BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT

234 St.
Paul Street, Kamloops, BC Canada V2C 6G4

Telephone (250) 374-8600 Fax (250) 374-8606
BGC Project Memorandum

To: Pretium Resources Inc. Doc. No.: BJ-2014-22
Attention: Ian Chang, P.Eng., Vice President, cc:
Project Development
From: Anthony Urquhart, Claudia Medina Date: September 11,
2014
Subject: Proposed Maintenance Shop, Brucejack Project – Geotechnical
Recommendations for Design and Construction – REV. A-DRAFT
Project No.: 1008-011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pretium Resources Inc. (Pretium) is currently undertaking studies related to the development
of the Brucejack Project, located approximately 70 km north-northwest of Stewart, British
Columbia, Canada. The project consists of a proposed underground mine and related surface
infrastructure.
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained by Pretium to gather geotechnical data and
provide geotechnical engineering designs and recommendations for various aspects of the
project. This memorandum provides a geotechnical assessment of the foundation conditions
and recommendations to assist with the design and construction of the proposed maintenance
shop. The shop is located approximately 40 m southwest of the proposed detonator storage
building at the northwest side of the proposed Plan Site.
1.1. Proposed Development Area

The location of the proposed maintenance shop is west of Bruce Jack Lake adjacent to the
existing ProCon shop and the temporary water treatment facility. A site plan showing the
general area is provided on Drawing 01 attached. Based on our current understanding, the
proposed location is preferred by Pretium due to the proximity to the existing mine facilities,
and to allow efficient access to the existing mine portal.
It is understood that the proposed maintenance shop will be a temporary structure and
constructed as a design-build project. The footprint of the structure is approximately 670 m2
C:\Users\turquhart\Desktop\BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT.docx
BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Pretium Resources Inc. September 11, 2014
Proposed Maintenance Shop, Brucejack Project – Geotechnical Recommendations for Design and Construction – REV. A-DRAFT
(7200 sq. ft.) with dimensions of 36 x 18 m (120 x 60 ft). The finished floor elevation is
proposed near existing grade at approximately elevation (El.) 1366 m (Geodetic Datum).
Based on discussion with Pretium site personnel it is known that the proposed site was raised
to its current grade by infilling with blasted rock fill materials and that the infilling activities
occurred during several stages.
1.2. Objective and Scope of Work

The purpose of the site investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions at the proposed
maintenance shop. An engineering analysis of the subsurface conditions would provide
geotechnical recommendations to assist with the design and construction of the building
foundations and concrete slabs. Test pits were excavated at the request of the Pretium to
provide subsurface data to support design and construction.
The scope of work included the following components:
1. Excavation of two test pits.
2. Logging and sampling of test pits for soil characteristics.
3. Completion of soil laboratory index testing.
4. Preparation of a geotechnical letter report including:
 Site plan showing the test pit locations.
 Test pit logs.
 Discussion on soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the proposed site;
and,
 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the
building foundations.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The following sections provide detail with respect to the site description. Selected photos taken
at the project site during the field investigation are included in Appendix A.
2.1. Topography
Based on site observations and LiDAR survey data, provided by Pretium, the topography at
the proposed maintenance shop is relatively flat between approximately El. 1365 m and 1366
m (Geodetic Datum). Ground surface cover at the project site consists mainly of exposed
granular fill with very little to no vegetation growth
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
3.1. Test Pits

The site investigation consisted of excavation of two (2) test pits (TP-BGC14-31 to TP-BGC14-
32) completed on August 5, 2014. In addition, a drillhole (DH-BGC14-07) and a test pit (TP-
BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT Page 2

BGC14-18) were conducted in the area of the proposed nearby detonator storage building and
are included for discussion purposes only. The test locations were located in the field using
handheld GPS and are shown on Drawing 01.
The test pits were excavated using a track mounted hydraulic excavator to a depth of
approximately 3.0 m below ground surface. Subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits
were recorded in the field by BGC. Soil samples were obtained for geotechnical laboratory
testing. Groundwater seepage observations were noted in the field as the excavation of the
test pit progressed. All test pits were backfilled using the excavated material and tamped in
place with the excavator bucket.
The subsurface conditions and soil types encountered are shown on the test pit logs presented
in Appendix B. Soil types were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and the relative density estimated by excavator performance.
3.2. Laboratory Testing

Selected soil samples were sent to a geotechnical soil testing facility for standard water content
determination (ASTM D2216) and grain size analysis (ASTM D422). Laboratory testing was
conducted in accordance with the latest editions of applicable American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standards. The results of the laboratory testing are noted in the test pit
logs and laboratory reports provided in Appendix C.
4.0 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

The subsurface conditions encountered during investigation generally consisted of compact
common granular fill or rock fill overlying saturated loose native alluvium sand and gravel.
Fill materials were encountered at ground surface of all test locations. Overall, the fill surface
within the proposed building footprint was observed to be predominantly rock fill material with
the exception of the immediate area around TP-BGC14-31 where a compact silty, sandy gravel
was encountered. The rock fill consisted primarily of a compact blasted rock comprised of
angular boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt mixture.
Alluvial soil was encountered below the fill layer at the test pits. The alluvium within the
footprint typically consisted of a loose gravelly coarse sand and trace silt, with Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) N-values in nearby drill hole DH-BGC14-07 ranging between 2 and 9.
Grain size distributions conducted on one representative sample of the coarse sand alluvium
indicated 41% gravel, 56% sand and 4% fines. A zone of silty fine sand (0.8 m thick) was
encountered within the loose gravelly sand at one test pit location (TP-BGC14-32). Grain size
distributions conducted on one representative sample of the fine sand indicated 1% gravel,
52% sand and 47% fines
Table 1 provides a stratigraphic summary of the thickness of each of the geologic units logged
at the test pit locations and also information from logs for TP-BGC14-18 and DH-BGC14-07,
for the detonator storage area located approximately 35-45 m north-northeast from the

proposed building footprint. Additional details on the subsurface conditions encountered are
provided on Test pit logs included in Appendix B.
Note, the subsurface conditions encountered in at the nearby drill hole (DH-BGC14-07)
indicated a 3.7 m zone of soft glaciolacustrine clay found below the sand alluvium, with SPT
N-values 2 and below. Below the clay, a 2.6 m thick layer of alluvial sand was found overlying
1.5 m of glacial till, overlying bedrock. Bedrock was encountered at a depth of 14.1 m in the
drill hole. The test pits excavated within the footprint did not encounter the clay or underlying
strata due to the shallow excavation depth of the test pits, from the high water table and
unstable side walls. However due to the proximity of, DH-BGC14-07 to the proposed footprint
and for the purpose of this report it is inferred that the soft glaciolacustrine clay layer is present
and continuous at similar depth and extent. To confirm the presence of the clay layer within
the footprint of the maintenance shop an additional drill hole would be required.
4.1. Groundwater Observations

The groundwater levels encountered in the test pits varied between approximately 1.2 m to 2.0
m below existing ground surface and was observed as rapid seepage entering the test pits
during excavations.

Proposed Maintenance Shop, Brucejack Project – Geotechnical Recommendations for Design and Construction – REV. A-DRAFT Project No.: 1008-011
Table 4-1 Subsurface Stratigraphy Summary

Coordinates (1) Test Thickness (m)
Depth to Observed
Test Hole Elevation Hole
Facility Rock Glacio- Glacial bedrock Groundwater
ID Easting Northing (masl) (2) Depth Alluvium
Fill lacustrine Till (m) Depth (m)
(m)
Maintenance
TP-BGC14-31 426,564 6,258,768 1,365 3.0 0.7 >2.3 - (4) - (4) - (4) 1.2
Shop
Maintenance
TP-BGC14-32 426,559 6,258,801 1,366 3.0 0.6 >2.4 - (4) - (4) - (4) 2.0
Shop
Detonator
TP-BGC14-18 426,580 6,258,837 1,365 3.3 1.2 >2.1 - (4) - (4) - (4) 1.2
Storage Area
Detonator
DH-BGC14-07 426,580 6,258,826 1,366 20.1 2.1 6.8(3) 3.7 1.5 14.1
Storage Area
Notes:
1. Projection is UTM NAD83 Zone 9.
2. Elevation obtained from LiDAR in metres above sea level (MASL). LiDAR data from "100000-10-005.DWG" prepared by Tetra Tech, received November 27, 2013.
3. Includes a 4.2 m thick layer in between the Fill and Glaciolacustrine clay layer and a 2.6 m thick layer below the Glaciolacustrine clay layer.
4. Test pit terminated at the alluvial zone due to encounter of water table and sloughing sidewalls.
C:\Users\turquhart\Desktop\BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT.docx

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Geotechnical Discussion

Based on correspondence between BGC and Pretium, it is understood that the preferred
foundation type for the proposed maintenance shop is a conventional spread footings placed
below grade with an interior concrete floor isolated from the foundation.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits, excavations for conventional
footings will be a challenge to construct due to the high water table, and would require
dewatering during construction to allow placement of formwork and concrete. In addition, poor
foundation conditions are present due to the loose alluvial sand soil that was encountered. As
well, a soft compressible clay layer was encountered at El. 1357 m in DH-BGC14-07, and as
mentioned above it is inferred that the clay extends beneath the proposed footprint. Therefore,
a conventional foundation system is not recommended at this location.
Therefore, given the above, the following options are provided for consideration in design and
construction of the maintenance shop.
1. Relocate the maintenance shop from areas of infilled ground and alluvial soils to
another area where conventional foundations can be placed on shallow bedrock or
compact insitu granular soil.
2. Construct at the existing proposed location, with pile supported foundations placed
through the fill, and native overburden soils to reach bedrock surface at approximate
El. 1350 m. Steel H or pipe piles would be considered satisfactory for structural support
of the building foundations. A typical allowable capacity for a conventional pile driven
to bedrock would be approximately 700 to 900 kN.
3. Construct at the existing location with a structurally designed mat foundation to spread
the column loads uniformly across the entire footprint and to reduce the potential for
differential settlement. This type of foundation system is expected to generate
significant total settlements of the underlying soils that may require ongoing
maintenance throughout the life of the structure.
BGC will await comment from Pretium on Option 1 or Option 2 above and in the meantime the
following discussion is provided for Option 3 and includes geotechnical engineering
recommendations to assist with the design and construction of mat foundations.
5.2. Mat Foundation

Mat or raft foundations are typically used due to poor foundation conditions to spread out
concentrated column loads so that a reduced uniform bearing pressure is applied throughout.
This is beneficial to help reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas with highly
variable subsurface conditions such as those encountered at the proposed maintenance shop
location. However while differential settlements are reduced, increased total settlements can
occur due to the larger zone of influence that results from mat foundations as compared to
C:\Users\turquhart\Desktop\BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT.docx Page 6

smaller conventional spread footings. The following subsections outline geotechnical

engineering recommendations for the considerations of the structural designers.
5.2.1. Subgrade Preparation

It is recommended that the existing subgrade be compacted and proofrolled with large vibratory
roller prior to construction. Weak (Soft) areas identified should be subexcavated and replaced
with a well graded granular fill meeting BC MoT WGB - 75 mm or equivalent. All fill should be
placed and compacted to 98 % Standard Proctor Dry Density (SPMDD).
Following proofrolling, it is recommended that a minimum 600 mm thick layer of granular base
course meeting BCMoT WGB – 75 mm specifications be placed within the building footprint
above the existing subgrade to support mat foundations. The granular base course should
extend beyond the edge of the foundation a distance of 1.5 m. The base course should be
placed in two lifts 300 mm thick and compacted to achieve 98% of the SPMDD.
5.2.2. Drainage and Water Control

Site grading should maintain positive discharge in the direction of natural drainage and should
direct water away from the structures.
5.2.3. Foundation Design

As discussed, there is high potential for the soils located below the fill to have a varying state
of relative density, consistency, and texture. Therefore, settlement from compression of these
materials is of concern, and the magnitude will be dependent upon the size and extent and
rigidity of the foundation elements.
As discussed above, it is recommended that the mat foundation be placed over a minimum
600 mm of compacted granular base course to provide a uniform bearing surface and provide
increased separation between the foundation and alluvial soils.
Mat foundations are susceptible to frost heave and therefore insulation is recommended to be
placed around the perimeter and beneath the foundation slabs. A minimum burial depth of 0.6
m is recommended with use of insulation. Based on our current understanding of the design
requirements a rigid foam insulation 75 mm thick and extending 1.8 m beyond the edge of the
structure will be required for frost protection.
From a geotechnical perspective, a structurally designed mat foundation can be considered
suitable for this site, however, total settlements beneath the slab are estimated to be large. If
settlement tolerances are not critical, then mattress foundations can be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 30 kPa. The allowable bearing pressure should be applied as
an average uniform distribution spread throughout the full footprint of the structure. This
pressure assumes that the column load is evenly distributed to the mat foundation.

Preliminary calculations for total settlements associated with this loading are expected to be in
the order 60 mm. The settlement calculation is based on treating the mat foundation as a rigid
foundation using geotechnical parameters assumed from published correlations. Under
sustained loading, up to 50 mm of this settlement is expected to be due to consolidation
settlement of underlying clay materials that will occur over a time of approximately 12 to 16
months. The remainder of the settlement will be elastic and should occur immediately with the
application of the load. The corresponding differential settlements across the length or width
of the structure are estimated at about half the total settlement (assuming a uniform founding
level), but will also depend greatly on the stiffness of the raft.
To help reduce the potential for concrete cracking, it is recommended that the mat foundations
be designed to be constructed in individual panels offset so that the panels are built with
engineered construction joints that can be connected together in a checker board like pattern.
For concrete slabs constructed with a minimum 600 mm base course as outlined above, a
suggested approximation for the modulus of subgrade reaction for design purposes is
ksv = 10 MPa/m (62 pci). This value is based on the stiffness expected from the granular base
course and existing fill materials. Note, the modulus of subgrade reaction is not a fundamental
soil property (CFEM 2006) and varies with numerous factors including size, shape and depth
of the slab, relative stiffness of the slab, and duration of the loading. Design values should be
corrected for the actual attributed area based on the following formula:
kb = ksv ((B+0.3)/2B)2 (MPa/m)
Where:
kb = modulus of subgrade reaction for width (B) (MPa/m)
ksv = modulus of subgrade reaction for 300 mm square plate (MPa/m)
B = effective width for design (m)
Accordingly, the analysis of the raft slab should ideally involve an iterative analysis between
the determination of the contact stress distribution by the structural engineer and the
geotechnical determination of the modulus of subgrade reaction value, until the two are
consistent with each other.

6.0 CLOSURE
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for the account of Pretium. The material
in it reflects the judgment of BGC staff in light of the information available to BGC at the time
of document preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this document or any reliance
on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of such third parties. BGC accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or
actions based on this document.
As a mutual protection to our client, the public, and ourselves, all documents and drawings are
submitted for the confidential information of our client for a specific project. Authorization for
any use and/or publication of this document or any data, statements, conclusions or abstracts
from or regarding our documents and drawings, through any form of print or electronic media,
including without limitation, posting or reproduction of same on any website, is reserved
pending BGC’s written approval. If this document is issued in an electronic format, an original
paper copy is on file at BGC and that copy is the primary reference with precedence over any
electronic copy of the document, or any extracts from our documents published by others.
Yours sincerely,

per:
Anthony Urquhart, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer
Reviewed by:
Edward Carey
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
AU/EC/lw

REFERENCES
Canadian Geotechnical Society. (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM),
4th Ed.

DRAWINGS
BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT

³ 426,400
426,500
426,600
426,700
X:\Projects\1008\011\Production\20140910_REPORT_Brucejack_2014_Infrastructure_Geotechnical_Investigations\01_Proposed_Maintenance_Shop_Brucejack_Project_Geotechnical_Recommendations_for_Design_and_Construction.mxd Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 Time: 9:09 AM
6,258,900 6,258,900
6,258,800 6,258,800
LEGEND
@
A COMPLETED 2014 DRILL HOLE
D
E COMPLETED 2014 TEST PIT
!
( EXISTING DRILL HOLE/TEST PIT
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SHOP
426,400
426,500
426,600
426,700
(APPROXIMATE)
NOTES: SCALE:
1:1,000 PROJECT:
BRUCEJACK 2014 INFRASTRUCTURE
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BGC B G C E N G IN E E R IN G IN C .
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S MEMO " BRUCEJACK PROJECT - SCOPE OF WORK FOR CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL UPDATE DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS DATE:
SEP 2014
AND ASSESSMENT - REV. 3", AND DATED SEPTEMBER, 2014. TITLE: MAINTENANCE SHOP, BRUCE JACK PROJECT -
AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY
DRAFT
3. PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR PLANT SITE FROM DRAWING NO. 100000-10-003. REV. B, DATED JUNE 23, 2014. PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR 100 MAN CAMP BUILDING RECEIVED FROM PRETIUM ON JULY 17, 2014. DRAWN:
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
LL
4. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA AND SITE LAYOUT FROM "100000-10-005.DWG" PREPARED BY TETRA TECH, RECEIVED NOVEMBER 27, 2013. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 m. CLIENT:
FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
5. PROJECTION IS UTM NAD83 ZONE 9. CHECKED:
TU PROJECT No.: DWG No.:
6. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO
LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS APPROVED: 1008011 01
CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK.
APPENDIX A
TEST PIT PHOTOS

Photo 1.
General site location, looking north.
Photo 2.
Test pit spoil pile detail. Rockfill and
geotextile
Photo 3.
Test pit detail. Water table encountered at
1.2 m.
Photo 4.
Test pit detail. Test pit terminated due to
water table and sloughing
sidewalls.
Project: Subject:
BRUCEJACK PROJECT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SHOP – GEOTECHNICAL TP‐BGC14‐18 – DETONATOR STORAGE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS Date: 9/11/2014 Page 1
Photo 1.
General site location, looking south.
Photo 2.
Test pit detail, west wall.
Photo 3.
Test pit detail. Water table encountered at
1.2 m.
Photo 4.
End of test pit at 3.0 m. Test pit terminated
due to water table and sloughing
sidewalls.
Project: Subject:
BRUCEJACK PROJECT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SHOP – GEOTECHNICAL TP‐BGC14‐31 – MAINTENANCE SHOP
Photo 1. Photo 3.
General site location, looking west. Test pit spoil pile detail, showing coarse sand
. and fine silty sand
Photo 2. Photo 4.
Test pit detail, north wall. Water table Test pit detail showing fine silty sand
encountered at 2.0 m.
Project: Subject:
BRUCEJACK PROJECT
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SHOP – GEOTECHNICAL TP‐BGC14‐32 – MAINTENANCE SHOP
APPENDIX B
TEST PIT LOGS

Project: Bruejack 2014 Design Updates TEST PIT # TP-BGC14-18 Page 1 of 1
Project No.:1008-011
Location: PLANT SITE AREA
Co-ordinates (m): 426,580E; 6,258,837N Facility: DETONATOR STORAGE AREA Start Date: 26 Jul 14
Ground Elevation (m): 1,366 Excavator: Hitachi 200 Finish Date: 26 Jul 14
Survey Method: Timble-Geo XH Coordinates Operator: Pretium Final Depth Of Pit (m): 3.3
Datum: UTM NAD 83 Zone 9 Depth To Top Of Rock (m): -
Logged by: AKU
Reviewed by: -
Su - kPa
40 80 120 160
Sample Type
VANE FIELD LAB

Sample No.
Weathering
PEAK UC/2
Depth (m)
Grade
Lithologic Description REMOLD Pocket Pen /2

Symbol
% Fines
Moisture Content
WP% W% WL%
20 40 60 80
0
GRAVEL
And sand, some silt, well graded, dense, maximum size 1.2 m, angular,
grey, 60 to 65% boulders and cobbles.
[ROCKFILL]
N/A
1
At 1.2 m: Geotextile fabric.
SAND
And gravel, silty, poorly graded, loose, maximum size 10 mm, subangular,
brown, wet.
[ALLUVIAL]
2
N/A
END OF TEST PIT AT 3.3 m.
Notes:
1. Test pit located at the Detonator Storage Area.
4 2. Water table encountered at 1.2 m.
3. Test pit terminated due to encounter of water table and sloughing
sidewalls.
4. Test pit backfilled after log description.
7
BRUCEJACK (TESTPIT) BRUCEJACK_TESTPIT.GDL BGC.GDT 9/9/14
Client: Pretium Resources Inc.

Co-ordinates (m): 426,564E; 6,258,768N Facility: New Maintenance Shop Start Date: 05 Aug 14
Ground Elevation (m): 1,360 Excavator: Hitachi 200 Finish Date: 05 Aug 14
Survey Method: Timble-Geo XH Coordinates Operator: Pretium Final Depth Of Pit (m): 3.0
Logged by: AKU
Reviewed by: -
Su - kPa
40 80 120 160
Sample Type
VANE FIELD LAB

Sample No.
Weathering
PEAK UC/2
Depth (m)
Grade

Symbol
% Fines
Moisture Content
WP% W% WL%
20 40 60 80
0
GRAVEL
Sandy, silty, compact, subangular, brown, moist, stratified, trace steel
N/A debris.
[FILL]
SAND
S1 Gravelly, silty, loose, subangular, brown, wet.
1
[ALLUVIAL]
At 1.2 m: Rapid seepage.
N/A
2
3
Notes:
1. Test pit located at the New Maintenance Shop.
2. Water table encountered at 1.2 m.
4 sidewalls.
7

Co-ordinates (m): 426,559E; 6,258,801N Facility: New Maintenance Shop Start Date: 05 Aug 14
Ground Elevation (m): 1,360 Excavator: Hitachi 200 Finish Date: 05 Aug 14
Survey Method: Handheld GPS Operator: Pretium Final Depth Of Pit (m): 3.0
Logged by: AKU
Reviewed by: -
Su - kPa
40 80 120 160
Sample Type
VANE FIELD LAB

Sample No.
Weathering
PEAK UC/2
Depth (m)
Grade

Symbol
% Fines
Moisture Content
WP% W% WL%
20 40 60 80
0
GRAVEL
N/A And sand, some silt, well graded, dense, maximum size 1.2 m, angular,
grey, 60 to 65% boulders and cobbles.
[ROCKFILL]
SAND
Gravelly, silty, loose, subangular, brown, wet.
1 [ALLUVIAL]
N/A
2
At 2.0 m: Rapid seepage.
S1
SAND
N/A Silty, fine, compact, uniformly graded, grey with red brown stringers, wet,
stratified.
[ALLUVIAL]
N/A SAND
3 Gravelly, silty, loose, subangular, brown, wet.
[ALLUVIAL]
Notes:
1. Test pit located at New Maintenance Shop.
4 2. Water table encountered at 2.0 m.
sidewalls.
7

Project: Brucejack 2014 Design Updates DRILL HOLE # DH-BGC14-07 Page 1 of 4
Location: PLANT SITE - DETONATOR STORAGE AREA
Co-ordinates (m): 426,584E - 6,258,819N Drill Designation: TECH 5000 Start Date: 14 Aug 14
Ground Elevation (m): 1,363.0 Drilling Contractor: HY-TECH Finish Date: 14 Aug 14
Survey Method: Hand-held GPS Drill Method: DIAMOND-TRIPLE TUBE Final Depth (m): 20.1
Datum: UTM NAD 83 Zone 9 Core: HQ3 Depth To Top Of Rock (m): 14.1
Plunge (°): -90 Fluid: WATER/K+ Logged By: TCC/GJD
Trend (°): N/A Cased To (m) : 0.9 Reviewed By: -
Su - kPa
SPT Blows Per
40 80 120 160
Sample Type
Sample No.
% Fines UC/2
Instrument
Lithologic Description
Depth (m)
Pocket Pen /2
Core Recovery
150mm
Symbol
SPT (blows/300mm)
Details
Moisture Content & SPT N

SPT Recovery
WP% W% WL%
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
0
GRAVEL
And sand, some silt, well graded, dense, maximum size 1.2 m,
angular, grey, 60 to 65% boulders and cobbles.
[ROCKFILL]
2
SAND
2
01 1
Fine to coarse, some silt to silty, trace clay, trace gravel, poorly
3 graded, very loose, maximum size 6 mm, subangular to subrounded,
brown and dark grey, no odour, moist to wet, stratified, no
cementation.
3 [ALLUVIAL]
3 02 3
4
0 From 3.35 to 3.95 m: Water circulation lost.

03 2
1
4 1
05 1
2
1
06 0
5 4
1
07 3
5
6
1
08 3 CLAY
4
And silt to silty, trace sand, high to medium plastic, very soft to soft,
brownish grey, no odour, moist, varved, no cementation, slow
0 dilatance.
09 1 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE]
7 1
BRUCEJACK (SOIL) BRUCEJACK_SOIL.GDL BGC.GDT 9/11/14

LOG SCALE: 1:50
Su - kPa
SPT Blows Per
40 80 120 160
Sample Type
Sample No.
% Fines UC/2
Instrument
Depth (m)
Pocket Pen /2
Core Recovery
150mm
Symbol
SPT (blows/300mm)
Details
Moisture Content & SPT N

SPT Recovery
WP% W% WL%
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
8
0
10 0
0
10
2 SAND
11 4 Fine to medium, silty, poorly graded, very loose, brownish grey, no
5 odour, moist to wet, homogeneous, no cementation.
[ALLUVIAL]
0
12 1
1
11
0
13 1
1
12
0
14 0
1
4 SAND
15 9 Medium to coarse, trace silt, well graded, compact, angular to
13 12 subrounded, grey, no odour, moist to wet, heterogeneous, no
cementation.
[GLACIAL TILL]
14
Rock encountered at 14.1 m depth.
Refer to DH-BGC14-07 rock log.
15
BRUCEJACK (SOIL) BRUCEJACK_SOIL.GDL BGC.GDT 9/11/14
16

LOG SCALE: 1:50
Weathing Strength Total Core Logest

Stick
Average Joint
Grade Grade Recovery
Sample Type
(RMR '76)
Fracture
Condition
Instrument
Depth (m)
RQD
Intercept
Symbol
Details
(A/W) (R) % Meters
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.001 0.01 0.3 1 3 0 6 12 20 25
25
50
75
90
8
10
11 Refer to DH-BGC14-07 Overburden Log
12
13
14
POTASSIUM FELDSAPR-HORNBLENDE-PLAGIOCLASE
PROPHYRITIC (P2)
Megacrystic P2 porphyry
15
BRUCEJACK (ROCK) BRUCEJACK_ROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 9/11/14
16
FRESH
HIGHLY
V. WEAK
WEAK
SLIGHTLY
MODERATELY
COMPLETELY
SOIL
EXT. WEAK
MED. STRONG
MODERATE
STRONG
V. STRONG
EXT. STRONG
V. POOR
POOR
FAIR
WIDE
GOOD
V. CLOSE
CLOSE
EXT. GOOD
POINT LOAD TESTS

D TEST TYPE: DIAMETRAL (D); AXIAL (A)
1.5 Is (MPa)
50

LOG SCALE: 1:50
Weathing Strength Total Core Logest

Stick
Average Joint
Grade Grade Recovery
Sample Type
(RMR '76)
Fracture
Condition
Instrument
Depth (m)
RQD
Intercept
Symbol
Details
(A/W) (R) % Meters
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.001 0.01 0.3 1 3 0 6 12 20 25
25
50
75
90
16
17
18
19
20
END OF HOLE AT 20.1 m.
Notes:
1. Drillhole located at the Detonator Storage Area.
2. Pretium drillhole number SU-639.
2. Drilling method: diamond triple tube.
3. Automatic trip hammer used in SPT testing (Mass: 63.5kg, Drop:
0.762 m, Energy: 475J).
21 4. Water circulation lost from 3.35m to 3.95 m.
5. SPT test #04 discarted due to disturbed ground conditions.
22
23
BRUCEJACK (ROCK) BRUCEJACK_ROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 9/11/14
24
FRESH
HIGHLY
V. WEAK
WEAK
SLIGHTLY
MODERATELY
COMPLETELY
SOIL
EXT. WEAK
MED. STRONG
MODERATE
STRONG
V. STRONG
EXT. STRONG
V. POOR
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
V. CLOSE
CLOSE
WIDE
EXT. GOOD
POINT LOAD TESTS

D TEST TYPE: DIAMETRAL (D); AXIAL (A)
1.5 Is (MPa)
50

LOG SCALE: 1:50
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY CERTIFICATES

Moisture Content Work Sheet
Project Name: BGC Soil Testing Project # 2321-22348-0
Date Sampled: July 2014 Sampled By: Client
Tare #
BH/TP # BGC14-01 BGC14-01 BGC14-01 BGC14-01 BGC14-06 BGC14-06
Sample # 1 2 3 4 1 2
Wet Soil & Tare 1629 1365.4 1207 1359.5 1605.6 1498.5
Dry Soil & Tare 1591.9 1304.9 1079 1327.3 1514.7 1404.4
Tare Wt. 16.4 15.1 175.7 16 103.1 184.4
WT of Water 37.1 60.5 128 32.2 90.9 94.1
WT of Dry Soil 1575.5 1289.8 903.3 1311.3 1411.6 1220
Moisture Content % 2.4% 4.7% 14.2% 2.5% 6.4% 7.7%
Tare #
Sample # 1 2 3 1 1 2
Wet Soil & Tare 1051.9 571.8 658 664.8 9678.4 615.9
Dry Soil & Tare 978.6 522.9 598.5 595.3 8643.3 457.2
Tare Wt. 15.7 16.3 15.7 16.4 340.4 14.3
WT of Water 73.3 48.9 59.5 69.5 1035.1 158.7
WT of Dry Soil 962.9 506.6 582.8 578.9 8302.9 442.9
Tare #
Sample # 1 1 2 1 1 1
Wet Soil & Tare 621.1 1484.8 353.2 1275.1 1867 1625.4
Dry Soil & Tare 563.5 1382.7 325.3 1189.7 1775.9 1516.2
Tare Wt. 16 205.7 16.1 175.7 103.1 184.2
WT of Water 57.6 102.1 27.9 85.4 91.1 109.2
WT of Dry Soil 547.5 1177 309.2 1014 1672.8 1332
Tare #
BH/TP # BGC14-19 BGC14-20 BGC14-31 BGC14-32
Sample # 2 1 1 1
Wet Soil & Tare 1076.8 1204.1 3436.8 1166.9
Dry Soil & Tare 967.4 1025.6 3189.2 1044.4
Tare Wt. 14.5 16 368.9 370.9
WT of Water 109.4 178.5 247.6 122.5
WT of Dry Soil 952.9 1009.6 2820.3 673.5
Moisture Content % 11.5% 17.7% 8.8% 18.2%
Aggregate Sieve Analysis
Project: Soils Testing for BGC Engineering Inc.
Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Project No: 2321-22348-0

att: Cesar Hernandez Location: Detonator Storage
Date of Report: 25-Aug-14

Type of Sample: Gravel and Sand Sampled by: Client Date: Washed Analysis X
Sample No: TP BGC14 -18 S1 Tested by: VW/TL Date: 27-Aug-14 Dry Analysis
Source: MATERIAL: GRAVEL and Native
Specified Limits: SAND, trace silt Import
Percent Passing vs. Screen Opening
Specified Limits Sample Gradation Screen Weight Percent Specified
100 Opening Retained Passing Limits
(mm) (g) Total Lower Upper
90 150.0 100.0
75.0 100.0
80
63.0 100.0
50.0 100.0
70
37.5 0.0 100.0

Percent Passing
60 25.0 276.1 83.5

19.0 120.9 76.3
50
12.5 151.9 67.2
9.50 109.0 60.7
40
4.75 221.7 47.5

30 2.36 171.1 37.3
1.180 151.2 28.2
20
0.600 141.1 19.8
0.300 126.1 12.3
10
0.150 79.3 7.6

0 0.075 34.7 5.5
0.075 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19 25 37.5 50 63 75 150
Screen Opening (mm) Passing 92.0
Remarks:
Moisture content: %
Reviewed by: Jeff Baturin, P. Eng.
Reporting of these results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation is availble upon written request
Sieve BGC14-18 - S1.xls


att: Cesar Hernandez Location: Maintenance Shop

Type of Sample: Sand and Gravel Sampled by: Client Date: 5-Aug-14 Washed Analysis X
Sample No: TP BGC14-31 S1 Tested by: VW/TL Date: 21-Aug-14 Dry Analysis
Source: 0.9m MATERIAL: SAND and Native
Specified Limits: Gravel, trace silt Import
90 150.0 100.0
75.0 100.0
80
63.0 100.0
50.0 100.0
70
37.5 0.1 100.0

Percent Passing
60 25.0 61.4 97.8

19.0 103.5 94.1
50
12.5 355.8 81.5
9.50 191.2 74.8
40
4.75 429.3 59.5

30 2.36 388.6 45.8
1.180 362.4 32.9
20
0.600 284.3 22.8
0.300 261.9 13.5
10
0.150 201.4 6.4

0 0.075 68.7 4.0
0.075 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19 25 37.5 50 63 75 150
Remarks:
Moisture content: 8.8 %


att: Cesar Hernandez Location: Substation & Generators

Type of Sample: Fine Sand and Silt Sampled by: Client Date: 5-Aug-14 Washed Analysis X
Sample No: TP BGC14-32 S1 Tested by: VW/TL Date: 21-Aug-14 Dry Analysis
Source: 2.2m MATERIAL: SAND and Native
Specified Limits: SILT Import
90 150.0 100.0
75.0 100.0
80
63.0 100.0
50.0 100.0
70
37.5 100.0
Percent Passing
60 25.0
19.0
50
12.5
9.50 0.0 100.0

40
4.75 3.5 99.5

30 2.36 7.4 98.4
1.180 11.3 96.7
20
0.600 16.4 94.3
0.300 32.1 89.5
10
0.150 108.1 73.5

0 0.075 179.6 46.9
0.075 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19 25 37.5 50 63 75 150
Remarks:
Moisture content: 18.2 %

BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

234 St.

Paul Street, Kamloops, BC Canada V2C 6G4

BGC Project Memorandum

1.1. Proposed Development Area

C:\Users\turquhart\Desktop\BJ-2014-22 Maintenance Shop Recommendations - RevA - DRAFT.docx

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

1.2. Objective and Scope of Work

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

3.1. Test Pits