |
Copper Recovered | M lb | 6.409 |
Gold Recovered | k oz | 7,367 |
Molybdenum Recovered | M lb | 300 |
Avg Annual Copper Recovered | M lb | 320 |
Avg Annual Gold Recovered | k oz | 368 |
Avg Annual Molybdenum Recovered | M lb | 15 |
The predicted LOM material tonnages and payable metal production used in the cash flow model are shown in Table 22-4 and Table 22-5,which account for the first Royalty tranche and the full Royalty subscription..
Table 22-4: Forecast of Proposed Project LOM Material Tonnages and Payable Metal Production, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty
Description | Units | Values, 100% basis | Payable under Royalty | Values, net of Royalty |
Total Tons Mined | M ton | 1,443 | - | 1,443 |
Mill Feed | M ton | 1,291 | - | 1,291 |
Concentrate | ||||
Cu Concentrate (DMT) | k tonnes | 11,181 | - | 11,181 |
Mo Concentrate (DMT) | k tonnes | 272 | - | 272 |
Payable Metal | ||||
Payable Cu | M lb | 6,153 | - | 6,153 |
Payable Au | k oz | 7,127 | 66 | 7,062 |
Payable Mo | M lb | 300 | - | 300 |
Payable Ag | k oz | 32,901 | 1,458 | 31,443 |
Payable Re | tonnes | 208 | - | 208 |
Pebble Project | Page 305 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-5: Forecast of Proposed Project LOM Material Tonnages and Payable Metal Production, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
Description | Units | Values, 100% basis | Payable under Royalty | Values, net of Royalty |
Total Tons Mined | M ton | 1,443 | - | 1,443 |
Mill Feed | M ton | 1,291 | - | 1,291 |
Concentrate | ||||
Cu Concentrate (DMT) | k tonnes | 11,181 | - | 11,181 |
Mo Concentrate (DMT) | k tonnes | 272 | - | 272 |
Payable Metal | ||||
Payable Cu | M lb | 6,153 | - | 6,153 |
Payable Au | k oz | 7,127 | 328 | 6,800 |
Payable Mo | M lb | 300 | - | 300 |
Payable Ag | k oz | 32,901 | 7,289 | 25,611 |
Payable Re | tonnes | 208 | - | 208 |
Copper-gold concentrate production, including contained copper and gold metal over the proposed 20-year production period, is illustrated in Figure 22-1.
Pebble Project | Page 306 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 22-1: Forecast Copper-Gold Concentrate Production
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
Projected copper, gold, and silver grades within the copper-gold concentrate are shown in Table 22-6.
Table 22-6: Forecast of Proposed Project Copper-Gold Concentrate Statistics
Description | Units | Values |
Cu-Au Concentrate Produced | k dmt | 11,181 |
Copper Grade | % Cu | 26.0 |
Gold Grade | g/dmt | 20.2 |
Silver Grade | g/dmt | 101.8 |
Moisture Content | % | 8.0 |
Anticipated molybdenum-rhenium concentrate production, including contained molybdenum and rhenium metal over the 20-year production period, is illustrated in Figure 22-2.
Pebble Project | Page 307 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 22-2: Forecast Molybdenum-Rhenium Concentrate Production
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
Predicted molybdenum and rhenium grades within the concentrate are shown in Table 22-7.
Table 22-7: Forecast of Proposed Project Molybdenum-Rhenium Concentrate Statistics
Description | Units | Values |
Molybdenum-Rhenium Concentrate Produced | k dmt | 272 |
Molybdenum Grade | % Mo | 50.0 |
Rhenium Grade | ppm | 861 |
Moisture Content | % | 5.0 |
The initial capital investment assumed in the Base Case 2022 PEA, net of pre-production proceeds from future gold streaming partners and third party infrastructure investment, is $3.4 billion. The estimate includes direct costs for executing the Project; indirect costs associated with design, construction and commissioning; Owner’s costs for permitting, environmental, and corporate support; all capital costs to completion of construction and commissioning between Years -4.5 and -1; as well as contingencies. The estimate also reflects assumptions regarding infrastructure development partners for the port, road and power plant, pre-production proceeds from gold stream partners, reclamation trust funding and surety requirements during construction. Proceeds from the first tranche of the Royalty Agreement, $12 million received on July 26, 2022, as well as proceeds from subsequent tranches of the Royalty Agreement, up to $60 million in total, are assumed prior to the start of construction and thus are not included in the 2022 PEA.
The initial capital investment assumed in the Full Capital Case 2022 PEA is $6.3 billion without the assumptions regarding infrastructure development partners for the port, road and power plant and without the assumptions regarding gold stream partners.
The methodology for the capital and operating cost estimates, including accuracy and contingency basis are included in Section 21.
Pebble Project | Page 308 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
|
The Base Case financial evaluation assumes that strategic industry partners would develop, finance, own and operate a number of infrastructure assets including the transportation corridor (marine facility and access road) and the power infrastructure (natural gas pipeline and mine site power plant) and lease these assets back to the project through toll charges or lease payments. This assumption is based on historical experience with mining project infrastructure in Alaska. These partners could include utility and construction companies, independent power producers, special purpose financing vehicles or strategic financial investors. The discounted cash flow analysis assumes that these long term infrastructure assets are repaid over the proposed 20-year operating period with ownership reverting back to the project at maturity with a 7% return on capital to the third party built into the $180 million annual lease payments. Pebble’s existing relationships and commitments to Alaska Native Village Corporations in the project area have been assumed in this financial analysis as well as assumptions to foster on-going business-partnering initiatives.
The terms and conditions of the Royalty Agreement as set out in Section 4.3 are reflected in the financial analysis. These include the estimated portion of metal retained by Northern Dynasty at recovery rates in excess of 60% for gold and 65% for silver as well as the estimated portion of metal retained by Northern Dynasty if, in the future, spot prices exceed $4,000 (nominal) per ounce of gold or $50 (nominal) per ounce of silver. In calculating the estimated portion of metal retained by Northern Dynasty if spot prices exceed these nominal values, annual gold and silver price inflation of 3% was assumed as well as a 5 -year period before the start of construction.
With total gold production estimated at 7.4 million oz over 20 years, gold is projected to be significant component of gross revenues and Net Smelter Return (NSR) with approximately 25% of gross revenues attributable to gold (63% attributable to copper, 9% to molybdenum, 2% to silver and 1% to rhenium). In addition, the Pebble deposit resource estimate contains more than 70 million oz gold in the Measured and Indicated categories and 36 million ounces in the Inferred category. As such, Northern Dynasty believes a gold stream partner is a material consideration in the economic evaluation of the Project. This assumption is based on historical precious metal stream transactions and market data. Based on current market conditions and the assumptions noted in this Report, Northern Dynasty estimates proceeds during construction of approximately $1.1 billion from potential gold streaming partners assumed in the Base Case.
The 2022 PEA financial analysis assumes that sufficient financial surety is provided to cover closure costs if the proposed mine should close prematurely as required by the ADNR and the ADEC. Closure costs and obligations are reviewed by the State of Alaska every five years and updated accordingly.
The financial model includes annual contributions to a reclamation trust and assumes that any shortfall between the accumulated value of the reclamation trust and the reclamation liability would be covered with financial assurances in the form of a letter of credit. The reclamation trust assumptions include a 4% real rate of return.
There is no salvage value included in the financial analysis.
The Proposed Project reclamation trust value at cessation of operations is estimated to be $1.4 billion. The total estimated closure costs for the Proposed Project are $2.37 billion, all of which are scheduled for completion after the cessation of operations. In addition, the estimated post-closure water treatment costs are $16 million per year, requiring a residual reclamation trust balance of $400 million. The on-going return in the reclamation trust accounts for the difference in value at cessation of operations and that required for closure and post closure.
Table 22-8 contains a summary of costs, closure funding, and taxes for the Base Case and Full Capital Case for the Proposed Project. The estimated initial capital cost breakdown is show in Table 22-9.
Pebble Project | Page 309 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-8: Proposed Project Cost and Tax Summary
Description | Unit | Base Case, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | Base Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | Full Capital, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | Full Capital, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Costs | |||||
Total Initial Capital Cost | $B | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Infrastructure Lease | $B | 1.68 | 1.68 | - | - |
Net Initial Capital Cost | $B | 4.37 | 4.37 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Sustaining Capital Cost | $B | 1.52 | 1.52 | 1.54 | 1.54 |
Life of Mine Operating Cost1 | $/ton | 10.97 | 10.96 | 8.31 | 8.29 |
Copper C1 Cost2 | $/lb CuEq | 1.65 | 1.67 | 1.33 | 1.34 |
AISC (Co-Product Basis) | $/lb CuEq | 1.89 | 1.92 | 1.57 | 1.59 |
Gold C1 Cost | $/oz AuEq | 755 | 765 | 607 | 615 |
Closure Funding | |||||
Annual Contribution | $M/yr | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
Life of Mine Contribution | $B | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
Life of Mine Bond Premium | $B | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 |
Closure Fund3 | $B | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
Life of Mine Taxes4 | |||||
Alaska Mining License | $B | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
Alaska Royalty | $B | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
Alaska Income Tax | $B | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.87 | 0.83 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $B | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.51 |
Federal Income Tax | $B | 1.36 | 1.29 | 1.59 | 1.52 |
Annual Taxes5 | |||||
Alaska Mining License | $M | 34 | 33 | 37 | 36 |
Alaska Royalty | $M | 15 | 14 | 17 | 16 |
Alaska Income Tax | $M | 37 | 35 | 43 | 41 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $M | 24 | 24 | 26 | 26 |
Federal Income Tax | $M | 68 | 64 | 80 | 76 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes cost of infrastructure lease - $2.80/ton milled |
| 2. | C1 costs calculated on co product basis |
| 3. | Maximum value of closure fund during life of mine based on 4% compound interest |
| 4. | Estimated based on current Alaskan statutes |
| 5. | Life of mine taxes ÷ life of mine years |
Pebble Project | Page 310 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-9: Pebble Project – Initial Capital
Description | Cost ($M) |
Mining | 321 |
Process | 736 |
Other Infrastructure | 345 |
Tailings | 1,278 |
Pipelines | 189 |
Access Road | 296 |
Port Infrastructure | 246 |
Power Generation | 779 |
Indirect Costs | 1,182 |
Contingency | 678 |
Total Capital Cost Estimate | 6,049 |
Add: Reclamation funding during construction | 211 |
Initial Capital Investment – Full Capital Case | 6,259 |
Less: Outsourced Infrastructure | (1,680) |
Less: Pre-production proceeds from gold stream partner | (1,142) |
Initial Capital Investment - Base Case | 3,439 |
The phasing of initial capital expenditures and sustaining capital expenditures are illustrated in Figure 22-3. Figure 22-3 shows sustaining capital expenditures over the 20-year operating period, which are estimated to total $1,522 M including $219 M for open pit mining equipment and $1,293 M for TSF and WTP costs.
Figure 22-3: Pebble Project – Initial and Sustaining Capital Phasing
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2021.
Pebble Project | Page 311 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
An allowance for working capital was made in the financial model on the basis of 45 days debtor and creditor terms with an annual inventory investment equal to 5% of costs. Total working capital at the end of Year 20 is estimated to be $80 million.
The on-site operating cost assumptions included in Section 21.3 are provided for reference in Table 22-10.
Table 22-10: Forecast Proposed Project Base Case Operating Costs – per Ton and Total LOM
Description | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | ||
$/ton | LOM ($M) | $/ton | LOM ($M) | |
Total Operating Costs | 10.97 | 14,161 | 10.96 | 14,143 |
Open Pit | 1.75 | 2,254 | 1.75 | 2,254 |
Process | 4.17 | 5,380 | 4.17 | 5,380 |
Transportation | 0.89 | 1,145 | 0.87 | 1,127 |
Environmental | 0.49 | 630 | 0.49 | 630 |
G&A | 0.88 | 1,136 | 0.88 | 1,136 |
Infrastructure | 2.80 | 3,616 | 2.80 | 3,616 |
The on-site operating cost assumptions for the Full Capital Case, which exclude the assumptions regarding infrastructure development partners, are $10,719 million LOM and $8.31/ton milled assuming a 2% Gold and 6% Silver Royalty, and $10,701 million LOM and $8.29/ton milled assuming a 10% Gold and 30% Silver Royalty.
Key smelter terms and off-site operating cost assumptions included in Section 19.3 and Section 21.3, respectively, are provided for reference in Table 22-11.
Table 22-11: Key Smelter Terms and Off-Site Costs
Description | Units | Terms |
Copper Treatment Charges | $/DMT | 70.00 |
Copper Refining Charges | $/lb | 0.07 |
Copper Deduction | Concentrate % | 1.0 |
Gold Refining Charges | $/oz | 7.00 |
Gold Deduction | % of Production | 3.0 |
Silver Refining Charges | $/oz | 0.60 |
Silver Deduction | % of Production | 10.0 |
Copper Concentrate Ocean Freight | $ / WMT | 50.0 |
Molybdenum Concentrate Ocean Freight | $ / WMT | 171.1 |
Insurance | % invoice value | 0.15% |
Representation and Marketing Costs | $/WMT | $2.50 |
Projected total on-site and off-site operating costs as well as C1 copper cash costs (on both a co-product and by-product basis) are illustrated in Figure 22-4 over the proposed 20-year operating period. C1 Cash Cost (US$/lb) is a non-IFRS measure and is calculated as the sum of production costs, offsite costs (treatment, refining and transportation) costs, and royalties divided by the copper pounds produced. C1 cash cost per copper pound is a non-IFRS measure that is widely reported in the mining industry but does not have a standardized meaning and is disclosed in addition to IFRS measures.
Pebble Project | Page 312 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 22-4: Forecast C1 Cash Costs, Base Case
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2022.
22.5 Pre-Tax Financial Evaluation
22.5.1 Pre-Tax Evaluation Basis
The pre-tax financial model incorporated the production schedule and smelter term assumptions to produce annual recovered payable metal and gross revenue, in each concentrate stream, by year. Off-site costs, including the applicable refining and treatment costs, penalties, concentrate transportation charges, and marketing and representation fees, and royalties were then deducted from gross revenue to determine the NSR. Further details of the smelter terms used to calculate the recovered metal value and off-site operating costs can be found in Section 19.3.
That portion of the Pebble property within the Exploration Lands is subject to a NPI royalty payable to Teck. The terms include a 4% pre-payback net profits interest (after all costs including debt services and taxes) which increases to a 5% net profits interest after payback. However, the portion of the deposit to be mined by the proposed Project lies outside the portion subject to the NPI and is therefore not subject to the Teck royalty. The Project is subject to a State of Alaska royalty as described with other state taxes in Section 22.6.4 and subject to the Royalty Agreement as described in Section 19.5.2.
The operating cash flow was calculated by deducting annual mining, processing, transportation, environmental, infrastructure lease (Base Case only) and G&A costs from the NSR.
Pebble Project | Page 313 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Initial, sustaining, and working capital as well as reclamation funding were deducted from and assumed proceeds from potential precious metal streaming partners (Base Case only) were added to the operating cash flow in the years they are projected to occur, to determine the net cash flow before taxes.
Initial capital cost included all estimated expenditures in the construction period, from Year -4.5 to Year -1 inclusive. First production would occur at the beginning of Year 1. Sustaining capital expenditure includes all capital expenditures purchased after first production.
The financial analysis was carried out on a 100% ownership basis. The power, port and road infrastructure assets are assumed to be owned by third-party partners in the Base Case.
22.5.2 Pre-Tax Financial Results
A summary of the pre-tax financial results for the Base Case is provided in Table 22-12.
Table 22-12: Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Pre-Tax Financial Results
Description | Units | LOM Values L/T Prices, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | LOM Values L/T Prices, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Copper | US$ M | 21,536 | 21,536 |
Gold | US$ M | 8,979 | 8,560 |
Molybdenum | US$ M | 2,995 | 2,995 |
Silver | US$ M | 692 | 563 |
Rhenium | US$ M | 312 | 312 |
Total Recovered Metal Value | US$ M | 34,515 | 33,967 |
Refining and treatment Charges, Penalties, Insurance, Marketing and Representation & Concentrate Transportation | US$ M | 2,918 | 2,918 |
Open Pit | US$/ton milled | 1.75 | 1.75 |
Process | US$/ton milled | 4.17 | 4.17 |
Transportation | US$/ton milled | 0.89 | 0.87 |
Environmental | US$/ton milled | 0.49 | 0.49 |
G&A | US$/ton milled | 0.88 | 0.88 |
Infrastructure Lease | US$/ton milled | 2.80 | 2.80 |
Total Operating Cost | US$/ton milled | 10.97 | 10.96 |
Initial Capital | US$ M | 6,049 | 6,049 |
Add: Pre-production Reclamation Funding | US$ M | 212 | 212 |
Less: Outsourced Infrastructure | US$ M | (1,680) | (1,680) |
Less: Pre-production proceeds from gold stream partner | US$ M | (1,142) | (1,142) |
Initial Capital Investment during Construction | US$ M | 3,439 | 3,439 |
Sustaining Capital | US$ M | 1,522 | 1,522 |
Pre - Tax Undiscounted Cash Flow | US$ M | 11,696 | 11,168 |
Pre - Tax NPV at 7% | US$ M | 3,455 | 3,253 |
Pre-Tax IRR | % | 18.1 | 17.6 |
Pre-Tax Payback Period | Years | 4.6 | 4.7 |
Cash Cost (Co-Product Basis) | US$/lb CuEq | 1.65 | 1.67 |
All-in Sustaining Cost (Co-Product Basis) | US$/lb CuEq | 1.89 | 1.92 |
Pebble Project | Page 314 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
A summary of the pre-tax financial results for the Full Capital Case, which exclude the assumptions regarding infrastructure development partners and precious metal streaming partners, is provided in Table 22-13.
Table 22-13: Forecast of Proposed Project Full Capital Case Pre-Tax Financial Results
Description | Units | LOM Values L/T Prices, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | LOM Values L/T Prices, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Recovered Metal Value | |||
Copper | US$ M | $21,536 | $21,536 |
Gold | US$ M | $11,299 | $10,880 |
Molybdenum | US$ M | $2,995 | $2,995 |
Silver | US$ M | $692 | $563 |
Rhenium | US$ M | $312 | $312 |
Total Recovered Metal Value | US$ M | $36,834 | $36,287 |
Off-Site Operating Costs | |||
Refining and treatment Charges, Penalties, Insurance, Marketing and Representation & Concentrate Transportation | US$ M | $2,922 | $2,921 |
On-Site Operating Costs | |||
Open Pit | US$/ton milled | $1.75 | $1.75 |
Process | US$/ton milled | $4.17 | $4.17 |
Transportation | US$/ton milled | $1.02 | $1.01 |
Environmental | US$/ton milled | $0.49 | $0.49 |
G&A | US$/ton milled | $0.88 | $0.88 |
Infrastructure Lease | US$/ton milled | - | - |
Total Operating Cost | US$/ton milled | $8.31 | $8.29 |
Capital Expenditure | |||
Initial Capital | US$ M | $6,049 | $6,049 |
Add: Pre-production Reclamation Funding | US$ M | $212 | $212 |
Less: Outsourced Infrastructure | US$ M | - | - |
Less: Pre-production proceeds from gold stream partner | US$ M | - | - |
Initial Capital Investment during Construction | US$ M | $6,260 | $6,260 |
Sustaining Capital | US$ M | $1,541 | $1,541 |
Financial Summary | |||
Pre-tax Undiscounted Cash Flow | US$ M | $14,614 | $14,085 |
Pre-tax NPV at 7% | US$ M | $3,395 | $3,193 |
Pre-tax IRR | % | 13.3 | 13.0% |
Pre-tax Payback Period | Years | 5.8 | 5.9 |
Cash Cost (Co-Product Basis) | US$/lb CuEq | $1.33 | $1.34 |
All-in Sustaining Cost (Co-Product Basis) | US$/lb CuEq | $1.57 | $1.59 |
Pebble Project | Page 315 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
22.6 Post-Tax Financial Analysis
22.6.1 Overview
The Pebble Project is 100% owned by the Pebble Partnership. As a partnership is not a taxable entity for U.S. tax purposes; tax liabilities accrue to each partner based on its proportionate share of the income from the project in a fiscal period.
The economic analysis assumed that the Project would be subject to tax as if it were held 100% by a U.S. corporate resident entity. This approach has been taken to facilitate comparison to other mining projects that are owned on a 100% basis.
Taxable income from sales of concentrate produced from the Project will be subject to taxation by multiple levels of government. Given that the Pebble Project is one of the world’s most significant copper-gold deposits, tax revenues derived from mining would contribute significantly to U.S. Federal, State and local governments. The following tax regimes were incorporated in the post-tax analysis: U.S. Federal Income Tax, Alaska State Income Tax, Alaska Severance Tax, Alaska State Royalty Tax, and Alaska Mining License Tax. Taxes were calculated based on currently-enacted United States and State of Alaska tax laws and regulations under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
Using long-term metal prices, assuming 2% Gold Royalty and 6% Silver Royalty, the total taxes payable for the Base Case over the 20-year operating period are estimated to be $3.6 billion, including $1.4 billion in federal income tax, $1.7 billion in State income taxes, royalty and mining license taxes, and $0.5 billion in municipal severance and property taxes. Assuming 10% Gold Royalty and 30% Silver Royalty, the total taxes payable for the Base Case over the 20-year operating period are estimated to be $3.4 billion, including $1.3 billion in federal income tax, $1.6 billion in State income taxes, royalty and mining license taxes, and $0.5 billion in municipal severance and property taxes.
At metal prices defined in Section 19.2, (Oct 2021), assuming 2% Gold Royalty and 6% Silver Royalty, total taxes payable for the Base Case over the 20-year operating period are estimated to be $5.9 billion, including $2.4 billion in Federal income tax, $2.9 billion in State income taxes, royalty and mining license taxes, and $0.6 billion in municipal severance and property taxes. Assuming 10% Gold Royalty and 30% Silver Royalty, total taxes payable for the Base Case over the 20-year operating period are estimated to be $5.7 billion, including $2.4 billion in Federal income tax, $2.8 billion in State income taxes, royalty and mining license taxes, and $0.6 billion in municipal severance and property taxes.
22.6.2 U.S. Federal and Alaska State Corporate Income Tax
The statutory federal income tax rate is 21%. The Alaska State income tax rate is 9.4%. As State taxes are deductible for Federal purposes, the combined statutory income tax rate for the Pebble Project is expected to be 28.4% of taxable income for the Base Case.
Taxable losses generated in a given year may be carried forward indefinitely and applied to taxable income when it arises. The IRC also provides certain deductions to incentivize investment by mining companies, including depletion and resource development expenditure pools.
The benefits of depletion and other deductions under the IRC for the Project reduces the average mine life effective income tax rate from the combined statutory tax rate of 28.4% to the effective income tax rate of 17.8% for the Base Case.
Combined with State production taxes and the borough severance tax, the total effective income tax rate on the Pebble Project is 30.5% for the Base Case.
Pebble Project | Page 316 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
22.6.3 Lake and Peninsula Borough Severance Tax
Municipal and borough governments in the State of Alaska assess property, sales, and use and/or severance taxes. The Lake and Peninsula Borough, where the project is located, has enacted a municipal severance tax of 1.5% of the gross production value, and this tax has been applied in the financial model. There is no provision in the legislation to carry losses forward to offset future profits in the State severance tax calculation.
22.6.4 Alaska State Royalty Tax
The Alaska State royalty is calculated at 3% of net income from mining operations on Alaska State lands.
22.6.5 Alaska Mining License Tax
The Alaska mining licence tax is assessed on net income from mining operations. Legislation allows for a 3.5-year hiatus from the mining licence tax after the commencement of initial production. The maximum mining licence rate is 7% on net income over $100,000.
22.6.6 Post-Tax Financial Results
The forecast total corporate income tax payable on the Pebble Project profits is $2,098 million for the Base Case over the 20-year mine life at long-term metal prices assuming a 2% gold and 6% Silver Royalty, and $1,988 million assuming a 10% gold and 30% Silver Royalty
The post-tax financial results are summarized in Table 22-14 for the Base Case. Table 22-14 also includes the equivalent results from the 2021 PEA to demonstrate the effect of the Royalty Agreement.
Table 22-14: Forecast of Proposed Project Base Case Post-Tax Financial Results
Description | Units | LOM Values No Royalty1 | LOM Values L/T Prices, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | LOM Values L/T Prices, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Financial Summary |
|
|
|
|
Mining Taxes & Government Royalties | US$ M | $1,479 | $1,467 | $1,420 |
Corporate Income Tax | US$ M | $2,125 | $2,098 | $1,988 |
Post-Tax Undiscounted Cash Flow | US$ M | $8,224 | $8,131 | $7,759 |
Post-tax NPV at 7%3 | US$ M | $2,281 | $2,245 | $2,097 |
Post-Tax IRR | % | 15.7 | 15.6 | 15.1% |
Post-Tax Payback Period | years | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.9 |
1. The Life of Mine Values (“LOM Values”), No Royalty are derived from 2021 PEA, now supplanted by 2022 PEA.
Pebble Project | Page 317 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The forecast total corporate income tax payable on the Pebble Project profits are $2,458 million for the Full Capital Case over the 20-year mine life at long term metal prices assuming a 2% gold and 6% Silver Royalty and $2,345 million for the Full Capital Case over the 20-year mine life at long term metal prices assuming a 10% gold and 30% Silver Royalty.
The post-tax financial results are summarized in Table 22-15 for the Full Capital Case.
Table 22-15: Full Capital Case Post-Tax Financial Results
Description | Units | LOM Values L/T Prices, 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | LOM Values L/T Prices, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Financial Summary | |||
Mining Taxes & Government Royalties | US$ M | $1,602 | $1,556 |
Corporate Income Tax | US$ M | $2,458 | $2,345 |
Post-Tax Undiscounted Cash Flow | US$ M | $10,554 | $10,184 |
Post-tax NPV at 7% | US$ M | $1,968 | $1,823 |
Post-Tax IRR | % | 11.1 | 10.8% |
Post-Tax Payback Period | years | 6.2 | 6.3 |
22.7 Cash Flow
The annual production schedule and estimated cash flow forecast for the Pebble Project as envisaged in the 2022 PEA Base Case can be found in assuming a 10% gold / 30% silver royalty. As illustrated in Table 22-13 and Table 22-15, forecast results assuming a 10% gold / 30% silver royalty are materially similar to forecast results assuming a 2% gold / 6% silver royalty and, as such, only one detailed cash flow forecast is presented in Table 22-16.
Pebble Project | Page 318 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-16: Base Case Annual Production Schedule and Estimated Cash Flow, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
|
| $/t milled | TOTAL | NPV 7% | -Year 4.5 | -Year 4 | -Year 3 | -Year 2 | -Year 1 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 | Year 11 | Year 12 | Year 13 | Year 14 | Year 15 | Year 16 | Year 17 | Year 18 | Year 19 | Year 20 | Year 21 |
Mining Volume |
|
| 1,443 |
| - | - | - | - | 33.1 | 62.7 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 70.5 | 72.8 | 71.7 | 70.7 | 72.3 | 72.7 | 72.8 | 72.7 | 72.8 | 72.7 | 72.8 | 65.7 | 64.1 | - |
Milling Volume |
|
| 1,291 |
| - | - | - | - | - | 43.8 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 64.1 | - |
Strip Ratio |
|
| 0.12 |
|
| na | na | na | na | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | na |
REVENUE | 100% | 26.32 | 33,967 | 13,978 | - | - | - | - | - | 1,198 | 1,946 | 1,964 | 1,769 | 1,827 | 1,811 | 2,047 | 1,953 | 1,589 | 1,796 | 1,759 | 1,834 | 1,854 | 1,901 | 1,365 | 1,602 | 1,647 | 1,290 | 1,575 | 1,239 | - |
Copper ($US 3.5 per lb) | 63% | 16.69 | 21,536 | 8,895 | - | - | - | - | - | 769 | 1,311 | 1,266 | 1,090 | 1,105 | 1,137 | 1,331 | 1,301 | 974 | 1,109 | 1,094 | 1,185 | 1,236 | 1,297 | 813 | 992 | 988 | 731 | 1,010 | 799 | - |
Gold ($US 1600 per oz) | 25% | 6.63 | 8,560 | 3,521 | - | - | - | - | - | 320 | 438 | 416 | 511 | 551 | 423 | 493 | 411 | 487 | 518 | 473 | 439 | 391 | 388 | 430 | 440 | 441 | 453 | 327 | 211 | - |
Molybdenum ($US 10 per lb) | 9% | 2.32 | 2,995 | 1,205 | - | - | - | - | - | 78 | 150 | 231 | 123 | 126 | 203 | 174 | 191 | 89 | 126 | 151 | 164 | 179 | 168 | 84 | 128 | 174 | 74 | 193 | 190 | - |
Silver ($US 22 per oz) | 2% | 0.44 | 563 | 228 | - | - | - | - | - | 20 | 28 | 27 | 30 | 31 | 29 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 29 | 27 | 30 | 30 | 32 | 30 | 29 | 27 | 25 | 26 | 20 | - |
Rhenium ($US 1500 per kg) | 1% | 0.24 | 312 | 129 | - | - | - | - | - | 11 | 20 | 24 | 15 | 13 | 20 | 17 | 20 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 8 | 19 | 18 | - |
Realization charges |
| 2.26 | 2,918 | 1,194 | - | - | - | - | - | 95 | 166 | 188 | 139 | 142 | 168 | 176 | 178 | 118 | 142 | 148 | 160 | 169 | 171 | 102 | 132 | 146 | 92 | 153 | 133 | - |
NET SMELTER RETURN |
| 24.06 | 31,050 | 12,783 | - | - | - | - | - | 1,103 | 1,780 | 1,776 | 1,630 | 1,685 | 1,643 | 1,871 | 1,775 | 1,471 | 1,654 | 1,611 | 1,674 | 1,685 | 1,731 | 1,264 | 1,470 | 1,501 | 1,199 | 1,422 | 1,106 | - |
OPERATING COSTS |
| 10.96 | 14,143 | 5,690 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 674 | 683 | 686 | 689 | 693 | 697 | 699 | 705 | 693 | 713 | 716 | 726 | 731 | 733 | 700 | 717 | 721 | 703 | 720 | 711 | - |
Open Pit |
| 1.75 | 2,254 | 891 | - | - | - | - | - | 94.6 | 103.1 | 106.5 | 104.8 | 106.5 | 110.9 | 112.8 | 118.1 | 106.6 | 108.9 | 111.5 | 117.9 | 123.5 | 124.8 | 111.7 | 114.2 | 119.3 | 115.6 | 118.6 | 124.1 | - |
Process |
| 4.17 | 5,380 | 2,174 | - | - | - | - | - | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | 269 | - |
Transportation |
| 0.87 | 1,127 | 452 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 42 | 43 | 43 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 66 | 66 | 70 | 69 | 70 | 50 | 64 | 63 | 49 | 63 | 48 | - |
Environmental |
| 0.49 | 630 | 253 | - | - | - | - | - | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | - |
G&A |
| 0.88 | 1,136 | 459 | - | - | - | - | - | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | 57 | - |
Infrastructure Lease |
| 2.80 | 3,616 | 1,461 | - | - | - | - | - | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | 181 | - |
OPERATING PROFIT (EBITDA) |
| 13.10 | 16,907 | 7,093 | -7 | -7 | -7 | -7 | -7 | 429 | 1,097 | 1,090 | 941 | 992 | 946 | 1,171 | 1,070 | 778 | 940 | 895 | 948 | 954 | 997 | 564 | 753 | 780 | 496 | 702 | 395 | - |
CAPITAL COSTS |
| -3.39 | -4,370 | -3,564 | -43 | -282 | -680 | -1,838 | -1,526 | -1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Capital Costs - Leased Infrastructure (FYI only) |
| -1.32 | -1,699 | -1,461 | - | -348 | -933 | -192 | -206 | - | - | - | -5 | - | - | - | - | - | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | -2 | - |
Sustaining Mining Capital |
| -0.17 | -219 | -110 | - | - | - | - | - | -72 | -13 | -8 | - | - | -8 | -8 | -27 | -3 | - | -16 | -1 | -19 | -22 | - | -20 | -3 | - | - | - | - |
Sustaining Expansion Capital |
| 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Sustaining TSF and Other Capital |
| -1.01 | -1,303 | -552 | - | - | - | - | - | -9 | -66 | -70 | -179 | -64 | -58 | -89 | -58 | -67 | -118 | -53 | -58 | -61 | -73 | -56 | -53 | -60 | -55 | -54 | -1 | - |
Reclamation Funding |
| -0.77 | -989 | -485 | -23 | -40 | -39 | -39 | -38 | -41 | -41 | -41 | -40 | -40 | -43 | -42 | -42 | -41 | -40 | -43 | -43 | -42 | -41 | -41 | -40 | -39 | -38 | -37 | -37 | - |
Pre-production Proceeds of Metal Stream |
| 0.88 | 1,142 | 941 | 13 | 86 | 206 | 556 | 281 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
|
Working Capital |
| 0.00 | - | -71 | - | - | - | - | - | -77 | -83 | 1 | 31 | -21 | 6 | -24 | 11 | 35 | -15 | -0 | -8 | 1 | -4 | 50 | -22 | -5 | 35 | -26 | 32 | 84 |
PRE-TAX PROJECT CASH FLOW |
| 8.65 | 11,168 | 3,253 | -59.2 | -243 | -520 | -1,327 | -1,290 | 229 | 894 | 972 | 753 | 868 | 843 | 1,008 | 954 | 702 | 767 | 782 | 838 | 834 | 857 | 517 | 618 | 674 | 437 | 584 | 390 | 84 |
Cumulative Pre-tax Project Cash Flow |
|
|
|
| -59 | -302 | -822 | -2,148 | -3,438 | -3,210 | -2,316 | -1,343 | -591 | 277 | 1,120 | 2,128 | 3,083 | 3,785 | 4,552 | 5,334 | 6,172 | 7,006 | 7,863 | 8,381 | 8,999 | 9,672 | 10,109 | 10,694 | 11,083 | 11,168 |
PV Factor |
|
|
|
| 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.18 |
PRE-TAX PROJECT NPV 7 |
|
| 3,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRR |
|
| 17.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-tax Project Payback (yrs) |
|
| 4.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaska Mining License |
|
| -652 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 6 | - 11 | - 23 | - 19 | -33 | -43 | -44 | -55 | -51 | -54 | -54 | -57 | -33 | -44 | -46 | -32 | -42 | -5 | - |
Alaska State Royalty Taxes |
|
| -288 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -3 | -5 | -10 | -8 | -15 | -19 | -20 | -24 | -23 | -24 | -24 | -25 | -15 | -20 | -21 | -14 | -19 | -2 | - |
Borough Severance & Property Taxes |
|
| -480 |
| - | - | - | - | -1 | -17 | -27 | - 27 | -25 | -26 | -25 | -29 | -27 | -23 | -26 | -25 | -26 | -26 | -27 | -20 | -23 | -23 | -19 | -22 | 17 | - |
Total Mining Taxes and Royalties |
| -1.10 | -1,420 | -524 | - | - | - | - | -1 | -17 | -27 | -36 | -42 | -59 | -52 | -77 | -89 | -87 | -104 | -99 | -104 | -104 | -108 | -67 | -87 | -90 | -64 | -83 | -24 | - |
Total Corporate Income Tax Payable |
| -1.54 | -1,988 | -631 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -4 | -8 | -16 | -14 | -23 | -45 | -161 | -199 | -186 | -197 | -196 | -205 | -119 | -162 | -169 | -114 | -152 | -18 | - |
POST-TAX PROJECT CASH FLOW |
| 6.01 | 7,759 | 2,097 | -59 | -243 | -520 | -1,327 | -1,291 | 211 | 867 | 932 | 703 | 794 | 777 | 908 | 821 | 454 | 464 | 497 | 537 | 534 | 544 | 331 | 370 | 414 | 259 | 350 | 347 | 84 |
Cumulative Post-tax Project Cash Flow |
|
|
|
| -59 | -302 | -822 | -2,148 | -3,439 | -3,228 | -2,361 | -1,429 | -726 | 68 | 845 | 1,753 | 2,574 | 3,028 | 3,492 | 3,989 | 4,526 | 5,061 | 5,604 | 5,935 | 6,305 | 6,719 | 6,978 | 7,328 | 7,675 | 7,759 |
POST-TAX PROJECT NPV 7 |
|
| 2,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRR |
|
| 15.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-tax Project Payback (yrs) |
|
| 4.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pebble Project | Page 319 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
22.8 Sensitivity Analysis
The financial analysis included testing the sensitivity of the Project’s NPV, and IRR to several Project variables. The following variables were elected for this analysis:
· | copper price; |
|
|
· | gold price; |
|
|
· | molybdenum price; |
|
|
· | initial capital cost estimate; |
|
|
· | onsite operating cost estimate; |
|
|
· | sustaining capital cost estimate (incl. expansion); and |
|
|
· | head grade. |
Each variable, except head grade, was changed in increments of 10% between -30% to +30% while holding all other variables constant. The head grade evaluation tested a range ±10%, while holding the other all other variables constant, as variation beyond that range is extremely unlikely given the extent of the drilling defining the Mineral Resource and the methodology used to estimate the Mineral Resource. Figure 22-5 through Figure 22-8show the results of the post-tax and pre-tax sensitivity analysis on the NPV and IRR.
As shown in Figure 22-5 and Figure 22-6, the Project’s NPV at a 7% discount rate is, from most to least, sensitive to changes in head grade, copper price, initial capital costs, on-site operating costs, gold price, molybdenum price, and sustaining capital costs.
Pebble Project | Page 320 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 22-5: Post-Tax Sensitivity Analysis, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2022.
Figure 22-6: Pre-Tax Sensitivity Analysis, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2022.
As shown in Figure 22-7 and Figure 22-8, the Project’s IRR is most sensitive to changes in, from most to least sensitive, head grade, initial capital costs, copper price, on-site operating costs, gold price, molybdenum prices, and sustaining capital costs.
Pebble Project | Page 321 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 22-7: Post-Tax IRR, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2022.
Figure 22-8: Pre-Tax IRR, Proposed Project Full Capital Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
Note: Prepared by NDM, 2022.
22.9 Copper and Gold Price Scenarios
Metal price scenarios were completed to determine the effects of copper and gold price on the Base Case Project IRR and NPV at a 7% discount rate. The copper price was varied from $2.50/lb to $4.50/lb and the gold price was varied from $1,200/oz to $2,000/oz, while holding all other variables constant. The results of this scenario can be found in Table 22-17. The long term metal prices are bolded in the table.
Pebble Project | Page 322 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 22-17: Metal Price Scenarios, Proposed Project Base Case, 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty
IRR, Post-Tax % | Copper Price ($/lb) | |||||||||
2.50 | 2.75 | 3.00 | 3.25 | 3.50 | 3.75 | 4.00 | 4.25 | 4.50 | ||
Gold Price ($/oz) | 1,200 | 4.8% | 6.8% | 8.7% | 10.4% | 12.0% | 13.5% | 14.9% | 16.2% | 17.4% |
1,400 | 6.7% | 8.6% | 10.5% | 12.1% | 13.7% | 15.2% | 16.6% | 17.9% | 19.1% | |
1,600 | 8.0% | 10.0% | 11.8% | 13.5% | 15.1% | 16.6% | 18.0% | 19.3% | 20.6% | |
1,800 | 9.8% | 11.8% | 13.6% | 15.3% | 16.9% | 18.4% | 19.8% | 21.2% | 22.5% | |
2,000 | 11.8% | 13.8% | 15.6% | 17.3% | 18.9% | 20.4% | 21.8% | 23.2% | 24.5% | |
NPV7, Post-Tax $Billions | Copper Price ($/lb) | |||||||||
2.50 | 2.75 | 3.00 | 3.25 | 3.50 | 3.75 | 4.00 | 4.25 | 4.50 | ||
Gold Price ($/oz) | 1,200 | (0.5) | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.2 |
1,400 | (0.1) | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.6 | |
1,600 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.9 | |
1,800 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.2 | |
2,000 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
Pebble Project | Page 323 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
There are no properties adjacent to the Project relevant to this Report.
Pebble Project | Page 324 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
24.1 Project Execution Plan
24.1.1 Introduction
This preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) provides a general outline for the engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning activities required to bring the Pebble Project successfully into operation. This PEP reflects the current state of the Proposed Project and would be further refined in future studies.
The Project would be designed and constructed to industry and regulatory standards, with emphasis on addressing all environmental and safety issues. Adherence to the PEP would help ensure safe, timely, and cost effective completion while maintaining construction quality.
Key project deliverables encompassed by the PEP include the development of:
· | an open pit mining operation; |
|
|
· | a copper-molybdenum mineral process plant with a possible option for gold recovery; |
|
|
· | two TSFs; |
|
|
· | water management systems including WTP facilities; |
|
|
· | site infrastructure, including on-site roads, workforce accommodations, offices, and maintenance facilities; |
|
|
· | a marine terminal facility at Diamond Point on the north shore of Cook Inlet, which includes equipment for concentrate handling and barge loading for transhipment, as well as support facilities to manage inbound containerized consumables; |
|
|
· | a slurry pipeline system for moving concentrate from the mine to the terminal facility, which includes pumping stations and a return water line to the mine site; |
|
|
· | a pipeline for transferring natural gas between the east side of Cook Inlet, the marine terminal site, and the mine site; |
|
|
· | combined cycle natural gas-fired turbine power plant at the mine site, with a smaller gas-fired power plant at the marine terminal site; |
|
|
· | an all-weather access road that links the marine terminal to the mine site; |
|
|
· | construction camps required for the various phases and sites; and |
|
|
· | temporary construction roads connecting the mine site and marine terminal to support initial construction and movement of equipment modules. |
The construction time required from receipt of permits to commencement of production is expected to be 48 months. An indicative project development schedule is provided in Figure 24-1.
Pebble Project | Page 325 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Figure 24-1: Indicative Project Development Schedule
Figure prepared by Ausenco, 2022.
Pebble Project | Page 326 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
24.1.2 Health, Safety and Environment
A stringent Health, Safety, Environment, and Community (HSEC) program is essential to overall Project success. A system of integrated principles was designed, as part of the goal of achieving zero harm for employees, contractors, and visitors working on the Project while ensuring protection of the environment and adherence to all permits.
24.1.2.1 Site Environmental Procedures
All design and engineering stages would incorporate criteria for responsible management of process flows, effluent, and waste products to meet established capture and containment guidelines. The Project design would incorporate basic clean plant design standards, including operational safety and maintenance access requirements. A Hazard and Operability Analysis (HAZOP) would be conducted by the Project design team during the detailed design stage for each area of the Project.
24.1.2.2 Community Engagement
Early engagement with the local communities in the execution process will be important in creating a long-term partnership between the local communities and stakeholders and the mine operations, ensuring that there is mutual benefit, and that local concerns and requirements, such as employment opportunities and infrastructure development are addressed. Failure to engage in meaningful dialogue with the local communities early on will lead to delays in approval and potential opposition to the mine development.
24.1.3 Engineering
The approach to engineering design is to use the best available proven technology for the Project, balanced against overall value and risk factors. The designs for specific work areas (mill facilities, power plant, pipeline, and marine facilities) are to be bench-marked against projects of a similar type and scale together with global engineering practice standards.
Project systems and equipment would be designed to meet North American standards for northern climates with sub-zero temperatures, in remote locations.
Where applicable, the use of pre-assembled or modular components would be implemented to reduce costs associated with transportation, site erection, and other variable project components through reduce on-site labour requirements.
24.1.4 Procurement and Contracts
The procurement strategy would use a global approach to minimize capital expenditure and sea freight costs. At the same time, opportunities to source materials from Alaska- or USA-based suppliers would be promoted to increase local content.
The Owner’s team, working with representatives from the EPCM contractor, would procure all equipment and bulk items. A detailed procurement database would be developed in alignment with the project execution schedule and would cover all requirements from enquiry issue through to award, expediting, inspection and final delivery.
The Owner’s team, together with QA/QC personnel, would conduct independent quality inspections and monitor major equipment delivery milestone dates.
Pebble Project | Page 327 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
24.1.5 Logistics and Construction Strategy
24.1.5.1 Logistics
The core of the plan is to construct a reliable and efficient transportation corridor between the marine terminal and the mine site prior to shipping materials and supplies to construct the permanent site infrastructure. The logistics plan follows a project construction schedule of 48 months, with the permanent access road from Diamond Point terminal facilities completed within 18 months of the start of site works, and the marine facilities prepared to receive equipment and modules for the mine site construction.
Equipment, materials and supplies would be received, and shipments consolidated at selected marshalling yards located at Seattle, WA and Central Asia. Several companies operate ocean-going barge systems into Alaska from the Seattle-Tacoma area. Depending on the source location of materials and equipment, marshalling of cargos can also be done at an alternate site in Prince Rupert, British Columbia which would reduce the barge travel distance.
Logistics would evolve over the life of the project as transportation infrastructure is developed. In general, it would fall into three phases:
· | early mobilization access phase; |
|
|
· | temporary access phase; and |
|
|
· | permanent access phase. |
24.1.5.2 Construction Strategy
Construction crews would work a three-week-on, one-week-off rotation; local labour would be preferred for crew positions. Contract labour for the Owner’s earthwork fleet would be used until the focus of work shifts to the mine site. Then, the Owner’s operations team would begin recruiting full-time employees to operate equipment, with a focus on developing a core mining team during the construction phase and prior to the arrival of large open pit equipment.
The PEP is based on a combination of EPC and EPCM delivery packages including:
· | an open pit mine (Owner managed); |
|
|
· | site grading, TSF, and water treatment facilities; |
|
|
· | early site access road and the main service corridor; |
|
|
· | EPCM for mill facilities and on-site infrastructure; |
|
|
· | concentrate slurry and return water pipeline system; |
|
|
· | a terminal site at Diamond Point including onshore infrastructure and marine facilities; |
|
|
· | a natural gas pipeline in two contacts: sub-sea and onshore; and |
|
|
· | EPC contract for combined cycle gas power plants: mine site and terminal site. |
Pebble Project | Page 328 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
A key component of the construction strategy is use of pre-assembled modules, up to 2,000 tons in size. These modules would be constructed remotely, either in North America or Asia, shipped to the marine terminal site, and transported along the access road using specialized self-propelled modular transport (SPMT) units.
24.1.5.3 Marine Terminal and Mine Site Access Road
The first step in achieving land access to the Project sites would be to establish marine landing facilities at the marine terminal in Iliamna Bay. Initial marine construction would be supported by a floating camp mobilized by the marine contractor. This early access would include a dredging an access channel and installation of concrete caissons that would allow the off-loading of mine mobile equipment, large modules and plant equipment from barges.
At the same time the marine facilities are being established, a temporary construction road would be constructed between the marine terminal and the mine site around the northeast corner of Lake Iliamna, passing by the village of Iliamna and connecting to the airport. A temporary crossing of the Newhalen River would be required at this stage to access the mine site and would be replaced by a permanent crossing during the construction period. The equipment necessary to complete the road construction would be transported from Cook Inlet using the existing Williamsport – Pile Bay road. Until accommodations have been established at the mine site, personnel working on the road and mine site would be housed in a temporary camp at Iliamna.
The marine facilities would be available to support construction with temporary barge landing about 8 months following the initial mobilization, and the temporary mine site access route would be established within the same time frame. The permanent road would be completed for moving heavy modules about 18 months following mobilization.
24.1.6 Construction Camp
Local accommodations at Iliamna would be utilized used until the mine site complex is established. The temporary accommodation and services complex at the mine site would be constructed as soon as the temporary construction roads have been completed, in order to enable their use for the construction phase. The temporary construction camp would eventually be converted to the permanent accommodation complex for the operations phases of the Project. The number of temporary camp rooms required at the mine site would depend on the peak workforce loading required for the construction phase.
24.1.7 Open Pit Pre-Production
The pit area would be dewatered by a sequence of wells selectively positioned to lower the water table in that area. The mining consultant estimates about six months of dewatering would be required prior to commencement of mining. Natural gas would be available at the mine site in Month 26 and the initial power plant would be online in approximately Month 28.
Pre-production pit activity would concentrate on clearing the overburden and soils off the first pit phase, constructing the haul roads and developing bench faces for the larger equipment. Other work undertaken by the construction fleet would include site earthworks and initial tailings embankment work. As production mine equipment is brought on stream, waste stripping would focus on supplying rock for the tailings embankments construction.
24.1.8 Tailings Storage Facility Preparation
The first stage of the TSF embankments would be constructed during this initial construction phase and would provide the capacity required to store the tailings, process water, and site runoff for approximately 2 years of operation. The first requirement for TSF construction is to establish all of the environmental controls (diversion ditches, sediment control ponds, runoff collection ponds) in the construction area to manage site runoff from construction activities. A primary objective during the construction program is to divert clean runoff to reduce the water treatment requirements. Runoff that does not meet discharge requirements would be collected, treated, and discharged downstream. The starter dam would take approximately 3 years to construct and would incorporate construction materials from local borrow sources and open pit stripping. Foundation preparation for the TSFs includes removing and stockpiling the organic material and other materials not used for the foundation under the embankment. The organic materials would be used to reclaim the embankments at closure. The soils under the embankment would be removed to the top of bedrock and used, as appropriate, in the construction of the embankment.
Pebble Project | Page 329 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
24.1.9 Permanent Power
Permanent power that is generated on site would be required to start the open pit and process plant operations. A combined cycle gas fired power plant would be constructed and commissioned in two stages. The first stage would come online in Month 28, after the natural gas pipeline has been completed. Pit stripping would start in Month 24, using diesel-powered hydraulic shovels until power becomes available for the electrically-powered shovels. Individual turbine units would be brought online as demand increases. The temporary diesel power station used to power the construction site would be replaced by the natural gas-fired power station; however, it would remain on site as a backup emergency power for critical loads during operations.
An undersea natural gas pipeline would be constructed across Cook Inlet to the marine terminal area, connecting to a pipeline that would follow the access road corridor to the mine site. A pipe-laying vessel would install the undersea portion of the pipeline.
The power plant is expected to be provided through an EPC (turnkey) design and supply package and, as a result, may require tendering and engineering commitments prior to the notice to proceed date to ensure timely installation.
24.2 Potential Expansion Scenarios
24.2.1 Mine Life Extension Scenarios
The Proposed Project evaluated in the 2022 PEA extracts only a small portion of the total Mineral Resource estimate for the Pebble deposit. To evaluate the possible extent of opportunities for the Project, seven potential expansion scenarios were identified for consideration. Six of these potential expansion scenarios contemplate an expansion of the open pit mine and increased mill throughput over a significantly longer mine life. These scenarios were modeled on an expanded scenario outlined in a response to a Request for Information (RFI) from USACE during the EIS process and which is incorporated in the EIS administrative record. Three of these six scenarios consider the addition of an onsite gold plant. The seventh potential expansion scenario contemplates the addition of the onsite gold plant to the Proposed Project without changes to its throughput or mine life.
The potential extension of the mine life and expanded production capacity is predicated on the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources that have been identified and defined by the drilling programs to date. Any potential expansion scenario would require additional analysis, engineering, and environmental assessment prior to it moving forward and any expansion scenario would be required to undergo Federal and State permitting prior to its implementation.
The potential expansion scenarios assess the extraction of a portion of the overall deposit. Additional resource and deeper high-grade intersections outside the resource boundary create a potential opportunity for future development of an underground mine. Furthermore, replacing the expanded open pit, or a portion of it, with an underground mine may demonstrate acceptable financial results with a reduced project footprint. Additional assessment of this option is warranted to confirm the relative economics of an underground mine and define its environmental footprint.
Pebble Project | Page 330 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The expansion scenarios envisioned in the 2021 PEA are preliminary in nature and include Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2021 PEA results, including the potential expansion scenarios, will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
24.2.1.1 Throughput Expansion Scenarios
Mining and recovery methods for the throughput expansion scenarios are similar to those presented for the proposed Project as described in Sections 16 and 17. An expanded open pit design was developed with parameters similar to those used to design the open pit for the Proposed Project. The same open pit design was used for all three expansion scenarios, with the differences in forecast and mine life dependent on the timing of the expansion. The volume of mineralized material, the grades of that material, and the volume of waste rock for the expanded open pit are shown in Table 24-1. The total volume of material in this open pit is very similar to the 78-year case examined in the 2011 PEA, with the primary difference related to the current lower cut-off grade due to higher metal prices.
The throughput expansion scenarios would use an elevated cut-off grade while the open pit is mined, with lower-grade material to be stockpiled and fed to the plant after the open pit has been exhausted. This accounts for the differences between the open pit life and the life of mine in Table 24-1. Lower-grade stockpiles and waste rock facilities could be located northeast and south of the open pit, together with additional water management and treatment facilities. The year in which the expanded process plant begins operation provides the designation for each potential expansion scenario. Expanded open pit mining would occur several years in advance of this to prepare for the expanded throughput. The mining rate would increase to handle the increased throughput and higher strip ratio, thus requiring additional mining equipment. The expanded open pit mine would also utilize in-pit crushing and conveying to reduce costs.
The same design criteria as were applied to the Proposed Project were utilized to develop the plan for the expanded process plant. In the Year 21 Expansion scenario, the process plant would expand to 250,000 tons per day, similar to the scenario assessed in the EIS. The expanded throughput rate in the Year 5 and Year 10 scenarios would be 270,000 tons per day. All expansions would utilize increased mineralized material handling capacity and a third processing line with similar equipment as employed in the Proposed Project.
The expanded projects would also require expansions of infrastructure components. The accommodations complex and related facilities would be expanded to house the increased workforce. The site footprint would expand, necessitating additional water management facilities. The basis of the water management requirements was similar to that envisioned for the Proposed Project. Additional tailings facilities locations would be selected to handle the additional volumes. As with the Proposed Project, the bulk and pyritic tailings would be stored in separate facilities. Tailings would be directed to the open pit during the stockpile reclaim phase and the accumulated pyritic tailings would be returned to the open pit, as is the case with the Proposed Project.
The water management plan for each expanded scenario was developed based on the same data used to determine water quality and quantities for the Proposed Project and adapted to suit the expanded footprint and timing of the expansions. Similar criteria for water handling and treatment were applied and the same water discharge criteria formed the basis of the water treatment scenarios.
The copper concentrate dewatering system and concentrate storage at the marine terminal would be expanded to facilitate the increased production. The capacity of the copper concentrate pipeline and return water system, as identified for the Proposed Project, would be adequate for the expansion scenarios.
The estimated power demand would increase to 404 MW, necessitating an increase in the mine site power plant size. The capacity of the natural gas line would be accomplished through minor pipeline expansions on the Kenai Peninsula and installation of a second compressor station at the marine terminal.
Pebble Project | Page 331 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The initial capital for all scenarios is the same, as they are based on the assumption that the designs and permitting would follow the construction and initial operation of the Proposed Project. The sustaining capital and operating costs were developed for each scenario. The variations in both capital and operating costs for each expansion scenario are driven primarily by the timing of the implementation, and to a lesser extent by amount of pre-stripping, waste disposal, and water management activities for both the open pit mine as well as the TSFs.
A summary of the potential expansion scenario production information is presented in Table 24-1 and the cost summary information is presented in Table 24-2. The methodology for estimating the capital and operating costs for the potential expansion scenarios are the same as described in Section 21. Production data includes all production, whether payable in the spot market under the Royalty Agreement to third party metal stream partners, or payable as a smelter deduction.
Table 24-1: Summary of Potential Expansion Scenario Production Information
Description | Unit | Proposed Project | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||
Mineralized Material | B tons | 1.3 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 |
CuEq1 | % | 0.57 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
Copper | % | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
Gold | oz/ton | 0.009 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Molybdenum | ppm | 154 | 208 | 208 | 208 |
Silver | oz/ton | 0.042 | 0.047 | 0.046 | 0.046 |
Rhenium | ppm | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
Waste | B tons | 0.2 | 14.4 | 14.4 | 14.4 |
Open Pit Strip Ratio |
| 0.12 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 1.67 |
Open Pit Life | Years | 20 | 78 | 73 | 68 |
Life of Mine | Years | 20 | 101 | 91 | 90 |
Metal Production (LOM) |
|
|
|
|
|
Copper | M lb | 6,400 | 60,400 | 60,400 | 60,400 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 7,300 | 50,400 | 50,500 | 50,500 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 37,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 |
Gold (in Gravity Concentrate) | k oz | 110 | 782 | 783 | 782 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 300 | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
Rhenium | k kg | 200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
Metal Production (Annual2) |
|
|
|
|
|
Copper | M lb | 320 | 600 | 660 | 670 |
Copper Concentrate | k tonne | 559 | 1,000 | 1,200 | 1,200 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 363 | 500 | 560 | 560 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 1,800 | 2,600 | 2,900 | 3,000 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 15 | 29 | 32 | 32 |
Molybdenum Concentrate | k tonnes | 14 | 26 | 29 | 29 |
Rhenium | k kg | 12 | 20 | 22 | 22 |
Note:
| 1. | CuEQ calculations use metal prices: US$1.85/lb for Cu, US$902/oz for Au and US$12.50/lb for Mo, and recoveries: 85% Cu, 69.6% Au, and 77.8% Mo (Pebble West zone) and 89.3% Cu, 76.8% Au, 83.7% Mo (Pebble East zone). |
| 2. | Life of mine volumes ÷ life of mine years. |
Pebble Project | Page 332 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 24-2: Potential Expansion Scenarios Estimated Costs
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | |||||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||||
|
| 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty | 2% Gold / 6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold / 30% Silver Royalty |
Costs | |||||||
Total Initial Capital Cost | $B | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 | 6.05 |
Infrastructure Lease | $B | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 | 1.68 |
Net Initial Capital Cost | $B | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.37 |
Sustaining Capital Cost | $B | 16.9 | 16.9 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.2 | 17.2 |
Life of Mine Operating Cost1 | $/ton | 12.46 | 12.44 | 12.14 | 12.12 | 12.20 | 12.18 |
Copper C1 Cost2 | $/lb CuEq | 1.56 | 1.58 | 1.53 | 1.56 | 1.54 | 1.56 |
AISC (Co-Product Basis) | $/lb CuEq | 1.77 | 1.80 | 1.74 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 1.77 |
Gold C1 Cost8 | $/oz AuEq | 714 | 724 | 702 | 711 | 704 | 714 |
Closure Funding | |||||||
Annual Contribution | $M/yr | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 |
Life of Mine Contribution | $B | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
Life of Mine Bond Premium | $B | 1.14 | 1.14 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Closure Fund3 | $B | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
Life of Mine Taxes4 | |||||||
Alaska Mining License | $B | 8.09 | 7.80 | 8.26 | 7.98 | 8.25 | 7.97 |
Alaska Royalty | $B | 3.57 | 3.45 | 3.65 | 3.53 | 3.65 | 3.52 |
Alaska Income Tax | $B | 10.11 | 9.73 | 10.37 | 9.99 | 10.31 | 9.94 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $B | 4.32 | 4.24 | 4.31 | 4.23 | 4.32 | 4.24 |
Federal Income Tax | $B | 18.76 | 18.05 | 19.25 | 18.55 | 19.13 | 18.44 |
Annual Taxes5 | |||||||
Alaska Mining License | $M | 80 | 77 | 91 | 88 | 92 | 89 |
Alaska Royalty | $M | 35 | 34 | 40 | 39 | 41 | 39 |
Alaska Income Tax | $M | 100 | 96 | 114 | 110 | 115 | 110 |
Borough Severance & Tax | $M | 43 | 42 | 47 | 47 | 48 | 47 |
Federal Income Tax | $M | 186 | 179 | 211 | 204 | 213 | 205 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes cost of infrastructure lease: |
|
| Year 21 Expansion - $0.54/ton milled |
|
| Year 10 Expansion - $0.53/ton milled |
|
| Year 5 Expansion - $0.53/ton milled |
| 2. | C1 costs calculated on co product basis. |
| 3. | Maximum value of closure fund during life of mine based on 4% compound interest. |
| 4. | Estimated based on current Alaskan statutes. |
| 5. | Life of mine taxes ÷ life of mine years |
The economic analysis methodology, inputs to cash flow model and tax considerations are as described in Section 22; however, in this section only the assumptions regarding third-party ownership of key transportation and power infrastructure and gold streaming were applied. The financial results for the potential expansion scenarios are shown in Table 24-5.
Pebble Project | Page 333 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The closure concepts for the potential expansion scenarios are similar to those envisioned in the Proposed Project, with the exception that reclamation of the initial bulk TSF commences when that facility reaches capacity and a second bulk TSF is put into use. In addition, in all the potential expansion scenarios, the process plant is fed from stockpiles after mining ceases, during which period the reclamation of the second bulk TSF and pyritic TSF commences. The estimated closure costs for the potential expansion scenarios, including water treatment associated with the closed bulk TSF, range between $5.9 billion and $6.25 billion, depending on the potential expansion scenario. Approximately 70% of these closure costs are scheduled for completion prior to the cessation of operations. At cessation of operations, the reclamation trust value is estimated to be $1.5 to $1.9 billion. Subsequent closure costs after cessation of operations are estimated to range between $1.6 billion and $2.1 billion. The estimated post-closure water treatment costs range between $46 million and $59 million per year, requiring a residual reclamation trust balance of $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion.
The financial results for the potential expansion scenarios are shown in Table 24-3 through Table 24-5. These tables also include the equivalent results from the 2021 PEA to demonstrate the effect of the Royalty Agreement.
Table 24-3: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 21)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,100 | 3,100 | 3,000 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 270 | 270 | 270 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 283,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 18.1 | 18.0 | 17.5 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 5,700 | 5,700 | 5,400 |
Payback | Years | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
Pebble Project | Page 334 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 24-4: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 10)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 10 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,400 | 3,100 | 3,000 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 300 | 300 | 300 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 3,100 | 3,100 | 3,100 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 283,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 19.5 | 19.4 | 18.9 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 7,300 | 7,200 | 6,900 |
Payback | Years | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
Table 24-5: Potential Expansion Scenarios Financial Results1 (Year 5)
Description | Unit | Potential Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 5 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
Revenue2 | ||||
Annual Gross Revenue | $M | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,400 |
Life of Mine Gross Revenue | $M | 312,000 | 311,000 | 306,000 |
Realization Charges | ||||
Annual Charges | $M | 310 | 310 | 310 |
Life of Mine Charges | $M | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 |
Net Smelter Return | ||||
Annual NSR | $M | 3,200 | 3,200 | 3,100 |
Life of Mine NSR | $M | 285,000 | 284,000 | 278,000 |
Financial Model Results | ||||
Post Tax IRR | % | 21.5 | 21.4 | 20.9 |
Post Tax NPV7 | $M | 8,500 | 8,400 | 8,000 |
Payback | Years | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
Note:
| 1. | Includes infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming. |
| 2. | Revenue values do not include a gold plant contribution. |
24.2.2 Gold Plant Scenarios
An onsite gold production plant was evaluated to add value to the Proposed Project and the potential throughput expansion scenarios. While there are no relevant changes associated with the mining methods and Project infrastructure, as discussed in Section 24.2.224.2.2, there would be the addition of a gold plant for these potential expansion scenarios. All relevant mineral processing and metallurgical testing results are presented and discussed in Section 13 of this Report.
Pebble Project | Page 335 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
While the gold plant scenarios utilize the metallurgical testwork results for a specific gold recovery technology, other technologies may be applicable for the Pebble deposit. Further, the addition of a gold plant under any scenario will require additional testwork and engineering and will require the receipt of pertinent Federal and State permits prior to implementation.
The onsite gold plant is designed to process a pyrite concentrate in conjunction with the gravity concentrate to produce a precious metal doré. The unit operations for the onsite gold plant would include:
· | pyrite flotation; |
|
|
· | concentrate regrind; |
|
|
· | carbon in leach; |
|
|
· | SART/acidification, volatilization, and re-neutralization (AVR); |
|
|
· | gold recovery; |
|
|
· | cyanide detoxification; and |
|
|
· | gold room. |
Figure 24-2 shows a simplified block flow diagram for the proposed onsite gold plant.
Figure 24-2: Proposed Gold Plant Block Flow Diagram
Note: Prepared by Ausenco, 2021.
Pebble Project | Page 336 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 24-6: Summary of Gold Plant Scenarios Production Information
Description | Unit | Proposed Project | Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | Year 10 | Year 5 | |||
Concentrate (LOM) | |||||
Copper | M lb | 6,500 | 61,200 | 61,200 | 61,200 |
Gold (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 7,300 | 50,400 | 50,500 | 50,500 |
Silver (in Cu Concentrate) | k oz | 37,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 | 267,000 |
Molybdenum | M lb | 300 | 2,900 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
Rhenium | k kg | 200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
Gold Plant (LOM) | |||||
Gold (as Doré) | k oz | 1,800 | 14,500 | 14,500 | 14,400 |
Silver (as Doré) | k oz | 2,600 | 22,600 | 22,600 | 22,500 |
Total Production (LOM) | |||||
Gold | k oz | 9,000 | 65,000 | 65,100 | 64,900 |
Silver | k oz | 39,000 | 289,000 | 289,000 | 289,000 |
The onsite gold plant would commence operation in Production Year 5 after acquiring the required permits. The gold plant would be designed to match the Proposed Project throughput for that scenario and for the Year 10 and Year 21 potential expansion scenarios. The plant would be expanded with the process plant expansion in the Year 10 and Year 21 potential expansion scenarios and would be constructed to match the full process plant capacity of the Year 5 potential expansion scenario.
Gold recovery plants are currently employed safely at hard rock mines in Alaska and have recently been approved for large-scale new mine developments in the State. Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership continue to evaluate multiple technologies to safely produce precious metal doré at the Pebble Project. Any future plan to incorporate onsite gold recovery would require extensive Federal, State, and local permitting processes and approvals before proceeding.
The financial results for the potential inclusion of a gold plant are shown in .
Table 24-7 through Table 24-10. These tables also include the equivalent results from the 2021 PEA to demonstrate the effect of the Royalty Agreement.
Table 24-7: Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1
Description | Unit | Proposed Project | ||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
IRR | % | 16.5 | 16.3 | 15.8 |
NPV7 | $M | 2,700 | 2,600 | 2,500 |
Payback | Years | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.0 |
Pebble Project | Page 337 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Table 24-8: Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 21)
Description | Unit | Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 21 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
IRR | % | 18.8 | 18.7 | 18.2 |
NPV7 | $M | 6,600 | 6,500 | 6,200 |
Payback | Years | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 |
Table 24-9: Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 10)
Description | Unit | Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 10 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
IRR | % | 20.3 | 20.2 | 19.7 |
NPV7 | $M | 8,400 | 8,300 | 7.900 |
Payback | Years | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Table 24-10: Potential Gold Plant Scenario Financial Results1 (Year 5)
Description | Unit | Expansion Scenarios | ||
Year 5 | ||||
No Royalty | 2% Gold/6% Silver Royalty | 10% Gold/30% Silver Royalty | ||
IRR | % | 22.7 | 22.5 | 22.0 |
NPV7 | $M | 9,700 | 9,600 | 9,200 |
Payback | Years | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
1. Proposed Project and Potential Expansion Scenarios include infrastructure partners and precious metal streaming.
Pebble Project | Page 338 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
25.1 Introduction
The QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions in their respective areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Report.
The results of the 2022 PEA indicate the Pebble Project could provide significant economic returns on investment. Furthermore, the potential expansion and gold plant scenarios indicate potential economic upside through the expansion of processing capacity over an extended mine life.
25.2 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
Information obtained from Northern Dynasty experts supports that the mineral tenure held is valid and is sufficient to support a declaration of Mineral Resources.
Northern Dynasty currently does not own any surface rights associated with the mineral claims that comprise the Pebble property. All lands are held by the State of Alaska, and surface rights may be acquired from the State government if areas required for mine development have been determined and permits awarded.
Teck holds a 4% pre-payback net profits interest (after debt service), followed by a 5% after-payback net profits interest in any mine production from the Exploration Lands.
The Pebble Partnership has signed an agreement, whereby the Royalty Holder has the right to receive a portion of the future gold and silver production from the proposed Pebble Project for the life of the mine. The right can be exercised through five tranches, with each tranche providing the Royalty Holder with the right to 2% of the gold production and 6% of the silver production after accounting for notional payments of $1,500 per ounce of gold and $10 per ounce for silver. The Pebble Partnership will also retain a portion of the gold and silver when spot prices exceed $4,000 per ounce of gold and $50 per ounce of silver and when recovery rates exceed 60% for gold and 65% for silver. To date, the Royalty Holder has purchased the first tranche.
The Pebble property is within the Lake and Peninsula Borough and is subject to a 1.5% severance tax. The life of mine severance tax payments for the Proposed Project could total approximately $480 million and range as high as $4.5 billion for the life of the Potential Expansion Scenarios with a gold plant.
The Pebble Performance Dividend LLP would distribute a 3% net profits royalty interest in the Pebble Project to adult residents of Bristol Bay villages that have subscribed as participants. The Pebble Performance Dividend would distribute a guaranteed minimum annual payment of US$3 million each year the Pebble mine operates beginning at the outset of Project construction. Total life of mine payments for the Proposed Project could total approximately $200 million to $240 million and could range as high as almost $3.7 billion for the life of the Potential Expansion Scenarios with a gold plant.
The access corridor is owned by a number of landowners, including the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Village Corporations, and private individuals. Pebble Partnership has completed access agreements with two Native Village Corporations and a private individual. Negotiations have advanced with other Native Village Corporations and individuals, but no agreements are in place. In June 2021, one of the Native Village Corporations announced they had signed an agreement whereby a fund has obtained an option to buy portions of their land to create a conservation easement. The fund must exercise its option by the end of 2022. If the fund closes this agreement with the Native Village Corporation, the Pebble Partnership would be required to identify an alternate route to the proposed marine terminal on Cook Inlet.
Pebble Project | Page 339 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the Project that have not been discussed in this Report.
25.3 Geology and Mineralization
The Pebble deposit is classified as a copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit.
The geological understanding of the settings, lithologies, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization in the different zones is sufficient to support estimation of Mineral Resources. The geological knowledge of the area is also considered sufficiently acceptable to reliably inform mine planning.
The mineralization style and setting are well understood and can support declaration of Mineral Resources.
The Pebble property includes a number of opportunities to expand the Mineral Resource estimate through future exploration. Drill hole 6348, perhaps the most significant intersection in the Pebble deposit, demonstrates that mineralization contiguous with the current resource continues to the east beyond the ZG1 fault and remains open to expansion in that direction. Geophysical and geochemical surveys and reconnaissance exploration drilling have identified several targets located well outside the current Pebble resource estimate area that warrant future exploration.
25.4 Exploration, Drilling, and Analytical Data Collection in Support of Mineral Resource Estimation
Extensive core drilling, sampling and assaying have taken place on the Pebble Project in support of exploration and delineation of the current Mineral Resource estimate. Drill holes are spatially well-distributed and oriented to test the geological and geotechnical conditions, dimensions and grade of the Pebble deposit and mineralization as it is currently known. Several other mineral exploration targets encountered on the property have received less focus and attention and require further investigation to satisfactorily assess their potential. The reliability of the topographic base maps, surveyed drill locations, down-hole positional measurements, and percentage of core recovered by drilling in the Pebble deposit area is deemed acceptable. The proficiency of the density measurements, core logging, sampling, and sub-surface geological interpretation in this area is also considered to be adequate and appropriate for use in support of this Report.
A significant amount of due diligence, verification, validation, and QA/QC has been completed on the copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and rhenium analyses of the Pebble drill core samples. Assaying and check assaying was conducted by well-recognized, independent analytical laboratories. The drilling and sampling programs typically included blanks, duplicates, and standard samples that were submitted at rates that met or exceeded industry-accepted norms. Independent analytical laboratory consultants were engaged, over significant portions of the Pebble deposit area drill programs, to make recommendations and provide timely monitoring and review of the processes, procedures, and results of the sample preparation and analytical laboratories used. These consultants also assessed the effectiveness and outcome of the sampling and analytical QA/QC programs implemented by the Project proponents. The extent and coverage of these programs adequately addressed issues of precision, accuracy and contamination.
Significant due diligence, verification, validation, and QA/QA programs were performed on the Pebble drill hole database and supporting information that attest to its veracity. This work was done to a reasonable and acceptable level in accordance with exploration best practices and industry standards at the time the programs were conducted. In consideration of these factors, the exploration, drilling, sampling, and analytical methods employed are deemed appropriate and acceptable to support the current Mineral Resource estimate.
Pebble Project | Page 340 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.5 Metallurgical Testwork
Metallurgical testwork and associated analytical procedures were appropriate to the mineralization type, appropriate to establish the optimal processing routes, and were performed using samples that are typical of the mineralization styles found within the Pebble deposit.
Samples selected for testing were representative of the various types and styles of mineralization. Samples were selected from a range of depths within the deposits. Sufficient samples were taken so that tests were performed on sufficient sample mass.
Metallurgical testwork from 2011 to 2013 on the Pebble deposit indicates that significant rhenium can be recovered to the bulk copper-molybdenum flotation concentrate and further concentrated into the final molybdenum flotation concentrate. The overall rhenium recovery is determined by the rhenium recovery to the bulk copper-molybdenum concentrate and the separation efficiency of the rhenium into the molybdenum concentrate in the subsequent copper-molybdenum separation stage. The estimated rhenium recovery is about 70.8% on average for all the domains.
The testwork results were used for the recovery projections of the mine production plan followed by economic analysis for the life of mine. There are no deleterious elements that have been reported within the copper/gold concentrate.
25.6 Mineral Resource Estimates
The Pebble property hosts a globally significant copper-gold-molybdenum-silver-rhenium deposit. The exploration and drilling programs completed thus far are appropriate to the type of the deposit. The exploration, drilling, geological modelling, and research work support the interpreted genesis of the mineralization and the domaining employed in the resource estimation.
The drill database for the Pebble deposit is reliable and sufficient to support the Mineral Resource estimate.
Estimations of Mineral Resources for the Pebble Project conform to industry best practices and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
Mineralization at Pebble is open in several directions and offers the opportunity, with additional drilling, to expand the resource base.
25.7 Mine Plan
The 2022 PEA is preliminary in nature and included Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The mining operations are planned to use conventional open pit mining methods and equipment. The open pit mine envisioned for the Proposed Pebble Project would be a conventional drill, blast, truck, and shovel operation with an average mining rate of approximately 70 million tons per year and an overall strip ratio of 0.12 ton of waste per ton of mineralized material.
The open pit would be developed in stages, with each stage expanding the area and deepening the previous stage. The final dimensions of the open pit would be approximately 6,800 ft long and 5,600 ft wide, with depths to 1,950 ft.
Pebble Project | Page 341 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The mining schedule was generated using five pushbacks and was based on a maximum processing capacity of 180,000 ton/d. Based on the selected ultimate pit, final pit design, and the generated production schedule, the Pebble Project’s total LOM is 21 years, including 1 year of pre-stripping followed by 20 years of production.
25.8 Recovery Methods
The designed process to treat mineralized feeds from the Project contemplates methods that are conventional and well-proven in the industry. The comminution and recovery processes are used widely in commercial practice, with no significant elements of technological innovation.
The process plant flowsheet design was based on testwork results, previous study designs, and industry standard practices. Furthermore, the testwork results support the recovery projections used in the economic analysis.
The mineralized material would be processed to produce three saleable products: a copper-gold flotation concentrate, a molybdenum flotation concentrate, and a precious metals gravity concentrate, all of which are expected to be readily marketable to several third party refiners.
25.9 Infrastructure
The Project is located in an area of Alaska that has minimal development and would require construction of both on-site and off-site infrastructure to support construction and operations. Principal off-site infrastructure would include a marine terminal facility, along with corresponding power generation and shop facilities, a natural gas pipeline supplying both port and mine sites, and all-weather access road to site including multiple water crossings and concentrate and return water pipelines between the marine terminal and mine site. Major on-site infrastructure would include, power generation facilities, power reticulation, site roads, process and administration buildings, truck shop, warehouse, and change houses. The Project site would also include tailings and waste rock storage facilities, water ponds, water management structures, and water treatment facilities. Both temporary and permanent worker accommodations would also be established at the Project.
Combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power plants would be constructed at both the mine site and the marine terminals. The natural gas for power generation would be delivered by a pipeline extending across Cook Inlet to the marine terminal and then on to the mine site along the roadway corridor.
The transportation infrastructure would consist of a marine terminal facility located north of Diamond Point in Iliamna Bay and a permanent access road, as well as a copper concentrate slurry pipeline system following the roadway from the mine site to the terminal.
Waste and water management at the Pebble Project would be an integrated system designed to safely contain these materials, to facilitate water treatment and discharge, and to provide adequate process water to support the operations. The design of these facilities incorporates a significant climate record, extensive site investigation, and a number of features intended to ensure safe operation.
The water management strategy for the Project uses water from within the Project area to the maximum practical extent. Contact water (mine drainage and process water) from the mine site would be collected and managed using various water management facilities. Mine drainage is defined as groundwater or surface runoff that has come into direct contact with mining infrastructure and requires treatment at the water treatment plants to meet discharge water quality standards prior to discharge to the environment.
The proposed Project incorporates a sophisticated water management plan with water collection, treatment, and discharge. That plan requires attention to the annual and seasonal variability of the incoming and receiving flows and achieving very specific water quality standards for the released water. Temporary water treatment facilities would be in place during construction, followed by three WTPs during the operations and closure phases of the Project.
Pebble Project | Page 342 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.10 Environmental, Permitting, Closure and Social
Northern Dynasty began an extensive field study program in 2004 to characterize the existing physical, chemical, biological and social environments in the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas where the Pebble Project might occur. The Pebble Partnership compiled the data for the 2004 to 2008 study period into a multi-volume EBD. SEBD reports incorporated data collected from the period from 2009 to 2012. Additional monitoring data collected through 2019 was provided to USACE in support of the ongoing permitting process.
The major environmental pathways include air, water, and terrestrial resources. During the preliminary stages of the Pebble Project, Northern Dynasty identified key environmental issues and design drivers that have formed the basis of baseline data collection, environmental and social analysis and continuing stakeholder consultations influencing the Pebble Project design. The effects assessment has confirmed these as important issues and design drivers and has identified mitigation measures for each. Direct integration of these mitigation strategies and other appropriate measures into the Pebble Project design and operational strategies are expected to effectively mitigate possible environmental effects and minimize residual environmental effects associated with the construction, operation and eventual closure of any proposed mine at the Pebble Project. The application of sound engineering, environmental planning, and best management practices, including compliance with existing U.S. Federal and State environmental laws, regulations, and guidelines, would help ensure that all of the environmental issues associated with the development and operation of the Pebble Project can be effectively addressed and managed.
Pebble Partnership filed a CWA 404 permitting application with USACE on December 22, 2017. USACE confirmed that Pebble’s permitting application was complete in January 2018 and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to comply with its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the Pebble Project. The NEPA EIS process included a comprehensive ‘alternatives assessment’ that considered a broad range of development alternatives. The Project design and operating parameters for the Pebble Project and associated infrastructure reflects the LEDPA in the FEIS published by USACE in July 2020. The FEIS document was viewed by the Pebble Partnership as favourable in that it found impacts to fish and wildlife would not be expected to affect subsistence harvest levels, there would be no measurable change to the commercial fishing industry including prices, and a number of positive socioeconomic impacts on local communities.
USACE formally advised the Pebble Partnership by letter dated August 20, 2020, that it had made preliminary factual determinations under Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA that the Pebble Project as proposed would result in significant degradation to aquatic resources. In connection with this preliminary finding of significant degradation, USACE formally informed the Pebble Partnership that in-kind compensatory mitigation within the Koktuli River Watershed would be required to compensate for all direct and indirect impacts caused by discharges into aquatic resources at the mine site. USACE requested the submission of a new compensatory mitigation plan to address this finding within 90 days of its letter.
In response, the Pebble Partnership developed a compensatory mitigation plan (CMP) to align with the requirements outlined by USACE. This plan envisioned creation of a 112,445-acre Koktuli Conservation Area on land belonging to the State of Alaska in the Koktuli River Watershed downstream of the Project. The objective of the preservation of the Koktuli Conservation Area was to allow the long-term protection of a large and contiguous ecosystem that contains valuable aquatic and upland habitats. If adopted, the Koktuli Conservation Area would preserve 31,026 acres of aquatic resources within the ‘aquatic resource of national importance’-designated Koktuli River Watershed. The proposed conservation area was selected to protect and preserve physical, chemical, and biological functions found to be important during the Project review. Preservation of the Koktuli Conservation Area was designed to minimize the threat to, and prevent the decline of, aquatic resources in the Koktuli River Watershed resulting from potential future actions, with the objective of ensuring the sustainability of fish and wildlife species that depend on these aquatic resources, while protecting the subsistence lifestyle of the residents of Bristol Bay and commercial and recreational sport fisheries. The plan was submitted to USACE on November 4, 2020.
Pebble Project | Page 343 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
On November 25, 2020, USACE issued a ROD rejecting Pebble Partnership’s permit application. The ROD rejected the CMP as “non-compliant” and determined the Project would cause “Significant Degradation” and be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, USACE rejected Pebble Partnership’s permit application.
The Pebble Partnership submitted its request for appeal of the ROD on January 19, 2021. The request for appeal reflects the Pebble Partnership’s position that USACE's ROD and permitting decision – including its significant degradation finding, its public interest review findings, and its rejection of Pebble's CMP – are contrary to law, unprecedented in Alaska, and unsupported by the administrative record, in particular the Pebble Project FEIS. The specific reasons for appeal asserted by the Pebble Partnership include: (i) the finding of “Significant Degradation” by USACE is contrary to law and unsupported by the record; (ii) USACE’s rejection of the CMP is contrary to USACE regulations and guidance, including the failure to provide the Pebble Partnership with an opportunity to correct the alleged deficiencies; and, (iii) the determination by USACE that the Pebble Project is not in the public interest is contrary to law and unsupported by the public record.
In a letter dated February 24, 2021, USACE confirmed the Pebble Partnership’s RFA is "complete and meets the criteria for appeal." USACE has appointed a Review Officer to oversee the administrative appeal process. The appeal process will now move to consideration by USACE of the merits of the appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by USACE based on the administrative record and any clarifying information provided, and the Pebble Partnership will be provided with a written decision on the merits of the appeal at the conclusion of the process. The appeal is governed by the policies and procedures of USACE administrative appeal regulations. While federal guidelines suggest the appeal should conclude within 90 days, USACE has indicated the complexity of issues and volume of materials associated with Pebble’s case means the review will likely take additional time.
On September 9, 2021, the EPA announced they planned to reinitiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay, which would set aside the 2019 withdrawal of that action that was based on a 2017 settlement agreement between the EPA and Pebble Partnership and supported by the results of the 2020 EIS. The 2019 withdrawal was contested by Project opponents and is currently subject to ongoing litigation. In that litigation, EPA has requested the court to remand the case to the EPA, which would likely result in the reinstatement of the Proposed Determination. The Pebble Partnership has filed an Opposition, asking the Court to impose a schedule requiring the EPA to issue a final appealable decision on the 2014 Proposed Determination under the CWA, whether that be to withdraw or finalize. The imposition of a schedule is necessary to ensure that the EPA is not allowed to regulate by inaction. On May 25, 2022, the EPA issued its draft Proposed Determination (PD) for public comment. The public comment period on the PD was subsequently extended through September 6, 2022.
The Revised Proposed Determination would establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project and would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction”. Such EPA activity could negatively affect the ability of the Pebble Partnership to obtain required permitting and develop the Project, even if the appeal of the 2020 ROD is successful. There is no assurance that any challenge by the Company to the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination will be successfully. The inability to successfully challenge the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination may ultimately mean that the Pebble Partnership will be unable to proceed with the development of the Pebble Project as currently envisioned or at all.
In addition to the USACE permits, the Project will require federal permits from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Bureau of Environmental Enforcement, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in addition to many other federal authorizations. There is no certainty that these federal permits and authorizations will be granted.
Numerous environmental permits and plans will also be required by various State and local agencies. The Pebble Partnership will work with applicable permitting agencies and the State of Alaska’s large mine permitting team to provide complete permit applications in an orderly manner. There is no certainty that these federal permits and authorizations will be granted.
Pebble Project | Page 344 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.11 Markets and Contracts
The Pebble Project would produce copper-gold and molybdenum concentrates. The copper-gold concentrate would be transported via buried pipeline from the mine site to the marine terminal where it would be filtered, loaded onto transshipment barges, and then unloaded directly into the holds of Handysize bulk carriers for shipment to smelter customers in Asia and Europe. The molybdenum concentrate would be filtered at the mine site and placed in large sacks which are in turn placed in conventional shipping containers. The containers would be trucked to the port and shipped to refineries located outside Alaska. Other economically valuable minerals (gold, silver, and palladium in the copper-gold concentrate and rhenium in the molybdenum concentrate) would be present in the concentrates.
The copper concentrate market, in order of importance, is expected to be China, Japan, India, Korea and Europe. The molybdenum concentrate market is expected to be in Asia.
For copper concentrate ocean transportation costs are assumed to be $50 /wet tonne and concentrate moisture content was assumed to be 8%. For molybdenum concentrate ocean transportation costs are assumed to be $171.12 /wet tonne and concentrate moisture content was assumed to be 5%.
As of the Report’s effective date, no contracts for supply of reagents and consumables, shipping or tolling of products have been entered into.
25.12 Capital and Operating Costs
The total estimated initial capital cost for the design, construction, installation, and commissioning of the Pebble Project is $6.05 billion, which includes all direct, indirect, Owner’s and contingency costs.
Sustaining capital investment in the project over the 20 year mine life is limited to TSF improvements, and replacement of mobile equipment for mining and road maintenance. These life cycle costs are applied in the financial model on a year by year basis, with a cumulative total of $1.52 billion including indirect, Owner’s, and contingency costs.
Mine closure and reclamation costs are not included in the capital or operating costs but are factored into the financial model to account for site decommissioning and long-term water treatment plant operations.
The average annual operating cost for the Project, is estimated to be US$708 million per year over the proposed 20-year life. This equates to US$10.98/ton milled, based on the 180,000 ton/day plant capacity.
25.13 Economic Analysis
The economic analysis of the Proposed Project, under both the Base Case and the Full Capital Case demonstrate the Pebble Project can achieve acceptable financial results. Furthermore, the economic analysis of the Proposed Project demonstrates that the Royalty does not have a material impact on the financial results.
Pebble Project | Page 345 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.14 Potential Expansion Scenarios
The potential expansion scenarios explored in the 2022 PEA provide a glimpse into potential longer term outcomes that could potentially be achieved by the Pebble Project. These demonstrate a robust, long life project which could supply metals important for the U.S. economy for decades. Future analysis would optimize these opportunities. Of note, any future potential expansion scenario must be subjected to Federal and State permitting processes prior to advancing.
25.15 Risks and Opportunities
25.15.1 Overview
A number of risks and opportunities are identified throughout the 2022 PEA. This section highlights several of these but is not an exhaustive list nor a summary of those contained in the body of the 2022 PEA.
25.15.2 Opportunities
A number of opportunities exist to enhance the Pebble Project.
25.15.2.1 Resource
· | The Pebble property includes a number of opportunities to expand the Mineral Resource estimate through future exploration. The most significant opportunity is obtained in drill hole 6348 which intersected 949 ft with an average grade of 1.24% copper, 0.74 g/t gold, and 0.042% molybdenum, or 1.92% CuEq. This drill hole lies east of the ZG1 Fault and follow up drilling of the Cretaceous host rocks to this mineralization has not yet been completed, thereby leaving the extent of this high-grade mineralization unknown. |
|
|
· | Geophysical and geochemical surveys and reconnaissance exploration drilling have identified several targets located well outside the current Pebble resource estimate area that warrant future exploration. |
|
|
· | Elevated levels of palladium, vanadium, titanium, and tellurium have been noted in raw analytical data and in metallurgical studies and represent opportunities to further benefit the economics of the Pebble deposit. |
25.15.2.2 Mining
The Mine Plan was developed using conventional mining technology. Three areas which could improve the mining results are:
· | Use of trolley-assist haulage: trolley-assist has been shown at other mines to improve cycle times and engine life, both of which would reduce operating costs. To accomplish this, additional capacity would likely be required for the power plant. |
|
|
· | In-pit crushing: while the mine plan for the expansion scenarios incorporates in-pit crushing, further evaluation for the Proposed Project as well as extending the in-pit crushing for the potential expansion scenarios may prove beneficial. |
|
|
· | Autonomous operation: mine operations are increasingly moving to autonomous equipment and remote operations centres. These mines have seen real benefits, particularly in remote operation such as envisioned at Pebble. |
Pebble Project | Page 346 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.15.2.3 Process
· | Flotation: a number of measures have been developed recently which could improve flotation performance at Pebble, including advances in coarse particle flotation. Further analysis of these advances could benefit Pebble. |
|
|
· | Supergene flotation performance: the supergene domains at Pebble contribute a significant portion of the process plant feed during the first several years of operation. Additional testwork and analysis could determine if alternate strategies could be employed to improve recoveries in these zones. |
|
|
· | Pre-sorting: pre-sorting techniques have become accepted components of many new process plants. A study could be warranted to determine if pre-sorting could enhance Pebble outcomes. |
|
|
· | Gold recovery: analysis of alternate secondary gold recovery technologies could improve the financial results and enhance the permitting process. |
|
|
· | Molybdenum refinery: the molybdenum concentrate production creates the opportunity to add a molybdenum concentrate refinery to produce a value-added product in Alaska and reduce overall carbon footprint of Project by reduced shipping.Concentrate pipeline. Optimization of the concentrate and return water pipeline system could improve the costs of that pipeline system. |
25.15.2.4 Infrastructure
· | Water treatment: further detailed analysis of the influent water quality and water treatment schemes may see reductions in complexity and cost. |
25.15.2.5 Environment
· | Carbon footprint: evaluation of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration opportunities may reveal an opportunity to reduce the Project’s carbon emissions. |
25.15.3 Risks
25.15.3.1 Resource
The 2022 PEA includes the use of Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the 2022 PEA results will be realized.
The Mineral Resource estimates may ultimately be affected by a broad range of environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-economic, marketing and political factors pertaining to the specific characteristics of the Pebble deposit (including its scale, location, orientation and polymetallic nature) as well as its setting (from a natural, social, jurisdictional and political perspective).
Factors that may affect the Mineral Resource estimate include:
· | changes to the geological, geotechnical, and geometallurgical models as a result of additional drilling or new studies; |
|
|
· | the discovery of extensions to known mineralization as a result of additional drilling; |
Pebble Project | Page 347 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | changes to the rhenium:molybdenum correlation coefficients and resultant regression equation due to additional drilling; |
|
|
· | changes to commodity prices resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction; and |
|
|
· | changes to the metallurgical recoveries resulting in changes to the test for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. |
The Mineral Resource estimates contained have not been adjusted for any risk that the required environmental permits may not be obtained for the Pebble Project. The risk associated with the ability of the Pebble Project to obtain required environmental permits is a risk to the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the mineralisation and the classification of the estimate as a Mineral Resource.
25.15.3.2 Mining
· | Pit wall slopes: the pit wall slope assessments were completed to a prefeasibility level of confidence. Additional field work and analysis are required to confirm these designs for operations. |
25.15.3.3 Process
· | Process recoveries: the metallurgical testwork completed on the Pebble deposit has been extensive but additional work is required to complete a feasibility study and design. |
|
|
· | Deleterious elements: the metallurgical testwork highlighted the low levels of impurity elements in the Pebble feed materials and correspondingly low deportment to saleable products, and likewise the process plant design incorporated no special treatment steps to manage impurities in the feed. There is a risk that pockets of the Pebble deposit will contain elevated levels of deleterious elements that could report to the concentrates products at levels which could incur penalty charges or adversely influence the saleability of the products. Operational controls could avoid these potential impacts. |
25.15.3.4 Tailings and water management
· | Tailings structures designs: the tailings and water management pond structures designs have been completed to a preliminary level. Significant additional field data and design are required to prepare these structures for construction. |
|
|
· | Alaska dam permitting: the tailings and water management structures will be subject to an extensive design review and permitting process in Alaska. The process could result in changes to the designs. |
|
|
· | Groundwater: additional field work and analysis are required to confirm specific design criteria for open pit wall and tailings structures. |
25.15.3.5 Project Execution
· | Weather: adverse weather conditions and other factors such as pandemics could impact on the construction schedule. |
|
|
· | Labour: the Project construction schedule and operations performance require deployment of sufficient numbers of adequately trained and experienced personnel. Inability to realize this deployment could impact the construction schedule and operational results. |
Pebble Project | Page 348 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
25.15.3.6 Social Issues
· | Land tenure: while the Pebble deposit lies within claims on State land, for which there is a defined process to gaining tenure, the transportation corridor crosses land belonging to Native Village Corporations and private individuals and agreements have not been reached with several of these entities. One of the Native Village Corporations has signed an agreement whereby a fund has obtained an option to buy portions of their land to create a conservation easement. The fund must exercise its option by the end of 2022. Closing of this agreement would require the Pebble Partnership to identify an alternate route to a marine terminal on Cook Inlet. |
|
|
· | Project opposition: the Pebble Project is the subject of significant public opposition, in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. |
25.15.3.7 Legal
· | Legal actions: Northern Dynasty is party to several class action legal complaints and Pebble Partnership is subject to a government investigation regarding public statements made regarding the Project. While these matters do not directly affect the development of the Project, they could negatively impact Northern Dynasty’s and the Pebble Partnership’s ability to finance the development of the Project or the ability to obtain required permitting. |
|
|
· | EPA: on September 9, 2021, the EPA has announced it planned to re-initiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay (the "Revised Proposed Determination"), which would set aside the 2019 withdrawal of the original proposed determination that was based on a 2017 settlement agreement between the EPA and Pebble Partnership. On May 25, 2022, the EPA announced that it intended to advance its pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Project and published the Revised Proposed Determination. The Revised Proposed Determination would establish a “defined area for prohibition” coextensive with the current mine plan footprint in which the EPA would prohibit the disposal of dredged or fill material for the Pebble Project. The Revised Proposed Determination would also establish a 309-square-mile “defined area for restriction” that encompasses the area of the Pebble Project. The Pebble Partnership believes that there are numerous legal and factual flaws in the Revised Proposed Determination and plans to submit comprehensive comments outlining its objections in response. If finalized, the Revised Proposed Determination would negatively affect the ability of the Pebble Partnership to obtain required permitting and develop the Proposed Project. Even if the appeal of the 2020 Record of Decision is successful (see 12.15.2.8 below), there is no assurance that any challenge by the Pebble Partnership to the EPA’s Revised Proposed Determination will be successful. |
25.15.3.8 Permitting
· | USACE Record of Decision: in November 2020, USACE denied Pebble Partnership’s permit application (the “2020 Record of Decision”). That decision is currently under appeal but without overturning the ROD, the Proposed Project cannot proceed. Even if the appeal is successful, there is no assurance that a positive Record of Decision will ultimately be obtained by the Pebble Partnership or that the required environmental permit for the Proposed Project will be obtained. |
|
|
· | Bristol Bay Forever: the Bristol Bay Forever was a public initiative approved by Alaskan voters in November 2014. Based on that initiative, development of the Pebble Project requires legislative approval upon securing all other permits and authorizations. |
Pebble Project | Page 349 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
· | EPA Proposed Determination: on September 9, 2021, the EPA announced it planned to re-initiate the process of making a CWA Section 404(c) determination for the waters of Bristol Bay (the "Revised Proposed Determination"), which would set aside the 2019 withdrawal of the Original Proposed Determination that was based on a 2017 settlement agreement between the EPA and Pebble Partnership and supported by the results of the 2020 EIS. On May 25, 2022 the EPA issued its Revised Proposed Determination for public comment. The public comment period on the Revised Proposed Determination was subsequently extended beyond the initial 30 days through September 6th, 2022. On September 6, 2022, the EPA announced it was extending the time period for a decision on the Revised Proposed Determination until December 2, 2022. The Revised Proposed Determination as presented would effectively block current and future Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for a mine at the Pebble deposit. |
25.15.3.9 Financial results
· | Cost estimates: the cost estimates contained in the 2022 PEA are completed to a preliminary level. Additional analysis and engineering are required to confirm these results. |
|
|
· | Metal prices and realization costs: metal prices and realization costs are subject to significant fluctuation, particularly over the periods identified for the Proposed Project and potential expansion scenarios. These fluctuations may have a significant impact on the financial results of future studies and the actual results achieved by an operating mine. |
|
|
· | Taxation: the Project is subject to taxation at three government levels (local, State, and Federal). The analysis completed within this report has been in accordance with the current tax regimes, which may change over time resulting in different results than those identified in the 2022 PEA. |
Pebble Project | Page 350 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
26 RECOMMENDATIONS
26.1 Introduction
A number of actions are recommended to support advancing the Pebble Project should the Pebble Partnership determine further study is warranted.
26.2 Resource
26.2.1 Updating of Inferred Resource
A Mineral Resource used as the basis for a prefeasibility or feasibility study, as defined by NI 43-101, must be classified as Measured or Indicated. A small portion of the Mineral Resource within the Proposed Project is classified as Inferred and this should be upgraded by infill drilling in order to prepare for a future prefeasibility study or feasibility study.
26.2.2 Block Model Update
The block model was recently updated to include rhenium. The model should be further updated as additional data are acquired from drilling to convert Inferred resource to Measured and Indicated and from drilling to collect additional metallurgical information.
26.2.3 Drill Hole 6348
Drill hole 6348 offers compelling exploration potential yet is at a depth which has prevented the completion of holes collared to further test the zone. A scoping level study is recommended to determine the optimum methods of drilling to ensure successful completion of follow up holes.
26.2.4 Additional Metals
Elevated levels of palladium, vanadium, titanium and tellurium have been noted in raw analytical data and in metallurgical studies. A scoping level program is recommended to determine their potential for inclusion in future resource estimates. Such a study would focus on the deportment and distribution of these metals, as well as the best approach to their quantification.
26.2.5 Estimated Resource Update Cost
The estimated cost of the recommended program, including drilling, is $10.2 million.
Pebble Project | Page 351 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
26.3 Mining
The following recommendations for future mining work include:
· | Detailed mining production schedule and designs should be developed with all mining activities to understand potential bottlenecks and assess possible cost reduction from technologies such as in-pit crushing and conveying, autonomous trucking, and blast hole drilling, and |
|
|
· | Detailed geotechnical studies should be conducted to better define the appropriate pit slope angles and design parameters for the pit, stockpiles, and overburden stockpiles. |
|
|
· | The estimated cost to complete the recommended work is $8.1 million, including drilling additional geotechnical investigation holes. |
26.4 Metallurgy and Processing
26.4.1 Metallurgy Testwork
Future testwork is required to provide additional data to define silver recovery to the copper concentrate, rhenium recovery to the molybdenum concentrate, and precious metals to the gravity concentrate.
Additional analysis and circuit optimization are recommended for treatment of supergene material. This should include collection of additional metallurgical samples from drilling these specific metallurgical domains.
Complete an initial assessment of potential treatment methods of molybdenum concentrates to optimize the value of molybdenum and rhenium.
26.4.2 Grinding Circuit SAG Mill Size
Continued analysis is recommended to determine the optimum grinding circuit configuration
26.4.3 Flotation Circuit Optimization
Coarse particle and column or other means of flotation should be evaluated.
26.4.4 Estimated Metallurgical Program Cost
The estimated cost to complete the recommended metallurgical program, including sample collection, is $8.5 million.
26.5 Infrastructure
26.5.1 Process Plant and Infrastructure Location
Additional studies are necessary to finalize the location of the process plant and related infrastructure. An investigation of the soil conditions should be performed in order to simplify the design of the mill building and major equipment foundations.
Pebble Project | Page 352 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
The estimated cost of this program is $1 million.
26.5.2 Access Road
Further alignment information, geotechnical detail and aggregate sourcing data will be required to support access road design.
The main access and secondary road alignments and designs need to be refined to better determine issues and costs. Considerations include:
· | Right of way and other permit constraints, if any; |
|
|
· | Optimizing the road corridor; |
|
|
· | Road horizontal and vertical alignments, cross-section designs and corresponding earth quantities; |
|
|
· | Design requirements for frost-susceptible, wet rock areas; and |
|
|
· | Concept level bridge general arrangement and profile designs taking into account geotechnical information. |
The estimated cost to complete this work is approximately $3.5 million.
26.5.3 Tailings and Waste Disposal
Recommendations require the following be completed to support the advancement of the Pebble Project permitting case tailings and water management:
· | Preparation of a detailed material balance, which includes quantities and timing for construction and closure materials (overburden/growth medium, quarried rock, PAG rock). |
|
|
· | Preparation of a detailed construction execution plan to support the initial construction planning. Complete additional geotechnical investigations to support prefeasibility level TSF and water management designs, such as: |
| o | Geotechnical infill drilling and sampling in overburden soils and rock; |
|
|
|
| o | Hydrogeological testing of soil and rock; |
|
|
|
| o | Test pitting to characterize the surficial geology; |
|
|
|
| o | Delineation of construction materials and local borrow areas; |
|
|
|
| o | Additional investigations to confirm the bedrock surface below embankment structures: and |
|
|
|
| o | Laboratory testing of samples collected in the field. |
· | Tailings testwork and tailings consolidation modelling for both TSFs. |
|
|
· | Revise and update the mine plan, watershed and groundwater models as appropriate during future studies. |
|
|
· | Initiate Alaska Dam Safety Program and engage the Independent Review Panel. |
The estimated cost to complete this program, including sample collection, is $15 million.
Pebble Project | Page 353 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
27 REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2010. 2009 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report. Fishery Management Report No. 10-25.
Alaska Department Fish and Game (ADFG), 2013. Anadromous Waters Catalog. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2020. Bristol Bay Salmon Escapement (2019). https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareabristolbay.escapement.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2005. Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/bristol/pdf/bbap_complete.pdf
Alaska Department of Natural Resources - ADNR, June 2005, “Guidelines for Cooperation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program.”
Alaska Department of Natural Resources - ADNR, September 2013, “Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands (Adopted April 2005, Revised September 2013)”
Alaska Department of Natural Resources - ADNR, July 2017, “Guidelines for Cooperation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program.” Draft revision.
Amato, J.M., Foley, C., Heizler, M., and Esser, R., 2007, 40Ar/39Ar and U-Pb geochronology, geochemistry, and tectonic setting of three episodes of Cretaceous-Eocene calc-alkaline magmatism in the Lake Clark Region, southwestern Alaska: in Ridgway, K.D., Trop, J.M., Glen, J.M.G., and O’Neill, J.M., eds., Tectonic Growth of a Collisional Continental Margin: Crustal Evolution of Southern Alaska: Geological Society of America Special Paper 431, p. 455-475.
Anderson, E.D., Hitzman, M.W., Monecke, T., Bedrosian, P.A., Shah, A.K., and Kelley, K.D., 2013, Geological analysis of aeromagnetic data from southwestern Alaska: Implications for exploration in the area of the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit. Economic Geology, in press.
Ausenco et al., (2021): “Pebble Project Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report,” Effective Date: September 9, 2021. www.SEDAR.com.
Bouley, B.A., St. George, P., and Wetherbee, P.K., 1995, Geology and discovery at Pebble Copper, a copper-gold porphyry system in southwest Alaska: in Schroeter, T.G., ed., Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America, CIM Special Volume 46, p. 422-435.
Bundtzen, T.K., and Miller, M.L., 1997, Precious metals associated with Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary igneous rocks of southwestern Alaska: in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds., Mineral Deposits of Alaska: Economic Geology Monograph 9, p. 242-286.
CIM, 2003, Best Practices in Uranium Estimation Guidelines
Pebble Project | Page 354 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Clark, A.H., 1993, Are outsized porphyry copper deposits either anatomically or environmentally distinctive? Society of Economic Geologists Special Publication 2, p. 213-283.
Couture, J.F., and Siddorn, J., 2007, Technical report on the Whistler Cu-Au exploration project, Alaska Range, Alaska. Available on www.sedar.com, 92 p.
Decker, J., Bergman, S.C., Blodgett, R.B., Box, S.E., Bundtzen, T.L., Clough, J.G., Coonrad, W.L., Gilbert, W.G., Miller, M.L., Murphy, J.M., Robinson, M.S., and Wallace, W.K., 1994, Geology of southwestern Alaska: in Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., eds., The Geology of Alaska. Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. G-1., p. 285-310.
Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L, 1973. Surficial Deposits of the Iliamna Quadrange, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1368-A, 64 p.
Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1980, Stratigraphy, structure, and economic geology of the Iliamna quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1368-B, 86 p.
Foley, J.Y., Light, T.D., Nelson, S.W., and Harris, R.A., 1997, Mineral occurrences associated with mafic-ultramafic and related alkaline complexes in Alaska; in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds., Mineral Deposits of Alaska. Economic Geology Monograph 9, p. 396-449.
G & T Metallurgical Services Ltd., 2011. Copper Molybdenum Separation Testing on a Pebble Bulk Concentrate. September 22, 2011.
Gaunt, J.D., Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J., Titley, E., Melis, L., Barratt, D., and Hodgson, S., 2010, Technical report on the 2009 program and update on mineral resources and metallurgy, Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project, Alaska. Available on www.sedar.com, 195 p.
Gaunt, J.D., Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J., Titley, E., and Lu, T., 2014, Technical report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 170 p.
Gaunt, J.D., Lang, J., Titley, E., and Lu, T., 2015, 2014 Technical Report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 182 p.
Gaunt, J.D., Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J., Titley, E., Lu, T., and Hodgson, S., 2018, Technical report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 191 p.
Gaunt, J.D., Lang, J., Titley, E., Lu, T., and Hodgson, S., 2020, 2020 Technical Report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 239 p.
Gaunt, J.D., Lang, J., Titley, E., Ghaffari, H., and Hodgson, S., 2021, 2021 Technical Report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 245 p.
Ghaffari, H., Morrison, R.S., de Ruijter, M.A., Živkovi?, A., Hantelmann, T., Ramsey, D., and Cowie, S., 2011, Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, Available on www.sedar.com, 572 p.
Goldfarb, R.J., 1997, Metallogenic evolution of Alaska; in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds., Mineral Deposits of Alaska, Society of Economic Geologists Monograph 9, p. 4-34.
Pebble Project | Page 355 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Goldfarb, R.J., Hart, C.J.R, and Anderson, E.D., 2013, Regional tectonic framework of the Pebble deposit: Economic Geology, in press.
Gregory, M.J., 2017. A fluid inclusion and stable isotope study of the Pebble porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, Alaska. Ore Geology Reviews, v. 80, p. 1279-1303.
Gregory, M., and Lang, J., 2009, Hydrothermal controls on copper sulphide speciation, metal distribution and gold deportment in the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, southwest Alaska: Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits, Townsville, Australia, p. 524-526.
Gregory, M.J., and Lang, J.R., 2011, Controls on Au deportment in the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo porphyry deposit, Alaska: in Williams, P.J., Oliver, N., and Rusk, B., eds., Let's Talk Ore Deposits: Proceedings of the Eleventh Biennial SGA Meeting, Antofagasta, Chile, p. 524-526.
Gregory, M.J., and Lang, J.R., 2012, The Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Alaska. Society of Mining Engineers Annual Meeting, Seattle, preprint 12-141.
Gregory, M.J., Lang, J.R., Gilbert, S., and Hoal, K.O., 2013, Geometallurgy of the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, Alaska: Implications for gold distribution and paragenesis: Economic Geology, in press.
Gustafson, L.B., and Hunt, J.P., 1975, The porphyry copper deposit at El Salvador, Chile: Economic Geology, v. 70, p. 857–912.
Gustafson, L.B., and Quiroga G., J., 1995, Patterns of mineralization and alteration below the porphyry copper orebody at El Salvador, Chile: Economic Geology, v. 90, p. 2-16.
Haeussler, P.J., and Saltus, R.W., 2005, 26 km of offset on the Lake Clark fault since late Eocene time: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1709A, 4 p.
Haeussler, P.J., and Saltus, R.W., 2011, Location and Extent of Tertiary Structures in Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska, and Mantle Dynamics that Focus deformation and Subsidence, in Dumoulin, J.A., and Galloway, J.P., eds., Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska 2008–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1776–D, 26 p.
Hamilton, T., and Klieforth, R.F., 2010, Surficial geologic map of parts of the D-6 and D-7 quadrangles, Pebble project area, southwestern Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Report of Investigation 2009-4, 19 p.
Hames, B.P., and Roberts, M.D. (2020). The Whistler porphyry Au-Cu deposit, Alaska. In Sharman, E.R., Lang, J.R., and Chapman, J.B. (Eds.) Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America: A 25-Year Update. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Special Volume 57. Montreal, QC: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. In Press.
Hampton, B.A., Ridgway, K.D., and Gehrels, G.E., 2010, A detrital record of Mesozoic island arc accretion and exhumation in the North American Cordillera: U-Pb geochronology of the Kahiltna basin, southern Alaska: Tectonics, v. 29, TC4015, doi:10.1029/2009TC002544, 21p.
Hanley, J., Kerr, M., LeFort, D., Warren, M., Mackenzie, M., and Sedge, C., 2020, Platinum-group element (PGE) enrichment in alkalic porphyry Cu-Au deposits in the Canadian cordillera: new insights from mineralogical and fluid inclusion studies. In Sharman, E.R., Lang, J.R., and Chapman, J.B. (Eds.) Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America: A 25-Year Update. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Special Volume 57. Montreal, QC: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. In Press.
Pebble Project | Page 356 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Harraden, C.L., McNulty, B.A., Gregory, M.J., and Lang, J.R., 2012, Shortwave infrared spectral analysis of hydrothermal alteration associated with the Pebble porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, Iliamna, Alaska, USA: Economic Geology, in press.
Hart CJR, 2010. Intrusive rocks associated with the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, southwest Alaska. GSA Denver annual meeting abstract 182738.
Hart, C.J., Lang, J.R., Goldfarb, R.J., and Farmer, G.L., 2010, Intrusive rocks associated with the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, southwest Alaska. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 42, p. 676.
Haslinger, R.J., Payne, J.G., Price, S., and Rebagliati, C.M., 2004, 2003 Summary report on the Pebble porphyry gold-copper project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 119 p.
Hawley, C., 2004 Alaska resource data file, Iliamna quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-105, 118 p.
Haynes, F.H., and Titley, S.R., 1980, The evolution of fracture-related permeability within the Ruby Star Granodiorite, Sierrita porphyry copper deposit, Pima County, Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 75, p. 673-683.
Iriondo, A., Kunk, M.J., and Wilson, F.H., 2003, 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of igneous rocks in the Taylor Mountains and Dillingham quadrangles in SW Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-0421.
John, D.A., Ayuso, R.A., Barton, M.D., Blakely, R.J., Bodnar, R.J., Dilles, J.H., Gray, F., Graybeal, F.T., Mars, J.C., McPhee, D.K., Seal, R.R., Taylor, R.D., and Vikre, P.G., 2010, Porphyry copper deposit model, chapter B of Mineral Deposit Models for Resource Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5070-B, 169 p.
John, D.A., Seal, R.R., II, and Polyak, D.E., 2017, Rhenium, chapter P of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C. (eds.), Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. P1–P49
Jones, M. et al, 2012. 2012 Bristol Bay Area Management Report No. 13-20.
Robin Kalanchey, P.Eng., Ausenco, Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng., Tetra Tech Canada Inc., Sabry Abdel Hafez, P.Eng., Tetra Tech Canada Inc., Les Galbraith, P.Eng., P.E., Knight Piésold Ltd., J. David Gaunt, P.Geo., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., Eric Titley, P.Geo., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng., Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., and James Lang, P.Geo., J M Lang Professional Consulting Inc., 2021, Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA, effective date: September 9, 2021. Available on www.sedar.com. 365 p.
Kalbas, J.L., Ridgeway, K.D., and Gehrels, G.E., 2007, Stratigraphy, depositional systems, and provenance of the Lower Cretaceous Kahiltna assemblage, western Alaska Range: Basin development in response to oblique collision: in Ridgeway, K.D., Trop, J.M., Glen, J.M.G, Evolution of Southern Alaska: Geological Society of America Special Paper 431, p. 307-344.
Pebble Project | Page 357 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Kelley, K.D., Eppinger, R.G., Lang, J., Smith, S.M., and Fey, D.L., 2011, Porphyry Cu indicator minerals in till as an exploration tool: example from the giant Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Alaska: Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, v. 11, p. 321-334.
Khashgerel, B., Rye, R.O., Kavalieris, I, and Hayashi, K., 2009, Thesericitic to advanced argillic transition: Stable isotope and mineralogical characteristics from the Hugo Dummett porphyry Cu-Au deposit, OyuTolgoi district, Mongolia: Economic Geology, v. 104, p. 1087-1110.
Knight Piésold Ltd (KP), 2020. Pebble Project – Water Balance and Water Quality Model Report. VA101 176/60-3, Rev. 1, January 2020.
Koehler, R.D., and Reger, R.D., 2011, Reconnaissance evaluation of the Lake Clark fault, Tyonek area, Alaska. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, PRELIMINARY INTERPRETIVE REPORT 2011-1, 10 p.
Koehler, R.D., 2010, Technical review of a trench across a potential fault scarp feature east of lower Talarik Creek, Lake Iliamna area, southwestern Alaska. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 139, 12 p.
Kreiner, D.C., Jones III, J.V., Kelley, K.D., and Graham, G.E. (2020). Tectonic and magmatic controls on the metallogenesis of porphyry deposits in Alaska. In Sharman, E.R., Lang, J.R., and Chapman, J.B. (Eds.) Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America: A 25-Year Update. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Special Volume 57. Montreal, QC: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. In Press.
Kremenetskii, A.A., Popov, V.S., and Gromalova, N.A., 2012, The formation age of ores from the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo giant deposit (Alaska, United States). Doklady Earth Sciences, v. 442, part 2, p. 196-201.
Lang, J.R., Gregory, M.J., Rebagliati, C.M., Payne, J.G., Oliver, J.L., and Roberts, K., 2013, Geology and magmatic-hydrothermal evolution of the giant Pebble porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, southwest Alaska, USA. Economic Geology, v. 108, 437-462.
Lang, J.R., Rebagliati, C.M., Roberts, K., and Payne, J.G., 2008, The Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit, southwest Alaska USA: Proceedings of PACRIM 2008, AUSIMM, p. 27-32.
Lang, J.R., Stanley, C.R., and Thompson, J.F.H., 1995, Porphyry copper-gold deposits related to alkalic igneous rocks in the Triassic-Jurassic arc terranes of British Columbia. In: Pierce, F.W, and Bolm, J.G., eds., Porphyry Copper Deposits of the American Cordillera. Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 20, p. 219-236.
McCandless, T.E., Ruiz, J., and Campbell, A.R., 1993, Rhenium behaviour in molybdenite in hypogene and near-surface environments: Implications for Re-Os Geochronometry: Geochimicaet Cosmochimica Acta, v. 57, p. 889-905.
McClelland, W.C., Gehrels, G.E., and Saleeby, J.B., 1992, Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous basinal strata along the Cordilleran Margin: Implications for the accretionary history of the Alexander-Wrangellia-Peninsular Terrane: Tectonics, v. 11, p. 823-835.
McFall, K.A., Naden, J., Roberts, S., Baker, T., Spratt, J., and McDonald, I., 2018, Platinum-group minerals in the Skouries Cu-Au (Pd, Pt, Te) porphyry deposit. Ore Geology Reviews, v. 99, p. 344-364.
Pebble Project | Page 358 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Meyer, C., and Hemley, J.J., 1967, Wall rock alteration. In: Barnes, H.L., ed., Geochemistry of hydrothermal ore deposits: New York, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, p. 166-235.
Mine Environmental Neutral Drainage Program, 1991. Acid Road Drainage Prediction Manual, MEND Project 1.16.1b, CANMET – MSL Division, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada.
Nicholson Analytical Consulting, 2009, QA/QC Report 2008 Drilling Program Pebble Project, Unpublished company report. October 29, 2009.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., (2022): “Northern Dynasty secures innovative royalty agreement for proceeds of up to $60 million on non-core metals”, July 27, 2022
Olson, N.H. (2015). The geology, geochronology, and geochemistry of the Kaskanak batholith, and other Late Cretaceous to Eocene magmatism at the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, SW Alaska. Unpublished M.Sc thesis, Oregon State University.
Olson, N.H., Dilles, J.H., Kent, A.J.R., and Lang, J.R. (2017). Geochemistry of the Cretaceous Kaskanak batholith and genesis of the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Southwest Alaska. American Mineralogist, v. 102, p. 1597–1621.
Olson, N.H., Lang, J.R., and Dilles, J.H. (2020). The Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, southwestern Alaska. In Sharman, E.R., Lang, J.R., and Chapman, J.B. (Eds.) Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America: A 25-Year Update. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Special Volume 57. Montreal, QC: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. In Press
Outotec (Canada) Ltd., 2010. Outotec Thickener Interpretations and Recommendations for Test Data. Report TH-0493, Pebble Project, April 9, 2010.
Outotec (Canada) Ltd., 2010. Outotec Thickener Interpretations and Recommendations for Test Data. Report TH-0497, Pebble Project. June 17, 2010.
Pavlis, T.L., Sisson, V.B., Foster, H., Nokleberg, W.J., and Plafker, G., 1993, Constraints on crustal extension in the western Yukon-Tanana terrane, central Alaska: Tectonics, v. 12, p. 103-122.
Phillips, C.H., Gambell, N.A., and Fountain, D.S., 1974, Hydrothermal alteration, mineralization and zoning in the Ray deposit: Economic Geology, v. 69, p. 1237-1250.
Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., 1994, Overview of the geology and tectonic evolution of Alaska: in Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., eds., The Geology of Alaska: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. G-1, p. 989-1021.
PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership), 2012. Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document 2004 through 2008. Pebble Limited Partnership, Anchorage, AK PLP, 2018. Pebble Project Supplemental Environmental Baseline Document. Pebble Limited Partnership Anchorage, AK PLP, 2020. Pebble Project Description. POA-2017-271 Updated May 2020 Rebagliati, C.M., and Haslinger, R.J., 2003, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com.94 p.
Rebagliati. C.M. and Haslinger, R.J., Payne, J.G., and Price, C.M., 2004. Technical Report on the Pebble Project. May 2004.
Rebagliati, C.M., Payne, J.G., and Lang, J.R., 2005, 2004 summary report on the Pebble porphyry gold-copper project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com.79 p.
Pebble Project | Page 359 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Rebagliati, C.M., and Payne, J.G., 2006, 2005 summary report on the Pebble porphyry copper-gold project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com.111 p.
Rebagliati, C.M., and Payne, J.G., 2007, 2006 summary report on the Pebble porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com.119 p.
Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J.R., Titley, E., Gaunt, J.D., Melis, L., Barratt, D., and Hodgson, S., 2010, Technical report on the 2009 program and update on mineral resources and metallurgy, Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA. Available on www.sedar.com, 194 p.
Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J.R., Titley, E., Gaunt, J.D., Rennie, D., Melis, L., Barratt, D., and Hodgson, S., 2008, Technical report on the 2007 program and updates on metallurgy and resources. Available on www.sedar.com.
Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J.R., Titley, E., Gaunt, J.D., Rennie, D., Melis, L., Barratt, D., and Hodgson, S., 2009, Technical report on the 2008 program and updates on mineral resources and metallurgy. Available on www.sedar.com.
Rebagliati, M., and Lang, J., 2009, The Pebble porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum discovery, Alaska, USA. Conference Proceedings, New GenGold 2009, Case Histories of Discoveries, Perth, p. 121-132.
Reed, B.L., and Lanphere, M.A., 1973, Alaska-Aleutian Range batholith: Geochronology, chemistry, and relation to circum-Pacific plutonism: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 2583-2610.
Rombach, C., and Newberry, R., 2001, Shotgun deposit: Granite porphyry-hosted gold-arsenic mineralization in southwestern Alaska, USA: Mineralium Deposita, v. 36, p. 607-621.
S&P Global, The Future of Copper – Will the looming supply gap short-circuit the energy transition?, July 2022
Schrader, C.M., 2001, Geochronology and geology of the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo porphyry and the Sill Au-Ag epithermal deposits, southwest Alaska. Unpublished M.Sc thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, 109 p.
Seedorff, E., Dilles, J.H., Proffett, J.M., Einaudi, M.T., Zurcher, L., Stavast, W.J.A., Johnson, D.A., and Barton, M.D., 2005, Porphyry deposits: Characteristics and origin of hypogene features: in Hedenquist, J.W., Thompson, J.F., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, J.P., eds., Economic Geology 100thAnniversary Volume, 1905-2005. Society of Economic Geologists, p. 251-298.
SGS-Lakefield Research Ltd., 2010. An Investigation into the Pebble East and Pebble West Metallurgical Programs. Project #12072-002 Final Report, May 3, 2010.
SGS-Lakefield Research Ltd., 2010. An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum from Samples from Pebble East and West Deposits. Project #12072-002-Report #2, May 10, 2010.
SGS-Lakefield Research Ltd., 2014. A Summary of Pebble East and West Metallurgical Programs. September 5, 2014.
SGS-Lakefield Research Ltd., 2010. An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Gold, and Molybdenum from Samples from Pebble East and West Deposits. Project #12072-003/007-Report #3 Rev 1, September 24, 2014.
Shah, A., Bedrosian, P., Anderson, E., Kelley, K., and Lang, J., 2009, Geophysical data used to characterize the regional setting of the Pebble porphyry deposit in southwest Alaska: Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Program with Abstracts, v. 41, p. 493.
Pebble Project | Page 360 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
Sillitoe, R.H., 2010, Porphyry copper systems: Economic Geology, v. 105, p. 3-41.
Sinclair, W.D., Jonasson, I., Kirkham, R.V., and Soregaroli, A.E., 2009, Rhenium and other platinum-group metals in porphyry deposits. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 6181.
SME Mineral Processing &Extractive Metallurgy Handbook, 2018 Review of MAP Development Work, Dreisinger Consulting Inc., September 16, 2012
Srivastava, M, 2020 Prediction of Missing Rhenium for Pebble, 2020, Internal Company Memo
St. George, P., Wetherbee, P.K., Buddington, A.M., Samson, D.P., 1992, Pebble Copper Project 1991 Progress Report, Cominco Alaska, Unpublished Company Report, February 1992.
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., Pebble Project, 2012 Pre-Feasibility Pit Slop (Rock) Design, Progress Report, 2nd Draft.
US Geological Survey, Rhenium Mineral Commodity Summary, January 2022
Wallace WK, Hanks CL and JF Rogers, 1989, The southern Kahiltna terrane: Implications for the tectonic evolution of southwestern Alaska. GSA Bulletin 101, 1389-1407.
Wallace, W.E., Hanks, C.L., and Rogers, J.F., 1989, The southern Kahiltna terrane: Implications for the tectonic evolution of southwestern Alaska: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 101, p. 1389-1407.
Young, L.E., St. George, P., and Bouley, B.A., 1997, Porphyry copper deposits in relation to the magmatic history and palinspastic restoration of Alaska: in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D., eds., Mineral Deposits of Alaska: Society of Economic Geologists Monograph 9, p. 306-333.
Websites
SEDAR (System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval): www.sedar.com
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2020. Pebble Project EIS Final Impact Statement. Department of the Army. Alaska District. July 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Culvert Design Guidelines for Ecological Function, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Fish Passage Program, Revision 5, February 5th, 2020
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. Watershed Boundary Dataset. https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/watershed-boundary-dataset
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2017. Rhenium, Chapter P of Critical Mineral Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/p/pp1802p.pdf
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2021. Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2021. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-rhenium.pdf
State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, January 18, 2013, Press Release No. 13.
Pebble Project | Page 361 |
Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report | October 2022 |
|
28 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Robin Kalanchey, P. Eng.
To accompany the technical report entitled: “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA” prepared for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the “Issuer”), with an effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
I, Robin Kalanchey, P.Eng., do hereby certify that:
1. | I am a Professional Engineer, employed as Vice President, Transportation and Logistics with Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc., with an office at 855 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 2W2. |
|
|
2. | I am a graduate of University of British Columbia with a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Metals and Materials Engineering,1996. |
|
|
3. | I am a Professional Engineer registered with Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, registrant identification 223314. |
|
|
4. | I have practiced my profession continuously since 1996 and as a metallurgical engineer have been involved multiple projects for the recovery of base and precious metals, in numerous countries and jurisdictions including the United States of America. I have recognized expertise in mineral process and metallurgical testing, process plant design and engineering, and mining project evaluation for copper, gold, silver and bulk metal sulphide deposits. I have specific experience in the design, start up and initial operation of mineral processing plants in northern climates, including for Sherritt, Kazakhmys and China Western Mining, amongst others. As part of a consulting design team, I have led or contributed to the design and commercialization of several project with similar metallurgy and processing schemes to that identified for Pebble including the Arctic Project in Alaska, the Skouries Project in Greece, the Eva Project in Australia and the Josemaria Project in Argentina. |
|
|
| As Vice President of the Transportation and Logistics group, I have overseen the design and estimation of a number of bulk terminals and transshipping facilities such as that included in the Pebble Project. |
|
|
5. | As of the date of this Technical Report, I had not visited the property. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by virtue of my education, affiliation to a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
|
|
7. | As a qualified person, I am independent of the Issuer as defined in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
|
|
8. | I am a co-author of the Technical Report, responsible for sections 1.14, 17, 18.8 and 25.8 and co-responsible for sections 1.18, 1.20-1.23, 2.5, 12, 18.9, 21.1-21.3, 24.1, 24.2, 25.12, 25.14 and 25.15, 26.4, 26.5 and 27 of the Technical Report, and I accept professional responsibility for those sections of the Technical Report. |
|
|
9. | I have had prior involvement with the subject property as a coauthor for the report “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date September 9, 2021. |
|
|
10. | As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible not misleading. |
|
|
11. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. |
Dated this 10th day of November, 2022 in Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
“Signed and Sealed”
Robin Kalanchey, P. Eng.
Vice President, Transportation and Logistics
Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Hassan Ghaffari, P. Eng.
I, Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng., M.A.Sc. do hereby certify:
1. | I am a Director of Metallurgy with Tetra Tech Inc. with a business address at Suite 1000, 10th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 1N5. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a graduate of the University of Tehran (M.A.Sc., Mining Engineering, 1990) and the University of British Columbia (M.A.Sc., Mineral Process Engineering, 2004). |
|
|
4. | I am a member in good standing of the Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (#30408). |
|
|
5. | My relevant experience includes 30 years of experience in mining and mineral processing plant operation, engineering, project studies and management of various types of mineral processing, including hydrometallurgical mineral processing for porphyry mineral deposits such as Ajax copper/gold PEA and FS, KSM copper/gold/moly PFS and Schaft Creek copper/gold/moly PEA and FS. |
|
|
6. | I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) for those sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for preparing. |
|
|
7. | I conducted a personal inspection of the Pebble Property on September 1 and 2, 2010. |
|
|
8. | I am responsible for Sections 1.11, 13.1-13.8, 13.10, and 25.5, and jointly responsible for sections 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 13.9, 25.15, 26.4 and 27 of the Technical Report. |
|
|
9. | I am independent of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. as independence is defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
|
|
10. | I have had previous involvement with the Pebble property that is the subject of the Technical Report, in acting as a Qualified Person for the “Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, southwest Alaska” with an effective date of February 15, 2011, “2021 Technical Report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA”, with an effective date of February 24, 2021 and for the Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date September 9, 2021. |
|
|
11. | I have read NI 43-101 and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101. |
|
|
12. | As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading. |
Signed and dated this 10th day of November, 2022 at Vancouver, British Columbia.
“Signed and Sealed” |
|
Hassan Ghaffari, P. Eng., M.A.Sc. Director of Metallurgy Tetra Tech Inc. |
|
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Sabry Abdel Hafez, PhD, P. Eng.
I, Sabry Abdel Hafez, PhD, P.Eng., do hereby certify that:
1. | I am a senior mining engineer with Tetra Tech Canada Inc. with a business address at Suite 1000, 10th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 1N5. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a graduate of Assiut University (B.Sc. Mining Engineering, 1991; M.Sc. in Mining Engineering, 1996; Ph.D. in Mineral Economics, 2000). |
|
|
4. | I am a member in good standing of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, License number 34975. |
|
|
5. | My relevant experience includes 25 years of experience in the evaluation of mining projects, advanced financial analysis, and mine planning and optimization. I have been involved in the technical studies of several base metals, gold, silver, and aggregate mining projects in Canada and abroad such as Arctic project copper/lead/zinc/gold/silver PEA, KSM project copper/gold/moly PFS and Schaft Creek project copper/gold/moly PEA and FS. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association, as defined by NI 43-101, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purpose of NI 43-101. |
|
|
7. | I conducted a personal inspection of the Pebble Property on December 10, 2013. |
|
|
8. | I am responsible for Sections 1.13, 15, 16, 21.3.4, 24.1.7, 25.7 and 26.3, and co-responsible for Sections 1.18, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 21.1, 21.2, 24.2, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15 and 27 of the Technical Report. |
|
|
9. | I am independent of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. as independence is defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
|
|
10. | I have had prior involvement with the Pebble property that is the subject of the Technical Report in multiple internal studies since 2012, and as coauthor for the report “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date September 9, 2021. |
|
|
11. | I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with the Instrument. |
|
|
12. | As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Dated on this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
Sabry Abdel Hafez, PhD, P.Eng.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Les Galbraith, P. Eng., P.E.
I, Les Galbraith, of Vancouver, British Columbia, do hereby certify that:
1. | I am a Specialist Engineer | Associate with Knight Piésold Ltd. with a business address at Suite 1400 – 750 West Pender Street, Vancouver. B.C. V6C 2T8. Telephone: 604-685-0543, lgalbraith@knightpiesold.com. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled, “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022, (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, B.A.Sc. (Civil Engineering), graduating in 1995. |
|
|
4. | I am a member in good standing of the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (#25493) and the State of Alaska Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (#129941). |
|
|
5. | I have practiced my profession continuously since graduation. I have over 26 years of relevant experience in providing waste and water management engineering support to mining projects, primarily in British Columbia and Alaska. My experience includes geotechnical investigations, tailings dam design (from PEA studies to detailed design), and construction supervision of tailings embankments. I am the Engineer of Record for six tailings dams in British Columbia. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that, by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43 101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43 101. |
|
|
7. | I am responsible for Sections 18.3, 18.4, 21.3.5, 24.1.8, 26.5.3, and co-responsible for Sections 1.15, 1.18, 1.21, 1.23, 2.5, 12, 21.1, 21.2, 24.2, 25.9, 25.15 and 27 of the report. |
|
|
8. | I have visited the Pebble Project numerous times, most recently on June 26, 2013. |
|
|
9. | I am independent of the Issuer as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument. |
|
|
10. | I have had prior involvement with the Pebble Project, most recently as coauthor of the “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date September 9, 2021. |
|
|
11. | I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with the Instrument. |
|
|
12. | As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to my knowledge, information, and belief, this Technical Report or sections that I am responsible for, contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading. |
Dated this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
Les Galbraith, P.Eng., P.E.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
David Gaunt, P. Geo.
I, J. David Gaunt, P.Geo., certify that:
1. | I am a Vice President, Resource and Database, Hunter Dickinson Services Inc, with an office at 14th Floor, 1040 West Georgia St. Vancouver British Columbia. Telephone: 604-684-6365 Fax: 604-662-8956, davidgaunt@hdimining.com. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a member in good standing of the Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, registration No.20050. |
|
|
4. | I am a graduate of Acadia University, Nova Scotia (B.Sc., Geology, 1985). |
|
|
5. | I have practiced my profession continuously since graduation and have been involved in mineral exploration and resource estimation for precious and base metals in Canada, USA, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Australia, Spain, Hungary, Afghanistan, China, and South Africa. I have previous experience with intrusion related copper-gold deposits, notably Veladero, Xietongman, Sisson, and previously at Pebble. |
|
|
6. | As a result of my qualifications and experience I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. |
|
|
7. | I have visited the Pebble Project several times, most recently on September 1 and 2, 2010. I am responsible for sections 1.12, 6.3, 6.5, 14, 25.6 and 26.2 and jointly responsible for sections 1.8, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 12, 25.15 and 27 of this Technical Report. |
|
|
8. | I am not independent of the issuer, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. as independence is described by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
|
|
9. | I have been involved with the Pebble Project since 2001 and have been involved in the resource estimates relating to Pebble since 2001. I have had previous involvement with the Pebble Project as an author of technical reports in 2021, 2020, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2009 and 2008. |
|
|
10. | I have read National Instrument 43-101and the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. |
|
|
11. | As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections for which I am responsible, contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Dated in Vancouver on this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
J. David Gaunt, P.Geo.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Eric D. Titley, P. Geo.
I, Eric D. Titley, P.Geo., do hereby certify that:
1. | I am the Senior Manager, Resource Geology, Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., with an office at 14th Floor – 1040 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 4H1, Tel. 604-684-6365, Email: EricTitley@hdimining.com. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a Professional Geoscientist registered with Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, license number 19518. |
|
|
4. | I am a graduate of the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario with a Bachelor of Science degree in Earth Sciences (Geography minor) in 1980. |
|
|
5. | I have practiced my profession continuously since graduation on mineral exploration projects in Canada, the United States, Mexico, South Africa, Poland, Brazil, Chile, Ireland and Australia. I have considerable experience related to geological data management and QAQC on mineral exploration projects, including porphyry copper deposits such as Pebble. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
|
|
7. | I conducted a site visit of the Pebble Project on the 20th of September 2011. |
|
|
8. | I am the author of sections 6.2 and 11, and jointly responsible for sections 1.8, 1.10, 1.22, 2.5, 10, 12, 25.4 and 27 of the Technical Report. |
|
|
9. | I am not independent of Northern Dynasty and affiliated companies applying the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. |
|
|
10. | I have had prior involvement with the Pebble Project as an author of technical reports in Kalanchey et al., (2021), Gaunt et al., (2020), Gaunt et al., (2018), Gaunt et al., (2014), Rebagliati et al., (2010), Rebagliati et al., (2009) and Rebagliati et al., (2008) and ongoing review of the drilling database. |
|
|
11. | I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. |
|
|
12. | At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible, contain all the scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Dated this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
Eric D. Titley, P.Geo.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Stephen Hodgson, P. Eng.
I, Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng., do hereby certify that:
1. | I am Executive Vice President, engineering with Hunter Dickinson Services Inc., with a business office at Suite 1400-1040 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4H1 Email: stephenhodgson@hdimining.com. I am also an officer of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a graduate of the University of Alberta (B.Sc. Mineral Engineering, Mining, 1976). |
|
|
4. | I am a member in good standing of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, License number 18501. |
|
|
5. | I have practiced my profession continuously since graduation at mine operations in Canada and the United States, as a consulting mining engineer for projects located in Canada, the United States, and a number of other countries, and as a Vice President of Engineering in the United States. I have experience in operations at northern mines (Con and Pine Point in the Northwest Territories) and construction, start up, and initial operations at Red Dog in Alaska. As a consultant, I acted as Mining Lead for the Antamina Feasibility Study and Study Manager for the initial Feasibility Study for Oyu Tolgoi. I have also been a senior executive for a junior company developing a mid-sized porphyry copper deposit in British Columbia. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association, as defined by NI 43-101, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purpose of NI 43-101. |
|
|
7. | I visited the Pebble Project numerous times, most recently on October 17 and 18, 2019. |
|
|
8. | I am responsible for Sections 1.1-1.6, 1.16, 1.17 and 1.19, 2.1-2.4 and 2.6-2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 4, 5, 6.4, 18.1, 18.2, 18.5-18.7, 19, 20, 22, 25.1, 25.2, 25.10, 25.11, 25.13 and 26.1, and co-responsible for Sections 1.15, 1.18, 1.20-1.23, 2.5, 3.2, 3.3, 12, 18.9, 21.1-21.3, 22, 24.1, 24.2, 25.9, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 26.5 and 27 of the Technical Report. |
|
|
9. | I am not independent of the issuer, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd, applying the tests in section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. |
|
|
10. | I have had prior involvement with the Pebble Project. I have provided engineering and management services for Northern Dynasty on the project since 2005 and am involved with ongoing review of engineering work related to the Pebble Project. I have co-authored technical reports in 2021, 2020, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2009 and 2008. |
|
|
11. | I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with the Instrument. |
|
|
12. | As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Dated this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
Stephen Hodgson, P.Eng.
|
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
James R. Lang, PhD., P. Geo.
I, James R. Lang PhD., P.Geo., of Naramata, British Columbia, Canada, do hereby certify that:
1. | I am the Principal of J M Lang Professional Consulting Inc., with an office at 4052 Hook Place, Naramata, BC V0H 1N1 |
|
|
2. | This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report Update, Pebble Project, Alaska, USA”, effective date October 1, 2022 (the “Technical Report”). |
|
|
3. | I am a registered member of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, Registration Number 25376. |
|
|
4. | I graduated with a B.Sc. in geology from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA in 1983, and received M.Sc. and PhD degrees in economic geology from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA in 1986 and 1991, respectively. |
|
|
5. | I have worked as an economic geologist for 35 consecutive years, during which time I have conducted academic and applied research and grassroots to brownfields exploration for numerous companies in the mineral sector. I have been the geology technical lead on positive feasibility studies at the Xietongmen and Sisson porphyry deposits and for exploration and lower-level economic studies on other deposits including Pebble, Maggie, Kwanika, and Lorraine. I have consulted on the geology of many porphyry and related deposits in China, Chile, the Yukon, British Columbia, Mexico, the United States, Spain and elsewhere, and on other deposit types in numerous jurisdictions. |
|
|
6. | I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined by NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
|
|
7. | I have been physically present at the project area every year from 2003 to 2019 for a total of over 650 days. From 2007 through 2010, I acted as resident Chief Geologist for the project. My most recent visit was in September 2019. |
|
|
8. | I am solely responsible for sections 1.7, 1.9, 6.1, 7, 8, 9, 23 and 25.3 and am jointly responsible for sections 1.8, 1.10 and 1.22, 2.5, 10, 12, 13.9, 25.4 and 27 of this report. |
|
|
9. | I have had prior involvement with the property as an author of technical reports in 2021, 2020, 2018, 2014, 2010, 200, 2008 and 2005. |
|
|
10. | I am not independent of the issuer, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., applying all tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. |
|
|
11. | I have read National Instrument 43-101 and this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. |
|
|
12. | At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, or part that I am responsible for, contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Dated this 10th day of November, 2022.
“Signed and Sealed”
James R. Lang, Ph.D., P.Geo.
|
Appendix A – Claims List
PEBBLE EAST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
552871 | SOUTH PEBBLE 113 |
552872 | SOUTH PEBBLE 114 |
552873 | SOUTH PEBBLE 115 |
552931 | KAK 1 |
552932 | KAK 2 |
552933 | KAK 3 |
552936 | KAK 6 |
552937 | KAK 7 |
552938 | KAK 8 |
552939 | KAK 9 |
552940 | KAK 10 |
552941 | KAK 11 |
552948 | KAK 18 |
552949 | KAK 19 |
552950 | KAK 20 |
552951 | KAK 21 |
552952 | KAK 22 |
552953 | KAK 23 |
552954 | KAK 24 |
552955 | KAK 25 |
552959 | KAK 29 |
552960 | KAK 30 |
552961 | KAK 31 |
552962 | KAK 32 |
552963 | KAK 33 |
552964 | KAK 34 |
552965 | KAK 35 |
552966 | KAK 36 |
552967 | KAK 37 |
552968 | KAK 38 |
552969 | KAK 39 |
552970 | KAK 40 |
552971 | KAK 41 |
552972 | KAK 42 |
552973 | KAK 43 |
552974 | KAK 44 |
552975 | KAK 45 |
552976 | KAK 46 |
552977 | KAK 47 |
552978 | KAK 48 |
552979 | KAK 49 |
552980 | KAK 50 |
552981 | KAK 51 |
552982 | KAK 52 |
552983 | KAK 53 |
552984 | KAK 54 |
552985 | KAK 55 |
552986 | KAK 56 |
552987 | KAK 57 |
552988 | KAK 58 |
552989 | KAK 59 |
552990 | KAK 60 |
552991 | KAK 61 |
552992 | KAK 62 |
552993 | KAK 63 |
552994 | KAK 64 |
552995 | KAK 65 |
552996 | KAK 66 |
552997 | KAK 67 |
552998 | KAK 68 |
552999 | KAK 69 |
553000 | KAK 70 |
553001 | KAK 71 |
553002 | KAK 72 |
553003 | KAK 73 |
553004 | KAK 74 |
553005 | KAK 75 |
553006 | KAK 76 |
553007 | KAK 77 |
553008 | KAK 78 |
553009 | KAK 79 |
553010 | KAK 80 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
553011 | KAK 81 |
553012 | KAK 82 |
553013 | KAK 83 |
553014 | KAK 84 |
553015 | KAK 85 |
553016 | KAK 86 |
553017 | KAK 87 |
553018 | KAK 88 |
553019 | KAK 89 |
553500 | PEBA 74 |
553501 | PEBA 75 |
553502 | PEBA 76 |
553517 | PEBA 91 |
553518 | PEBA 92 |
553519 | PEBA 93 |
553522 | PEBA 96 |
553523 | PEBA 97 |
553524 | PEBA 98 |
553525 | PEBA 99 |
553526 | PEBA 100 |
553527 | PEBA 101 |
553528 | PEBA 102 |
553529 | PEBA 103 |
553530 | PEBA 104 |
553531 | PEBA 105 |
553532 | PEBA 106 |
553533 | PEBA 107 |
553534 | PEBA 108 |
553535 | PEBA 109 |
553536 | PEBA 110 |
553537 | PEBA 111 |
553538 | PEBA 112 |
553539 | PEBB 1 |
553540 | PEBB 2 |
553541 | PEBB 3 |
553542 | PEBB 4 |
553543 | PEBB 5 |
553544 | PEBB 6 |
553545 | PEBB 7 |
553546 | PEBB 8 |
553547 | PEBB 9 |
553548 | PEBB 10 |
553549 | PEBB 11 |
553550 | PEBB 12 |
553551 | PEBB 13 |
553552 | PEBB 14 |
553553 | PEBB 15 |
553554 | PEBB 16 |
553555 | PEBB 17 |
553556 | PEBB 18 |
553557 | PEBB 19 |
553558 | PEBB 20 |
553559 | PEBB 21 |
553560 | PEBB 22 |
553561 | PEBB 23 |
553562 | PEBB 24 |
553563 | PEBB 25 |
553564 | PEBB 26 |
553565 | PEBB 27 |
553566 | PEBB 28 |
553567 | PEBB 29 |
553568 | PEBB 30 |
553569 | PEBB 31 |
553570 | PEBB 32 |
553571 | PEBB 33 |
553572 | PEBB 34 |
553573 | PEBB 35 |
553574 | PEBB 36 |
553575 | PEBB 37 |
553576 | PEBB 38 |
553577 | PEBB 39 |
553578 | PEBE 1 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
553579 | PEBE 2 |
553580 | PEBE 3 |
553581 | PEBE 4 |
553582 | PEBE 5 |
553583 | PEBE 6 |
553584 | PEBE 7 |
553585 | PEBE 8 |
553586 | PEBE 9 |
553587 | PEBE 10 |
553589 | PEBF 2 |
553590 | PEBF 3 |
553591 | PEBF 4 |
553592 | PEBF 5 |
553593 | PEBF 6 |
553595 | PEBF 8 |
553596 | PEBF 9 |
553597 | PEBF 10 |
553598 | PEBF 11 |
553599 | PEBF 12 |
553600 | PEBF 13 |
553602 | PEBF 15 |
553603 | PEBF 16 |
553604 | PEBF 17 |
553605 | PEBF 18 |
553606 | PEBF 19 |
553607 | PEBF 20 |
553615 | SILL 6155 |
553616 | SILL 6156 |
553617 | SILL 6256 |
638779 | PEB 1 |
638780 | PEB 2 |
638781 | PEB 3 |
638782 | PEB 4 |
638783 | PEB 5 |
638784 | PEB 6 |
638785 | PEB 7 |
638786 | PEB 8 |
638791 | PEB 13 |
638792 | PEB 14 |
638793 | PEB 15 |
638794 | PEB 16 |
638795 | PEB 17 |
638796 | PEB 18 |
638797 | PEB 19 |
638798 | PEB 20 |
638799 | PEB 21 |
638800 | PEB 22 |
638801 | PEB 23 |
638802 | PEB 24 |
638807 | PEB 29 |
638808 | PEB 30 |
638809 | PEB 31 |
638810 | PEB 32 |
638811 | PEB 33 |
638812 | PEB 34 |
638813 | PEB 35 |
638814 | PEB 36 |
638815 | PEB 37 |
638816 | PEB 38 |
638821 | PEB 43 |
638822 | PEB 44 |
638823 | PEB 45 |
638824 | PEB 46 |
638825 | PEB 47 |
638826 | PEB 48 |
638827 | PEB 49 |
638828 | PEB 50 |
638829 | PEB 51 |
638830 | PEB 52 |
638835 | PEB 57 |
638836 | PEB 58 |
638837 | PEB 59 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
638838 | PEB 60 |
638839 | PEB 61 |
638840 | PEB 62 |
638841 | PEB 63 |
638842 | PEB 64 |
638843 | PEB 65 |
638844 | PEB 66 |
638850 | PEB 72 |
638851 | PEB 73 |
638852 | PEB 74 |
638853 | PEB 75 |
638854 | PEB 76 |
638855 | PEB 77 |
638856 | PEB 78 |
638857 | PEB 79 |
638858 | PEB 80 |
638865 | PEB 87 |
638866 | PEB 88 |
638867 | PEB 89 |
638868 | PEB 90 |
638869 | PEB 91 |
638870 | PEB 92 |
638871 | PEB 93 |
638872 | PEB 94 |
638873 | PEB 95 |
638874 | PEB 96 |
638875 | PEB 97 |
638886 | PEB 108 |
638887 | PEB 109 |
638888 | PEB 110 |
638889 | PEB 111 |
638890 | PEB 112 |
638891 | PEB 113 |
638892 | PEB 114 |
638893 | PEB 115 |
640061 | PEB N-1 |
640062 | PEB N-2 |
640063 | PEB N-3 |
640064 | PEB N-4 |
640065 | PEB N-5 |
640066 | PEB N-6 |
640067 | PEB N-7 |
640068 | PEB N-8 |
640069 | PEB N-9 |
640070 | PEB N-10 |
640071 | PEB N-11 |
640072 | PEB N-12 |
640073 | PEB N-13 |
640074 | PEB N-14 |
640075 | PEB N-15 |
640076 | PEB N-16 |
640077 | PEB N-17 |
640078 | PEB N-18 |
640079 | PEB N-19 |
640080 | PEB N-20 |
640081 | PEB N-21 |
640082 | PEB N-22 |
640083 | PEB N-23 |
640084 | PEB N-24 |
640085 | PEB N-25 |
640086 | PEB N-26 |
640087 | PEB N-27 |
640088 | PEB N-28 |
640089 | PEB N-29 |
640090 | PEB N-30 |
640091 | PEB N-31 |
640092 | PEB N-32 |
640093 | PEB N-33 |
640094 | PEB N-34 |
640095 | PEB N-35 |
640096 | PEB N-36 |
642057 | SOUTH PEBBLE 101 |
|
PEBBLE EAST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
642058 | SOUTH PEBBLE 102 |
642059 | SOUTH PEBBLE 103 |
642060 | SOUTH PEBBLE 104 |
642061 | SOUTH PEBBLE 105 |
642062 | SOUTH PEBBLE 106 |
642334 | PEB EBA 1 |
642335 | PEB EBA 2 |
642336 | PEB EBA 3 |
642337 | PEB EBA 4 |
642338 | PEB EB 1 |
642339 | PEB EB 2 |
642340 | PEB EB 3 |
642341 | PEB EB 4 |
642342 | PEB EB 5 |
642343 | PEB EB 6 |
642344 | PEB EB 7 |
642345 | PEB EB 8 |
642346 | PEB EB 9 |
642347 | PEB EB 10 |
642348 | PEB EB 11 |
642349 | PEB EB 12 |
642350 | PEB EB 13 |
642351 | PEB EB 14 |
642352 | PEB EB 15 |
642353 | PEB EB 16 |
642354 | PEB EB 17 |
642355 | PEB EB 18 |
642356 | PEB EB 19 |
642357 | PEB EB 20 |
642358 | PEB EB 21 |
642359 | PEB EB 22 |
642360 | PEB EB 23 |
642361 | PEB EB 24 |
642362 | PEB EB 25 |
642363 | PEB EB 26 |
642364 | PEB EB 27 |
642365 | PEB EB 28 |
642366 | PEB EB 29 |
642367 | PEB EB 30 |
642368 | PEB EB 31 |
642369 | PEB EB 32 |
642370 | PEB EB 33 |
642371 | PEB EB 34 |
642372 | PEB EB 35 |
642373 | PEB EB 36 |
642374 | PEB EB 37 |
642375 | PEB EB 38 |
642376 | PEB EB 39 |
642377 | PEB EB 40 |
642378 | PEB EB 41 |
642379 | PEB EB 42 |
642380 | PEB EB 43 |
642381 | PEB EB 44 |
642382 | PEB EB 45 |
642383 | PEB EB 46 |
642384 | PEB EB 47 |
642385 | PEB EB 48 |
642386 | PEB EB 49 |
642387 | PEB EB 50 |
642388 | PEB EB 51 |
642389 | PEB EB 52 |
642390 | PEB EB 53 |
642391 | PEB EB 54 |
642392 | PEB EB 55 |
642393 | PEB EB 56 |
642394 | PEB EB 57 |
642395 | PEB EB 58 |
642396 | PEB EB 59 |
642397 | PEB EB 60 |
642398 | PEB EB 61 |
642399 | PEB EB 62 |
642400 | PEB EB 63 |
642401 | PEB EB 64 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
642402 | PEB EB 65 |
642403 | PEB EB 66 |
642404 | PEB EB 67 |
642405 | PEB EB 68 |
642406 | PEB EB 69 |
642407 | PEB EB 70 |
642408 | PEB EB 71 |
642409 | PEB EB 72 |
642410 | PEB EB 73 |
642411 | PEB EB 74 |
642412 | PEB WB 1 |
642413 | PEB WB 2 |
642414 | PEB WB 3 |
642415 | PEB WB 4 |
642416 | PEB WB 5 |
642417 | PEB WB 6 |
642418 | PEB WB 7 |
642419 | PEB WB 8 |
642420 | PEB WB 9 |
642421 | PEB WB 10 |
642422 | PEB WB 11 |
642423 | PEB WB 12 |
642424 | PEB WB 13 |
642425 | PEB WB 14 |
642426 | PEB WB 15 |
642427 | PEB WB 16 |
642428 | PEB WB 17 |
642429 | PEB WB 18 |
642430 | PEB WB 19 |
642431 | PEB WB 20 |
642432 | PEB WB 21 |
642433 | PEB WB 22 |
642434 | PEB WB 23 |
642435 | PEB WB 24 |
642436 | PEB WB 25 |
642437 | PEB WB 26 |
642438 | PEB WB 27 |
642439 | PEB WB 28 |
642440 | PEB WB 29 |
642441 | PEB WB 30 |
642442 | PEB WB 31 |
642443 | PEB WB 32 |
642444 | PEB WB 33 |
642445 | PEB WB 34 |
642446 | PEB WB 35 |
642447 | PEB WB 36 |
642448 | PEB WB 37 |
642449 | PEB WB 38 |
642450 | PEB WB 39 |
643892 | PEB SE A1 |
643893 | PEB SE A2 |
643894 | PEB SE A3 |
643895 | PEB SE A4 |
643896 | PEB SE A5 |
643897 | PEB SE A6 |
643898 | PEB SE A7 |
643899 | PEB SE 1 |
643900 | PEB SE 2 |
643901 | PEB SE 3 |
643902 | PEB SE 4 |
643903 | PEB SE 5 |
643904 | PEB SE 6 |
643905 | PEB SE 7 |
643906 | PEB SE 8 |
643907 | PEB SE 9 |
643908 | PEB SE 10 |
643909 | PEB SE 11 |
643910 | PEB SE 12 |
643911 | PEB SE 13 |
643912 | PEB SE 14 |
643913 | PEB SE 15 |
643914 | PEB SE 16 |
643915 | PEB SE 17 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
643916 | PEB SE 18 |
643917 | PEB SE 19 |
643918 | PEB SE 20 |
643919 | PEB SE 21 |
643920 | PEB SE 22 |
643921 | PEB SE 23 |
643922 | PEB SE 24 |
643923 | PEB SE 25 |
643924 | PEB SE 26 |
643925 | PEB SE 27 |
643926 | PEB SE 28 |
643927 | PEB SE 29 |
643928 | PEB SE 30 |
643929 | PEB SE 31 |
643930 | PEB SE 32 |
643931 | PEB NW A1 |
643932 | PEB NW A2 |
643933 | PEB NW A3 |
643934 | PEB NW A4 |
643935 | PEB NW 1 |
643936 | PEB NW 2 |
643937 | PEB NW 3 |
643938 | PEB NW 4 |
643939 | PEB NW 5 |
643940 | PEB NW 6 |
643941 | PEB NW 7 |
643942 | PEB NW 8 |
643943 | PEB NW 9 |
643944 | PEB NW 10 |
643945 | PEB NW 11 |
643946 | PEB NW 12 |
643947 | PEB NW 13 |
643948 | PEB NW 14 |
643949 | PEB NW 15 |
643950 | PEB NW 16 |
643951 | PEB NW 17 |
643952 | PEB NW 18 |
643953 | PEB NW 19 |
643954 | PEB NW 20 |
643955 | PEB NW 21 |
643956 | PEB NW 22 |
643957 | PEB NW 23 |
643958 | PEB NW 24 |
644196 | PEB SE 33 |
644197 | PEB SE 34 |
644198 | PEB SE 35 |
644199 | PEB SE 36 |
644200 | PEB SE 37 |
644201 | PEB SE 38 |
644202 | PEB SE 39 |
644203 | PEB SE 40 |
644204 | PEB SE 41 |
644205 | PEB SE 42 |
644206 | PEB SE 43 |
644207 | PEB SE 44 |
644208 | PEB SE 45 |
644209 | PEB SE 46 |
644210 | PEB SE 47 |
644211 | PEB SE 48 |
644212 | PEB SE 49 |
644213 | PEB SE 50 |
644214 | PEB SE 51 |
644215 | PEB SE 52 |
644216 | PEB SE 53 |
644217 | PEB SE 54 |
644218 | PEB SE 55 |
644219 | PEB SE 56 |
644220 | PEB SE 57 |
644221 | PEB SE 58 |
644225 | PEB SE A8 |
644226 | PEB SE A9 |
644227 | PEB SE A10 |
644228 | PEB SE A11 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
644229 | PEB SE A12 |
644230 | PEB SE A13 |
644231 | PEB EB 75 |
644232 | PEB EB 76 |
644233 | PEB EB 77 |
644234 | PEB EB 78 |
644235 | PEB EB 79 |
644236 | PEB EB 80 |
644237 | PEB EB 81 |
644238 | PEB EB 82 |
644239 | PEB EB 83 |
644240 | PEB EB 84 |
644241 | PEB EB 85 |
644242 | PEB EB 86 |
644243 | PEB EB 87 |
644244 | PEB EB 88 |
644245 | PEB EB 89 |
644246 | PEB EB 90 |
644247 | PEB EB 91 |
644248 | PEB EB 92 |
644249 | PEB EB 93 |
644250 | PEB EB 94 |
644251 | PEB EB 95 |
644252 | PEB EB A5 |
644253 | PEB EB A6 |
644254 | PEB EB A7 |
644255 | PEB EB A8 |
644256 | PEB WB 40 |
644257 | PEB WB 41 |
644258 | PEB WB 42 |
644259 | PEB WB 43 |
644260 | PEB WB 44 |
644261 | PEB WB 45 |
644262 | PEB WB 46 |
644263 | PEB WB 47 |
644264 | PEB WB 48 |
644265 | PEB WB 49 |
644266 | PEB WB 50 |
644267 | PEB WB 51 |
644268 | PEB WB 52 |
644269 | PEB WB 53 |
644270 | PEB WB 54 |
644271 | PEB WB 55 |
644272 | PEB WB 56 |
644273 | PEB WB 57 |
644274 | PEB WB 58 |
644275 | PEB WB 59 |
644276 | PEB WB 60 |
644277 | PEB WB 61 |
644278 | PEB WB 62 |
644279 | PEB WB 63 |
644305 | SP 194 |
644306 | SP 195 |
644307 | SP 196 |
644308 | SP 197 |
644309 | SP 198 |
644389 | KAK 93 |
644390 | KAK 94 |
644391 | KAK 95 |
644392 | KAK 96 |
644393 | KAK 97 |
644394 | KAK 98 |
644395 | KAK 99 |
644396 | KAK 100 |
644397 | KAK 101 |
644398 | KAK 102 |
644399 | KAK 103 |
644400 | KAK 104 |
644401 | KAK 105 |
644402 | KAK 106 |
644403 | KAK 107 |
644404 | KAK 108 |
644405 | KAK 109 |
|
PEBBLE EAST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
644406 | KAK 110 |
644407 | KAK 111 |
644408 | KAK 112 |
644409 | KAK 113 |
644410 | KAK 114 |
644411 | KAK 115 |
644412 | KAK 116 |
644413 | KAK 117 |
644414 | KAK 118 |
644415 | KAK 119 |
644421 | KAK 125 |
644422 | KAK 126 |
644423 | KAK 127 |
644424 | KAK 128 |
644425 | KAK 129 |
644426 | KAK 130 |
644467 | KAK 171 |
644468 | KAK 172 |
644469 | KAK 173 |
644470 | KAK 174 |
644471 | KAK 175 |
644472 | KAK 176 |
644473 | KAK 177 |
644474 | KAK 178 |
644475 | KAK 179 |
644476 | KAK 180 |
644477 | KAK 181 |
644478 | KAK 182 |
644479 | KAK 183 |
644480 | KAK 184 |
644481 | KAK 185 |
644482 | KAK 186 |
644483 | KAK 187 |
644881 | KAK 188 |
644882 | KAK 189 |
644883 | KAK 190 |
644884 | KAK 191 |
644885 | KAK 192 |
644886 | KAK 193 |
644887 | KAK 194 |
644888 | KAK 195 |
646604 | PEBBLE BEACH 5942 |
646605 | PEBBLE BEACH 5943 |
646606 | PEB K 1 |
646607 | PEB K 2 |
646608 | PEB K 3 |
646609 | PEB K 4 |
646610 | PEB K 5 |
646611 | PEB K 6 |
646612 | PEB K 7 |
646613 | PEB K 8 |
646614 | PEB K 9 |
646615 | PEB K 10 |
646616 | PEB K 11 |
646617 | PEB K 12 |
648906 | PEB WB 64 |
648907 | PEB WB 65 |
648908 | PEB WB 66 |
648909 | PEB WB 67 |
649677 | KAK 233 |
649678 | KAK 234 |
649679 | KAK 235 |
649680 | KAK 236 |
649681 | KAK 237 |
649682 | KAK 238 |
649683 | KAK 239 |
649684 | KAK 240 |
649685 | KAK 241 |
649686 | KAK 242 |
649687 | KAK 243 |
649688 | KAK 244 |
649689 | KAK 245 |
649690 | KAK 246 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
649691 | KAK 247 |
649692 | KAK 248 |
649693 | KAK 249 |
649694 | KAK 250 |
649695 | KAK 251 |
649696 | KAK 252 |
649697 | KAK 253 |
649698 | KAK 254 |
649699 | KAK 255 |
649700 | KAK 256 |
649701 | KAK 257 |
649702 | KAK 258 |
649703 | KAK 259 |
649704 | KAK 260 |
649705 | KAK 261 |
649706 | KAK 262 |
649707 | KAK 263 |
649708 | KAK 264 |
649709 | KAK 265 |
649710 | KAK 266 |
649711 | KAK 267 |
649712 | KAK 268 |
649713 | KAK 269 |
649714 | KAK 270 |
649715 | KAK 271 |
649716 | KAK 272 |
649717 | KAK 273 |
649718 | KAK 274 |
649719 | KAK 275 |
649720 | KAK 276 |
649721 | KAK 277 |
649722 | KAK 278 |
649723 | KAK 279 |
649724 | KAK 280 |
649725 | KAK 281 |
649726 | KAK 282 |
649727 | KAK 283 |
649728 | KAK 284 |
649729 | KAK 285 |
649730 | KAK 286 |
649731 | KAK 287 |
649732 | KAK 288 |
649733 | KAK 289 |
649734 | KAK 290 |
649735 | KAK 291 |
649736 | KAK 292 |
649737 | KAK 293 |
649738 | KAK 294 |
649739 | KAK 295 |
649740 | KAK 296 |
649741 | KAK 297 |
649742 | KAK 298 |
649743 | KAK 299 |
649744 | KAK 300 |
649745 | KAK 301 |
649746 | KAK 302 |
649747 | KAK 303 |
649748 | KAK 304 |
649749 | KAK 305 |
649750 | KAK 306 |
649751 | KAK 307 |
649752 | KAK 308 |
649753 | KAK 309 |
649754 | KAK 310 |
649755 | KAK 311 |
649756 | KAK 312 |
649757 | KAK 313 |
649758 | KAK 314 |
649759 | KAK 315 |
649760 | KAK 316 |
649761 | KAK 317 |
649762 | KAK 318 |
649763 | KAK 319 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
649764 | KAK 320 |
649765 | KAK 321 |
649766 | KAK 322 |
649767 | KAK 323 |
649768 | KAK 324 |
649769 | KAK 325 |
649770 | KAK 326 |
657903 | KAK 340 |
657904 | KAK 341 |
657905 | KAK 342 |
657906 | KAK 343 |
657915 | KAK 352 |
657916 | KAK 353 |
657917 | KAK 354 |
657918 | KAK 355 |
657927 | KAK 364 |
657928 | KAK 365 |
657929 | KAK 366 |
657930 | KAK 367 |
657940 | KAK 377 |
663828 | KAK 136A |
663829 | KAK 137A |
663846 | KAK 168A |
663847 | KAK 169A |
663848 | KAK 170A |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
516769 | SILL 5951 |
516770 | SILL 5952 |
516779 | SILL 6051 |
516780 | SILL 6052 |
516789 | SILL 6151 |
516790 | SILL 6152 |
516797 | SILL 6247 |
516798 | SILL 6248 |
516799 | SILL 6249 |
516800 | SILL 6250 |
516801 | SILL 6251 |
516802 | SILL 6252 |
516806 | PEBBLE BEACH 5448 |
516807 | PEBBLE BEACH 5449 |
516808 | PEBBLE BEACH 5450 |
516809 | PEBBLE BEACH 5451 |
516810 | PEBBLE BEACH 5452 |
516811 | PEBBLE BEACH 5453 |
516812 | PEBBLE BEACH 5454 |
516813 | PEBBLE BEACH 5548 |
516814 | PEBBLE BEACH 5549 |
516815 | PEBBLE BEACH 5550 |
516816 | PEBBLE BEACH 5551 |
516817 | PEBBLE BEACH 5552 |
516818 | PEBBLE BEACH 5553 |
516819 | PEBBLE BEACH 5554 |
516820 | PEBBLE BEACH 5651 |
516821 | PEBBLE BEACH 5652 |
516822 | PEBBLE BEACH 5653 |
516823 | PEBBLE BEACH 5654 |
516824 | PEBBLE BEACH 5751 |
516825 | PEBBLE BEACH 5752 |
516826 | PEBBLE BEACH 5753 |
516827 | PEBBLE BEACH 5754 |
516828 | PEBBLE BEACH 5852 |
516829 | PEBBLE BEACH 5853 |
516830 | PEBBLE BEACH 5854 |
516831 | PEBBLE BEACH 5952 |
516832 | PEBBLE BEACH 5953 |
516833 | PEBBLE BEACH 5954 |
516834 | PEBBLE BEACH 6052 |
516835 | PEBBLE BEACH 6053 |
516836 | PEBBLE BEACH 6054 |
516837 | PEBBLE BEACH 6153 |
516838 | PEBBLE BEACH 6154 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
516839 | PEBBLE BEACH 4651 |
516840 | PEBBLE BEACH 4652 |
516841 | PEBBLE BEACH 4653 |
516842 | PEBBLE BEACH 4751 |
516843 | PEBBLE BEACH 4752 |
516844 | PEBBLE BEACH 4753 |
516845 | PEBBLE BEACH 4851 |
516846 | PEBBLE BEACH 4852 |
516847 | PEBBLE BEACH 4853 |
516848 | PEBBLE BEACH 4951 |
516849 | PEBBLE BEACH 4952 |
516850 | PEBBLE BEACH 4953 |
516851 | PEBBLE BEACH 5048 |
516852 | PEBBLE BEACH 5049 |
516853 | PEBBLE BEACH 5050 |
516854 | PEBBLE BEACH 5051 |
516855 | PEBBLE BEACH 5052 |
516856 | PEBBLE BEACH 5053 |
516857 | PEBBLE BEACH 5148 |
516858 | PEBBLE BEACH 5149 |
516859 | PEBBLE BEACH 5150 |
516860 | PEBBLE BEACH 5151 |
516861 | PEBBLE BEACH 5152 |
516862 | PEBBLE BEACH 5153 |
516863 | PEBBLE BEACH 5248 |
516864 | PEBBLE BEACH 5249 |
516865 | PEBBLE BEACH 5250 |
516866 | PEBBLE BEACH 5251 |
516867 | PEBBLE BEACH 5252 |
516868 | PEBBLE BEACH 5253 |
516869 | PEBBLE BEACH 5348 |
516870 | PEBBLE BEACH 5349 |
516871 | PEBBLE BEACH 5350 |
516872 | PEBBLE BEACH 5351 |
516873 | PEBBLE BEACH 5352 |
516874 | PEBBLE BEACH 5353 |
516879 | SILL 6351 |
516880 | SILL 6352 |
516888 | SILL 6451 |
516889 | SILL 6452 |
516948 | PEBBLE BEACH 3850 |
516949 | PEBBLE BEACH 3851 |
516950 | PEBBLE BEACH 3852 |
516951 | PEBBLE BEACH 3950 |
516952 | PEBBLE BEACH 3951 |
516953 | PEBBLE BEACH 3952 |
516954 | PEBBLE BEACH 4050 |
516955 | PEBBLE BEACH 4051 |
516956 | PEBBLE BEACH 4052 |
516957 | PEBBLE BEACH 4150 |
516958 | PEBBLE BEACH 4151 |
516959 | PEBBLE BEACH 4152 |
516960 | PEBBLE BEACH 4250 |
516961 | PEBBLE BEACH 4251 |
516962 | PEBBLE BEACH 4252 |
516963 | PEBBLE BEACH 4253 |
516964 | PEBBLE BEACH 4254 |
516965 | PEBBLE BEACH 4350 |
516966 | PEBBLE BEACH 4351 |
516967 | PEBBLE BEACH 4352 |
516968 | PEBBLE BEACH 4353 |
516969 | PEBBLE BEACH 4354 |
516970 | PEBBLE BEACH 4451 |
516971 | PEBBLE BEACH 4452 |
516972 | PEBBLE BEACH 4453 |
516973 | PEBBLE BEACH 4551 |
516974 | PEBBLE BEACH 4552 |
516975 | PEBBLE BEACH 4553 |
524511 | SILL 5543 |
524512 | SILL 5544 |
524515 | SILL 5643 |
524516 | SILL 5644 |
524519 | SILL 5743 |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
524520 | SILL 5744 |
524523 | SILL 5843 |
524524 | SILL 5844 |
524527 | SILL 5943 |
524528 | SILL 5944 |
524531 | SILL 6043 |
524532 | SILL 6044 |
524535 | SILL 6143 |
524536 | SILL 6144 |
524539 | SILL 6243 |
524540 | SILL 6244 |
524541 | SILL 6245 |
524542 | SILL 6246 |
524543 | SILL 6343 |
524544 | SILL 6344 |
524550 | SILL 6443 |
524551 | SILL 6444 |
524557 | SILL 6543 |
524558 | SILL 6544 |
524568 | SILL 6643 |
524569 | SILL 6644 |
524579 | SILL 6743 |
524580 | SILL 6744 |
524595 | SILL 6843 |
524596 | SILL 6844 |
524611 | SILL 6943 |
524612 | SILL 6944 |
524630 | SILL 7043 |
524631 | SILL 7044 |
524649 | SILL 7143 |
524650 | SILL 7144 |
524668 | SILL 7243 |
524669 | SILL 7244 |
524684 | SILL 7343 |
524685 | SILL 7344 |
524698 | SILL 7443 |
524699 | SILL 7444 |
524712 | SILL 7543 |
524713 | SILL 7544 |
524714 | SILL 7545 |
524715 | SILL 7546 |
524716 | SILL 7547 |
524717 | SILL 7548 |
524748 | PEBBLE BEACH 3452 |
524749 | PEBBLE BEACH 3453 |
524750 | PEBBLE BEACH 3454 |
524751 | PEBBLE BEACH 3455 |
524752 | PEBBLE BEACH 3552 |
524753 | PEBBLE BEACH 3553 |
524754 | PEBBLE BEACH 3554 |
524755 | PEBBLE BEACH 3555 |
524756 | PEBBLE BEACH 3652 |
524757 | PEBBLE BEACH 3653 |
524758 | PEBBLE BEACH 3654 |
524759 | PEBBLE BEACH 3655 |
524760 | PEBBLE BEACH 3752 |
524761 | PEBBLE BEACH 3753 |
524762 | PEBBLE BEACH 3754 |
524763 | PEBBLE BEACH 3755 |
524764 | PEBBLE BEACH 3848 |
524765 | PEBBLE BEACH 3849 |
524766 | PEBBLE BEACH 3853 |
524767 | PEBBLE BEACH 3854 |
524768 | PEBBLE BEACH 3855 |
524769 | PEBBLE BEACH 3948 |
524770 | PEBBLE BEACH 3949 |
524771 | PEBBLE BEACH 3953 |
524772 | PEBBLE BEACH 3954 |
524773 | PEBBLE BEACH 3955 |
524774 | PEBBLE BEACH 4048 |
524775 | PEBBLE BEACH 4049 |
524776 | PEBBLE BEACH 4053 |
524777 | PEBBLE BEACH 4054 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
524778 | PEBBLE BEACH 4055 |
524779 | PEBBLE BEACH 4148 |
524780 | PEBBLE BEACH 4149 |
524781 | PEBBLE BEACH 4153 |
524782 | PEBBLE BEACH 4154 |
524783 | PEBBLE BEACH 4155 |
524784 | PEBBLE BEACH 4248 |
524785 | PEBBLE BEACH 4249 |
524786 | PEBBLE BEACH 4255 |
524787 | PEBBLE BEACH 4348 |
524788 | PEBBLE BEACH 4349 |
524789 | PEBBLE BEACH 4355 |
524790 | PEBBLE BEACH 4448 |
524791 | PEBBLE BEACH 4449 |
524792 | PEBBLE BEACH 4450 |
524793 | PEBBLE BEACH 4454 |
524794 | PEBBLE BEACH 4455 |
524795 | PEBBLE BEACH 4548 |
524796 | PEBBLE BEACH 4549 |
524797 | PEBBLE BEACH 4550 |
524798 | PEBBLE BEACH 4554 |
524799 | PEBBLE BEACH 4555 |
524800 | PEBBLE BEACH 4648 |
524801 | PEBBLE BEACH 4649 |
524802 | PEBBLE BEACH 4650 |
524803 | PEBBLE BEACH 4654 |
524804 | PEBBLE BEACH 4655 |
524805 | PEBBLE BEACH 4748 |
524806 | PEBBLE BEACH 4749 |
524807 | PEBBLE BEACH 4750 |
524808 | PEBBLE BEACH 4754 |
524809 | PEBBLE BEACH 4755 |
524810 | PEBBLE BEACH 4848 |
524811 | PEBBLE BEACH 4849 |
524812 | PEBBLE BEACH 4850 |
524813 | PEBBLE BEACH 4854 |
524814 | PEBBLE BEACH 4855 |
524815 | PEBBLE BEACH 4948 |
524816 | PEBBLE BEACH 4949 |
524817 | PEBBLE BEACH 4950 |
524818 | PEBBLE BEACH 4954 |
524819 | PEBBLE BEACH 4955 |
524820 | PEBBLE BEACH 5054 |
524821 | PEBBLE BEACH 5055 |
524822 | PEBBLE BEACH 5154 |
524823 | PEBBLE BEACH 5155 |
524824 | PEBBLE BEACH 5254 |
524825 | PEBBLE BEACH 5255 |
524826 | PEBBLE BEACH 5354 |
524827 | PEBBLE BEACH 5355 |
524828 | PEBBLE BEACH 5455 |
524829 | PEBBLE BEACH 5648 |
524830 | PEBBLE BEACH 5649 |
524831 | PEBBLE BEACH 5650 |
524832 | PEBBLE BEACH 5748 |
524833 | PEBBLE BEACH 5749 |
524834 | PEBBLE BEACH 5750 |
524835 | PEBBLE BEACH 5848 |
524836 | PEBBLE BEACH 5849 |
524837 | PEBBLE BEACH 5850 |
524838 | PEBBLE BEACH 5851 |
524839 | PEBBLE BEACH 5948 |
524840 | PEBBLE BEACH 5949 |
524841 | PEBBLE BEACH 5950 |
524842 | PEBBLE BEACH 5951 |
524843 | PEBBLE BEACH 6048 |
524844 | PEBBLE BEACH 6049 |
524845 | PEBBLE BEACH 6050 |
524846 | PEBBLE BEACH 6051 |
524847 | PEBBLE BEACH 6148 |
524848 | PEBBLE BEACH 6149 |
524849 | PEBBLE BEACH 6150 |
524850 | PEBBLE BEACH 6151 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
524851 | PEBBLE BEACH 6248 |
524852 | PEBBLE BEACH 6249 |
524853 | PEBBLE BEACH 6250 |
524854 | PEBBLE BEACH 6251 |
524855 | PEBBLE BEACH 6252 |
524856 | PEBBLE BEACH 6253 |
524857 | PEBBLE BEACH 6254 |
524858 | PEBBLE BEACH 6348 |
524859 | PEBBLE BEACH 6349 |
524860 | PEBBLE BEACH 6350 |
524861 | PEBBLE BEACH 6351 |
524862 | PEBBLE BEACH 6352 |
524863 | PEBBLE BEACH 6353 |
524864 | PEBBLE BEACH 6354 |
525849 | PEBBLE BEACH 6152 |
531355 | PEBBLE BEACH 3642 |
531356 | PEBBLE BEACH 3643 |
531357 | PEBBLE BEACH 3644 |
531358 | PEBBLE BEACH 3645 |
531359 | PEBBLE BEACH 3742 |
531360 | PEBBLE BEACH 3743 |
531361 | PEBBLE BEACH 3744 |
531362 | PEBBLE BEACH 3745 |
531363 | PEBBLE BEACH 3842 |
531364 | PEBBLE BEACH 3843 |
531365 | PEBBLE BEACH 3844 |
531366 | PEBBLE BEACH 3845 |
531367 | PEBBLE BEACH 3846 |
531368 | PEBBLE BEACH 3847 |
531369 | PEBBLE BEACH 3942 |
531370 | PEBBLE BEACH 3943 |
531371 | PEBBLE BEACH 3944 |
531372 | PEBBLE BEACH 3945 |
531373 | PEBBLE BEACH 3946 |
531374 | PEBBLE BEACH 3947 |
531375 | PEBBLE BEACH 4042 |
531376 | PEBBLE BEACH 4043 |
531377 | PEBBLE BEACH 4044 |
531378 | PEBBLE BEACH 4045 |
531379 | PEBBLE BEACH 4046 |
531380 | PEBBLE BEACH 4047 |
531381 | PEBBLE BEACH 4142 |
531382 | PEBBLE BEACH 4143 |
531383 | PEBBLE BEACH 4144 |
531384 | PEBBLE BEACH 4145 |
531385 | PEBBLE BEACH 4146 |
531386 | PEBBLE BEACH 4147 |
531387 | PEBBLE BEACH 4244 |
531388 | PEBBLE BEACH 4245 |
531389 | PEBBLE BEACH 4246 |
531390 | PEBBLE BEACH 4247 |
531391 | PEBBLE BEACH 4344 |
531392 | PEBBLE BEACH 4345 |
531393 | PEBBLE BEACH 4346 |
531394 | PEBBLE BEACH 4347 |
531395 | PEBBLE BEACH 4444 |
531396 | PEBBLE BEACH 4445 |
531397 | PEBBLE BEACH 4446 |
531398 | PEBBLE BEACH 4447 |
531399 | PEBBLE BEACH 4544 |
531400 | PEBBLE BEACH 4547 |
531401 | PEBBLE BEACH 4644 |
531402 | PEBBLE BEACH 4645 |
531403 | PEBBLE BEACH 4646 |
531404 | PEBBLE BEACH 4647 |
531405 | PEBBLE BEACH 4744 |
531406 | PEBBLE BEACH 4745 |
531407 | PEBBLE BEACH 4746 |
531408 | PEBBLE BEACH 4747 |
531409 | PEBBLE BEACH 4844 |
531410 | PEBBLE BEACH 4845 |
531411 | PEBBLE BEACH 4846 |
531412 | PEBBLE BEACH 4847 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
531413 | PEBBLE BEACH 4944 |
531414 | PEBBLE BEACH 4945 |
531415 | PEBBLE BEACH 4946 |
531416 | PEBBLE BEACH 4947 |
531417 | PEBBLE BEACH 5044 |
531418 | PEBBLE BEACH 5045 |
531419 | PEBBLE BEACH 5046 |
531420 | PEBBLE BEACH 5047 |
531421 | PEBBLE BEACH 5144 |
531422 | PEBBLE BEACH 5145 |
531423 | PEBBLE BEACH 5146 |
531424 | PEBBLE BEACH 5147 |
531425 | PEBBLE BEACH 5244 |
531426 | PEBBLE BEACH 5245 |
531427 | PEBBLE BEACH 5246 |
531428 | PEBBLE BEACH 5247 |
531429 | PEBBLE BEACH 5344 |
531430 | PEBBLE BEACH 5345 |
531431 | PEBBLE BEACH 5346 |
531432 | PEBBLE BEACH 5347 |
531433 | PEBBLE BEACH 5444 |
531434 | PEBBLE BEACH 5445 |
531435 | PEBBLE BEACH 5446 |
531436 | PEBBLE BEACH 5447 |
531437 | PEBBLE BEACH 5544 |
531438 | PEBBLE BEACH 5545 |
531439 | PEBBLE BEACH 5546 |
531440 | PEBBLE BEACH 5547 |
531441 | PEBBLE BEACH 5644 |
531442 | PEBBLE BEACH 5645 |
531443 | PEBBLE BEACH 5646 |
531444 | PEBBLE BEACH 5647 |
531445 | PEBBLE BEACH 5744 |
531446 | PEBBLE BEACH 5745 |
531447 | PEBBLE BEACH 5746 |
531448 | PEBBLE BEACH 5747 |
531449 | PEBBLE BEACH 5844 |
531450 | PEBBLE BEACH 5845 |
531451 | PEBBLE BEACH 5846 |
531452 | PEBBLE BEACH 5847 |
531453 | PEBBLE BEACH 5944 |
531454 | PEBBLE BEACH 5945 |
531455 | PEBBLE BEACH 5946 |
531456 | PEBBLE BEACH 5947 |
531457 | PEBBLE BEACH 6044 |
531458 | PEBBLE BEACH 6045 |
531459 | PEBBLE BEACH 6046 |
531460 | PEBBLE BEACH 6047 |
531461 | PEBBLE BEACH 6144 |
531462 | PEBBLE BEACH 6145 |
531463 | PEBBLE BEACH 6146 |
531464 | PEBBLE BEACH 6147 |
531648 | PEBBLE BEACH 4545 |
531649 | PEBBLE BEACH 4546 |
540399 | PEBBLE BEACH 5555 |
540400 | PEBBLE BEACH 5655 |
540401 | PEBBLE BEACH 5755 |
540402 | PEBBLE BEACH 5855 |
540403 | PEBBLE BEACH 5955 |
540404 | PEBBLE BEACH 6055 |
540405 | PEBBLE BEACH 6155 |
540406 | PEBBLE BEACH 6255 |
540407 | PEBBLE BEACH 6355 |
540408 | PEBBLE BEACH 6448 |
540409 | PEBBLE BEACH 6449 |
540410 | PEBBLE BEACH 6450 |
540411 | PEBBLE BEACH 6451 |
540412 | PEBBLE BEACH 6452 |
540413 | PEBBLE BEACH 6453 |
540414 | PEBBLE BEACH 6454 |
540415 | PEBBLE BEACH 6455 |
540416 | PEBBLE BEACH 6548 |
540417 | PEBBLE BEACH 6549 |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
540418 | PEBBLE BEACH 6550 |
540419 | PEBBLE BEACH 6551 |
540420 | PEBBLE BEACH 6552 |
540421 | PEBBLE BEACH 6553 |
540422 | PEBBLE BEACH 6554 |
540423 | PEBBLE BEACH 6555 |
540424 | SILL 7643 |
540425 | SILL 7644 |
540426 | SILL 7645 |
540427 | SILL 7646 |
540428 | SILL 7647 |
540429 | SILL 7648 |
540430 | SILL 7743 |
540431 | SILL 7744 |
540432 | SILL 7745 |
540433 | SILL 7746 |
540434 | SILL 7747 |
540435 | SILL 7748 |
540436 | SILL 7843 |
540437 | SILL 7844 |
540438 | SILL 7845 |
540439 | SILL 7846 |
540440 | SILL 7847 |
540441 | SILL 7848 |
540442 | SILL 7943 |
540443 | SILL 7944 |
540444 | SILL 7945 |
540445 | SILL 7946 |
540446 | SILL 7947 |
540447 | SILL 7948 |
540448 | SILL 8043 |
540449 | SILL 8044 |
540450 | SILL 8045 |
540451 | SILL 8046 |
540452 | SILL 8047 |
540453 | SILL 8048 |
540454 | SILL 8143 |
540455 | SILL 8144 |
540456 | SILL 8145 |
540457 | SILL 8146 |
540458 | SILL 8147 |
540459 | SILL 8148 |
540460 | SILL 8243 |
540461 | SILL 8244 |
540462 | SILL 8245 |
540463 | SILL 8246 |
540464 | SILL 8247 |
540465 | SILL 8248 |
540466 | SILL 8343 |
540467 | SILL 8344 |
540468 | SILL 8443 |
540469 | SILL 8444 |
540470 | SILL 8543 |
540471 | SILL 8544 |
540472 | SILL 8643 |
540473 | SILL 8644 |
541245 | PB 113 |
541246 | PB 114 |
541247 | PB 115 |
541248 | PB 116 |
541249 | PB 117 |
541250 | PB 118 |
541251 | PB 119 |
541252 | PB 120 |
542561 | PEBBLE BEACH 4856 |
542562 | PEBBLE BEACH 4956 |
542563 | PEBBLE BEACH 5056 |
542564 | PEBBLE BEACH 5156 |
542565 | PEBBLE BEACH 5256 |
542566 | PEBBLE BEACH 5356 |
542567 | PEBBLE BEACH 5456 |
542568 | PEBBLE BEACH 5556 |
542569 | PEBBLE BEACH 5656 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
542570 | PEBBLE BEACH 5756 |
542571 | PEBBLE BEACH 5856 |
542572 | PEBBLE BEACH 5956 |
542573 | PEBBLE BEACH 6056 |
542574 | PEBBLE BEACH 6156 |
542575 | PEBBLE BEACH 6256 |
542576 | PEBBLE BEACH 6356 |
542577 | PEBBLE BEACH 6456 |
542578 | PEBBLE BEACH 6556 |
542579 | PEBBLE BEACH 4642 |
542580 | PEBBLE BEACH 4643 |
542581 | PEBBLE BEACH 4742 |
542582 | PEBBLE BEACH 4743 |
542583 | PEBBLE BEACH 4842 |
542584 | PEBBLE BEACH 4843 |
542585 | PEBBLE BEACH 4942 |
542586 | PEBBLE BEACH 4943 |
542587 | PEBBLE BEACH 5042 |
542588 | PEBBLE BEACH 5043 |
542589 | PEBBLE BEACH 5142 |
542590 | PEBBLE BEACH 5143 |
542591 | PEBBLE BEACH 5242 |
542592 | PEBBLE BEACH 5243 |
542593 | PEBBLE BEACH 5342 |
542594 | PEBBLE BEACH 5343 |
542595 | PEBBLE BEACH 5442 |
542596 | PEBBLE BEACH 5443 |
542597 | PEBBLE BEACH 5542 |
542598 | PEBBLE BEACH 5543 |
542599 | PEBBLE BEACH 5642 |
542600 | PEBBLE BEACH 5643 |
542601 | PEBBLE BEACH 5742 |
542602 | PEBBLE BEACH 5743 |
542603 | PEBBLE BEACH 5842 |
542604 | PEBBLE BEACH 5843 |
552929 | SOUTH PEBBLE 171 |
552930 | SOUTH PEBBLE 172 |
566247 | PEBBLE BEACH 1936 |
566248 | PEBBLE BEACH 1937 |
566249 | PEBBLE BEACH 1938 |
566250 | PEBBLE BEACH 1939 |
566251 | PEBBLE BEACH 1940 |
566252 | PEBBLE BEACH 1941 |
566287 | PEBBLE BEACH 2036 |
566288 | PEBBLE BEACH 2037 |
566289 | PEBBLE BEACH 2038 |
566290 | PEBBLE BEACH 2039 |
566291 | PEBBLE BEACH 2040 |
566292 | PEBBLE BEACH 2041 |
566327 | PEBBLE BEACH 2136 |
566328 | PEBBLE BEACH 2137 |
566329 | PEBBLE BEACH 2138 |
566330 | PEBBLE BEACH 2139 |
566331 | PEBBLE BEACH 2140 |
566332 | PEBBLE BEACH 2141 |
566367 | PEBBLE BEACH 2236 |
566368 | PEBBLE BEACH 2237 |
566369 | PEBBLE BEACH 2238 |
566370 | PEBBLE BEACH 2239 |
566371 | PEBBLE BEACH 2240 |
566372 | PEBBLE BEACH 2241 |
566373 | PEBBLE BEACH 2242 |
566407 | PEBBLE BEACH 2336 |
566408 | PEBBLE BEACH 2337 |
566409 | PEBBLE BEACH 2338 |
566410 | PEBBLE BEACH 2339 |
566411 | PEBBLE BEACH 2340 |
566412 | PEBBLE BEACH 2341 |
566413 | PEBBLE BEACH 2342 |
566447 | PEBBLE BEACH 2436 |
566448 | PEBBLE BEACH 2437 |
566449 | PEBBLE BEACH 2438 |
566450 | PEBBLE BEACH 2439 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
566451 | PEBBLE BEACH 2440 |
566452 | PEBBLE BEACH 2441 |
566453 | PEBBLE BEACH 2442 |
566487 | PEBBLE BEACH 2536 |
566488 | PEBBLE BEACH 2537 |
566489 | PEBBLE BEACH 2538 |
566490 | PEBBLE BEACH 2539 |
566491 | PEBBLE BEACH 2540 |
566492 | PEBBLE BEACH 2541 |
566527 | PEBBLE BEACH 2636 |
566528 | PEBBLE BEACH 2637 |
566529 | PEBBLE BEACH 2638 |
566530 | PEBBLE BEACH 2639 |
566531 | PEBBLE BEACH 2640 |
566532 | PEBBLE BEACH 2641 |
566567 | PEBBLE BEACH 2736 |
566568 | PEBBLE BEACH 2737 |
566569 | PEBBLE BEACH 2738 |
566570 | PEBBLE BEACH 2739 |
566571 | PEBBLE BEACH 2740 |
566572 | PEBBLE BEACH 2741 |
566607 | PEBBLE BEACH 3138 |
566608 | PEBBLE BEACH 3139 |
566609 | PEBBLE BEACH 3140 |
566610 | PEBBLE BEACH 3141 |
566637 | PEBBLE BEACH 2938 |
566638 | PEBBLE BEACH 2939 |
566639 | PEBBLE BEACH 2940 |
566640 | PEBBLE BEACH 2941 |
566655 | PEBBLE BEACH 2836 |
566656 | PEBBLE BEACH 2837 |
566657 | PEBBLE BEACH 2838 |
566658 | PEBBLE BEACH 2839 |
566659 | PEBBLE BEACH 2840 |
566660 | PEBBLE BEACH 2841 |
566697 | PEBBLE BEACH 3238 |
566698 | PEBBLE BEACH 3239 |
566699 | PEBBLE BEACH 3240 |
566700 | PEBBLE BEACH 3241 |
566701 | PEBBLE BEACH 3242 |
566737 | PEBBLE BEACH 3038 |
566738 | PEBBLE BEACH 3039 |
566739 | PEBBLE BEACH 3040 |
566740 | PEBBLE BEACH 3041 |
566751 | PEBBLE BEACH 3252 |
566752 | PEBBLE BEACH 3253 |
566753 | PEBBLE BEACH 3254 |
566754 | PEBBLE BEACH 3255 |
566767 | PEBBLE BEACH 3338 |
566768 | PEBBLE BEACH 3339 |
566769 | PEBBLE BEACH 3340 |
566770 | PEBBLE BEACH 3341 |
566771 | PEBBLE BEACH 3342 |
566781 | PEBBLE BEACH 3352 |
566782 | PEBBLE BEACH 3353 |
566783 | PEBBLE BEACH 3354 |
566784 | PEBBLE BEACH 3355 |
566793 | PEBBLE BEACH 3438 |
566794 | PEBBLE BEACH 3439 |
566795 | PEBBLE BEACH 3440 |
566796 | PEBBLE BEACH 3441 |
566797 | PEBBLE BEACH 3446 |
566798 | PEBBLE BEACH 3447 |
566799 | PEBBLE BEACH 3448 |
566800 | PEBBLE BEACH 3449 |
566801 | PEBBLE BEACH 3450 |
566802 | PEBBLE BEACH 3451 |
566811 | PEBBLE BEACH 3538 |
566812 | PEBBLE BEACH 3539 |
566813 | PEBBLE BEACH 3540 |
566814 | PEBBLE BEACH 3541 |
566815 | PEBBLE BEACH 3546 |
566816 | PEBBLE BEACH 3547 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
566817 | PEBBLE BEACH 3548 |
566818 | PEBBLE BEACH 3549 |
566819 | PEBBLE BEACH 3550 |
566820 | PEBBLE BEACH 3551 |
566829 | PEBBLE BEACH 3638 |
566830 | PEBBLE BEACH 3639 |
566831 | PEBBLE BEACH 3640 |
566832 | PEBBLE BEACH 3641 |
566833 | PEBBLE BEACH 3646 |
566834 | PEBBLE BEACH 3647 |
566835 | PEBBLE BEACH 3648 |
566836 | PEBBLE BEACH 3649 |
566837 | PEBBLE BEACH 3650 |
566838 | PEBBLE BEACH 3651 |
566847 | PEBBLE BEACH 3738 |
566848 | PEBBLE BEACH 3739 |
566849 | PEBBLE BEACH 3740 |
566850 | PEBBLE BEACH 3741 |
566851 | PEBBLE BEACH 3746 |
566852 | PEBBLE BEACH 3747 |
566853 | PEBBLE BEACH 3748 |
566854 | PEBBLE BEACH 3749 |
566855 | PEBBLE BEACH 3750 |
566856 | PEBBLE BEACH 3751 |
566865 | PEBBLE BEACH 3838 |
566866 | PEBBLE BEACH 3839 |
566867 | PEBBLE BEACH 3840 |
566868 | PEBBLE BEACH 3841 |
566877 | PEBBLE BEACH 3938 |
566878 | PEBBLE BEACH 3939 |
566879 | PEBBLE BEACH 3940 |
566880 | PEBBLE BEACH 3941 |
566889 | PEBBLE BEACH 4038 |
566890 | PEBBLE BEACH 4039 |
566891 | PEBBLE BEACH 4040 |
566892 | PEBBLE BEACH 4041 |
566901 | PEBBLE BEACH 4138 |
566902 | PEBBLE BEACH 4139 |
566903 | PEBBLE BEACH 4140 |
566904 | PEBBLE BEACH 4141 |
566905 | PEBBLE BEACH 4238 |
566906 | PEBBLE BEACH 4239 |
566907 | PEBBLE BEACH 4240 |
566908 | PEBBLE BEACH 4241 |
566909 | PEBBLE BEACH 4242 |
566910 | PEBBLE BEACH 4243 |
566911 | PEBBLE BEACH 4338 |
566912 | PEBBLE BEACH 4339 |
566913 | PEBBLE BEACH 4340 |
566914 | PEBBLE BEACH 4341 |
566915 | PEBBLE BEACH 4342 |
566916 | PEBBLE BEACH 4343 |
566917 | PEBBLE BEACH 4438 |
566918 | PEBBLE BEACH 4439 |
566919 | PEBBLE BEACH 4440 |
566920 | PEBBLE BEACH 4441 |
566921 | PEBBLE BEACH 4442 |
566922 | PEBBLE BEACH 4443 |
566923 | PEBBLE BEACH 4538 |
566924 | PEBBLE BEACH 4539 |
566925 | PEBBLE BEACH 4540 |
566926 | PEBBLE BEACH 4541 |
566927 | PEBBLE BEACH 4542 |
566928 | PEBBLE BEACH 4543 |
566929 | PEBBLE BEACH 4638 |
566930 | PEBBLE BEACH 4639 |
566931 | PEBBLE BEACH 4640 |
566932 | PEBBLE BEACH 4641 |
566933 | PEBBLE BEACH 4738 |
566934 | PEBBLE BEACH 4739 |
566935 | PEBBLE BEACH 4740 |
566936 | PEBBLE BEACH 4741 |
566937 | PEBBLE BEACH 4838 |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
566938 | PEBBLE BEACH 4839 |
566939 | PEBBLE BEACH 4840 |
566940 | PEBBLE BEACH 4841 |
566941 | PEBBLE BEACH 4938 |
566942 | PEBBLE BEACH 4939 |
566943 | PEBBLE BEACH 4940 |
566944 | PEBBLE BEACH 4941 |
566945 | PEBBLE BEACH 5038 |
566946 | PEBBLE BEACH 5039 |
566947 | PEBBLE BEACH 5040 |
566948 | PEBBLE BEACH 5041 |
566949 | PEBBLE BEACH 5138 |
566950 | PEBBLE BEACH 5139 |
566951 | PEBBLE BEACH 5140 |
566952 | PEBBLE BEACH 5141 |
566953 | PEBBLE BEACH 5238 |
566954 | PEBBLE BEACH 5239 |
566955 | PEBBLE BEACH 5240 |
566956 | PEBBLE BEACH 5241 |
566957 | PEBBLE BEACH 5338 |
566958 | PEBBLE BEACH 5339 |
566959 | PEBBLE BEACH 5340 |
566960 | PEBBLE BEACH 5341 |
566961 | PEBBLE BEACH 5438 |
566962 | PEBBLE BEACH 5439 |
566963 | PEBBLE BEACH 5440 |
566964 | PEBBLE BEACH 5441 |
566965 | PEBBLE BEACH 5538 |
566966 | PEBBLE BEACH 5539 |
566967 | PEBBLE BEACH 5540 |
566968 | PEBBLE BEACH 5541 |
566969 | PEBBLE BEACH 5638 |
566970 | PEBBLE BEACH 5639 |
566971 | PEBBLE BEACH 5640 |
566972 | PEBBLE BEACH 5641 |
566973 | PEBBLE BEACH 5738 |
566974 | PEBBLE BEACH 5739 |
566975 | PEBBLE BEACH 5740 |
566976 | PEBBLE BEACH 5741 |
566977 | PEBBLE BEACH 5838 |
566978 | PEBBLE BEACH 5839 |
566979 | PEBBLE BEACH 5840 |
566980 | PEBBLE BEACH 5841 |
566981 | PEBBLE BEACH 5938 |
566982 | PEBBLE BEACH 5939 |
566983 | PEBBLE BEACH 5940 |
566984 | PEBBLE BEACH 5941 |
566985 | PEBBLE BEACH 6038 |
566986 | PEBBLE BEACH 6039 |
566987 | PEBBLE BEACH 6040 |
566988 | PEBBLE BEACH 6041 |
566989 | PEBBLE BEACH 6042 |
566990 | PEBBLE BEACH 6043 |
566991 | PEBBLE BEACH 6138 |
566992 | PEBBLE BEACH 6139 |
566993 | PEBBLE BEACH 6140 |
566994 | PEBBLE BEACH 6141 |
566995 | PEBBLE BEACH 6142 |
566996 | PEBBLE BEACH 6143 |
566997 | PEBBLE BEACH 6238 |
566998 | PEBBLE BEACH 6239 |
566999 | PEBBLE BEACH 6240 |
567000 | PEBBLE BEACH 6241 |
567001 | PEBBLE BEACH 6242 |
567002 | PEBBLE BEACH 6243 |
567003 | PEBBLE BEACH 6244 |
567004 | PEBBLE BEACH 6245 |
567005 | PEBBLE BEACH 6246 |
567006 | PEBBLE BEACH 6247 |
567007 | PEBBLE BEACH 6338 |
567008 | PEBBLE BEACH 6339 |
567009 | PEBBLE BEACH 6340 |
567010 | PEBBLE BEACH 6341 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
567011 | PEBBLE BEACH 6342 |
567012 | PEBBLE BEACH 6343 |
567013 | PEBBLE BEACH 6344 |
567014 | PEBBLE BEACH 6345 |
567015 | PEBBLE BEACH 6346 |
567016 | PEBBLE BEACH 6347 |
567017 | PEBBLE BEACH 6438 |
567018 | PEBBLE BEACH 6439 |
567019 | PEBBLE BEACH 6440 |
567020 | PEBBLE BEACH 6441 |
567021 | PEBBLE BEACH 6442 |
567022 | PEBBLE BEACH 6443 |
567023 | PEBBLE BEACH 6444 |
567024 | PEBBLE BEACH 6445 |
567025 | PEBBLE BEACH 6446 |
567026 | PEBBLE BEACH 6447 |
567035 | PEBBLE BEACH 6546 |
567036 | PEBBLE BEACH 6547 |
567045 | PEBBLE BEACH 6646 |
567046 | PEBBLE BEACH 6647 |
567047 | PEBBLE BEACH 6648 |
567048 | PEBBLE BEACH 6649 |
567049 | PEBBLE BEACH 6650 |
567050 | PEBBLE BEACH 6651 |
567051 | PEBBLE BEACH 6652 |
567052 | PEBBLE BEACH 6653 |
567053 | PEBBLE BEACH 6654 |
567054 | PEBBLE BEACH 6655 |
567055 | PEBBLE BEACH 6656 |
567064 | PEBBLE BEACH 6746 |
567065 | PEBBLE BEACH 6747 |
567066 | PEBBLE BEACH 6748 |
567067 | PEBBLE BEACH 6749 |
567068 | PEBBLE BEACH 6750 |
567069 | PEBBLE BEACH 6751 |
567083 | PEBBLE BEACH 6846 |
567084 | PEBBLE BEACH 6847 |
567085 | PEBBLE BEACH 6848 |
567086 | PEBBLE BEACH 6849 |
567087 | PEBBLE BEACH 6850 |
567088 | PEBBLE BEACH 6851 |
567102 | PEBBLE BEACH 6946 |
567103 | PEBBLE BEACH 6947 |
567104 | PEBBLE BEACH 6948 |
567105 | PEBBLE BEACH 6949 |
567106 | PEBBLE BEACH 6950 |
567107 | PEBBLE BEACH 6951 |
567841 | SILL 5343 |
567842 | SILL 5344 |
567843 | SILL 5345 |
567844 | SILL 5346 |
567845 | SILL 5347 |
567855 | SILL 5443 |
567856 | SILL 5444 |
567857 | SILL 5445 |
567858 | SILL 5446 |
567859 | SILL 5447 |
567860 | SILL 5448 |
567869 | SILL 5545 |
567870 | SILL 5546 |
567871 | SILL 5547 |
567872 | SILL 5548 |
567873 | SILL 5549 |
567881 | SILL 5645 |
567882 | SILL 5646 |
567883 | SILL 5647 |
567884 | SILL 5648 |
567885 | SILL 5649 |
567886 | SILL 5650 |
567893 | SILL 5745 |
567894 | SILL 5746 |
567895 | SILL 5747 |
567896 | SILL 5748 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
567897 | SILL 5749 |
567898 | SILL 5750 |
567905 | SILL 5845 |
567906 | SILL 5846 |
567907 | SILL 5847 |
567908 | SILL 5848 |
567909 | SILL 5849 |
567910 | SILL 5850 |
567911 | SILL 5851 |
567917 | SILL 5945 |
567918 | SILL 5946 |
567919 | SILL 5947 |
567920 | SILL 5948 |
567921 | SILL 5949 |
567922 | SILL 5950 |
567923 | SILL 5953 |
567927 | SILL 6045 |
567928 | SILL 6046 |
567929 | SILL 6047 |
567930 | SILL 6048 |
567931 | SILL 6049 |
567932 | SILL 6050 |
567933 | SILL 6053 |
567937 | SILL 6145 |
567938 | SILL 6146 |
567939 | SILL 6147 |
567940 | SILL 6148 |
567941 | SILL 6149 |
567942 | SILL 6150 |
567943 | SILL 6153 |
567944 | SILL 6154 |
567947 | SILL 6253 |
567948 | SILL 6254 |
567949 | SILL 6255 |
567951 | SILL 6345 |
567952 | SILL 6346 |
567953 | SILL 6347 |
567954 | SILL 6348 |
567955 | SILL 6349 |
567956 | SILL 6350 |
567957 | SILL 6353 |
567958 | SILL 6354 |
567959 | SILL 6355 |
567960 | SILL 6356 |
567961 | SILL 6445 |
567962 | SILL 6446 |
567963 | SILL 6447 |
567964 | SILL 6448 |
567965 | SILL 6449 |
567966 | SILL 6450 |
567967 | SILL 6453 |
567968 | SILL 6454 |
567969 | SILL 6455 |
567970 | SILL 6456 |
567971 | SILL 6545 |
567972 | SILL 6546 |
567973 | SILL 6547 |
567974 | SILL 6548 |
567975 | SILL 6549 |
567976 | SILL 6550 |
567977 | SILL 6551 |
567978 | SILL 6552 |
567979 | SILL 6553 |
567980 | SILL 6554 |
567981 | SILL 6555 |
567982 | SILL 6556 |
568175 | SILL 8345 |
568176 | SILL 8346 |
568177 | SILL 8347 |
568178 | SILL 8348 |
568255 | SILL 8743 |
568256 | SILL 8744 |
642755 | BC 267 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
642756 | BC 268 |
642757 | BC 269 |
642758 | BC 270 |
642759 | BC 271 |
642766 | BC 278 |
642767 | BC 279 |
642768 | BC 280 |
642769 | BC 281 |
642770 | BC 282 |
642777 | BC 289 |
642778 | BC 290 |
642779 | BC 291 |
642780 | BC 292 |
642781 | BC 293 |
642788 | BC 300 |
642789 | BC 301 |
642790 | BC 302 |
642791 | BC 303 |
642792 | BC 304 |
642799 | BC 311 |
642800 | BC 312 |
642801 | BC 313 |
642802 | BC 314 |
642803 | BC 315 |
642810 | BC 322 |
642811 | BC 323 |
642812 | BC 324 |
642813 | BC 325 |
642814 | BC 326 |
642821 | BC 333 |
642822 | BC 334 |
642823 | BC 335 |
642824 | BC 336 |
642825 | BC 337 |
642826 | BC 338 |
642827 | BC 339 |
642834 | BC 346 |
642835 | BC 347 |
642836 | BC 348 |
642837 | BC 349 |
642838 | BC 350 |
642839 | BC 351 |
642840 | BC 352 |
642841 | BC 353 |
642842 | BC 354 |
642843 | BC 355 |
642850 | BC 362 |
642851 | BC 363 |
642852 | BC 364 |
642853 | BC 365 |
642854 | BC 366 |
642855 | BC 367 |
642856 | BC 368 |
642857 | BC 369 |
642858 | BC 370 |
642859 | BC 371 |
642860 | BC 372 |
642861 | BC 373 |
642862 | BC 374 |
642869 | BC 381 |
642870 | BC 382 |
642871 | BC 383 |
642872 | BC 384 |
642873 | BC 385 |
642874 | BC 386 |
642875 | BC 387 |
642876 | BC 388 |
642877 | BC 389 |
642878 | BC 390 |
642879 | BC 391 |
642880 | BC 392 |
642881 | BC 393 |
642888 | BC 400 |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | |
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
642889 | BC 401 |
642890 | BC 402 |
642891 | BC 403 |
642892 | BC 404 |
642893 | BC 405 |
642894 | BC 406 |
642895 | BC 407 |
642896 | BC 408 |
642897 | BC 409 |
642898 | BC 410 |
642899 | BC 411 |
642900 | BC 412 |
642907 | BC 419 |
642908 | BC 420 |
642909 | BC 421 |
642910 | BC 422 |
642911 | BC 423 |
642912 | BC 424 |
642913 | BC 425 |
642914 | BC 426 |
642915 | BC 427 |
642916 | BC 428 |
642917 | BC 429 |
642918 | BC 430 |
642919 | BC 431 |
643432 | BC 1001 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
643433 | BC 1002 |
643434 | BC 1003 |
643435 | BC 1004 |
643436 | BC 1005 |
643437 | BC 1006 |
643438 | BC 1007 |
643439 | BC 1008 |
643440 | BC 1009 |
643441 | BC 1010 |
644292 | SP 181 |
644293 | SP 182 |
644294 | SP 183 |
644295 | SP 184 |
644296 | SP 185 |
644297 | SP 186 |
644298 | SP 187 |
644299 | SP 188 |
644300 | SP 189 |
644301 | SP 190 |
644318 | SP 207 |
644319 | SP 208 |
644320 | SP 209 |
644321 | SP 210 |
644322 | SP 216 |
644323 | SP 225 |
644324 | SP 226 |
|
ADL # | CLAIM NAME |
644325 | SP 227 |
644326 | SP 228 |
644327 | SP 229 |
644328 | SP 230 |
644329 | SP 231 |
644330 | SP 232 |
644331 | SP 235 |
644332 | SP 236 |
644333 | SP 237 |
644334 | SP 238 |
644335 | SP 239 |
644336 | SP 245 |
644733 | SOUTH PEBBLE 234 |
644734 | SOUTH PEBBLE 240 |
644735 | SOUTH PEBBLE 241 |
644736 | SOUTH PEBBLE 242 |
644737 | SOUTH PEBBLE 243 |
644738 | SOUTH PEBBLE 244 |
645612 | SP 322 |
645613 | SP 323 |
645614 | SP 324 |
645615 | SP 325 |
645616 | SP 326 |
645617 | SP 327 |
645618 | SP 328 |
645630 | SP 340 |
645631 | SP 341 |
645632 | SP 342 |
645633 | SP 343 |
645634 | SP 344 |
645635 | SP 345 |
645642 | SP 352 |
645643 | SP 353 |
645644 | SP 354 |
645645 | SP 355 |
645646 | SP 356 |
645647 | SP 357 |
645654 | SP 364 |
645655 | SP 365 |
645656 | SP 366 |
645657 | SP 367 |
645658 | SP 368 |
645659 | SP 369 |
|
SUMMARY: |
|
|
PEBBLE EAST CLAIMS | 751 |
|
PEBBLE WEST CLAIMS | 1089 |
|
TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMS | 1840 |
|
Resource Lands |
|
|
Exploration Lands |
|
|