RE:RE:RE:RE:Will the company issue a news releaseAnother material matter might be the tailings dam deficiencies outlined by BGC Engineering Ltd in its audit letter to Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd on December 1, 2014 (link provided by Czechlate) .
(https://mssi.nrs.gov.bc.ca/QR/QR_2014_3rdpartyreview.pdf )
1...BGC understands that tailings are no longer being placed in the TSF but rather the flooded Main Zone Pit at the QR Mine (KCB, 2014).
2...Subsequent to this initial classification KCB 2009, also conducted for a previous owner of the mine, adopted the hazard classification as “Significant” for the dams, according to criteria in CDA 2007 without the benefit of a dam break analyses. This classification was also adopted in the KCB 2014 DSI report for the current owner BGM. In the course of conducting the Dam Safety Review of the QR Mine TSF dams in 2012, BGC was not asked to re-assess the hazard classification of the dams. Rather, BGC’s scope was based on the previously adopted classification and to assess if the dams were designed and constructed in accordance to this adopted classification. Therefore, as limited background information and rationale were available to assess the hazard classification of the dams, BGC could not comment on the current failure consequence classification of these structures. Further, as it appears there has not been a rigorous evaluation of the hazard classification of the dams between the current owner BGM and the EOR, KCB, BGC recommends this work be conducted.
3...Both the Tailings Dam and Cross Dyke were classified as Significant. However, as it appears there has not been a rigorous evaluation of the hazard classification of the dams between BGM and the EOR, BGC recommends this work be conducted.
4...KCB 2014 reported all water levels were below alert levels. However, based on the readings provided, it appears that DH2002-01 has recently exceeded its piezometric alert level and that the listed maximum historical readings dates do not correspond to the readings provided. It should also be noted approximately 40% of the piezometers have either equalled or exceeded their piezometric alert levels in the past (based on rounding off of significant digits) and that the OMS does not provide piezometric alert levels for the piezometers. BGC recommends the piezometric alert levels be reviewed and that the OMS be updated with the appropriate piezometric alert levels. KCB 2014 reported that no slope monitoring instruments are in place and that this should be reviewed. BCG concurs.
5...KCB 2014 reported there had been no indication of dam instability and that recent designs followed the CDA 2007 requirements for stability. KCB 2014 recommended the steeper than designed downstream slope of the north Tailings Dam (Reference Photos I-10 and I-20) should be assessed. BGC concurs. In Photo I-6, portions of the upstream slope along the Cross Dyke also appeared to be steeper than design and should also be assessed.
6...KCB 2014 reported the 2013 construction was halted due to weather and this work was to be completed in 2014. Construction was continuing at the time of KCB’s site visit. All 2014 construction activities should be confirmed by the EOR that they met required design criteria or note any variances and rationale from those.
7...Closure spillway construction was completed after the KCB 2014 site inspection. It was noted outflow from the impoundment is predominantly pond evaporation. All 2014 construction activities should be confirmed by the EOR that they met required design criteria or note any variances and rationale from those. No explicit summary text on discharge volumes and related water quality were provided in DSI report.
8...As noted above in 1b, KCB 2014 reported all water levels were below alert levels. However, based on the readings provided, it appears that DH2002-01 has recently exceeded its piezometric alert level and that the listed maximum historical readings dates do not correspond to the readings provided. It should also be noted approximately 40% of the piezometers have either equalled or exceeded their piezometric alert levels in the past (based on rounding off of significant digits) and that the OMS does not provide piezometric alert levels for the piezometers. BGC recommends the piezometric alert levels be reviewed and that the OMS be updated with the appropriate piezometric alert levels.
hammer161 wrote:
So give us all your take then Chilly if you know so much - then again we all know that won't happen as I can't remember a single post of your when you actually used a fact. All one has to do is look at the technical report to see the planned pit strip ratio (!18:1) - you know the one - the plan before they decided to amend the plan and go for a much smaller quantity of high grade. To expand the pit now will mean a higher strip ratio - and they could net even reach average reserve grade in their attempt to high grade!!! They have failed miserably to make the money they should have off this small open pit.