A4 Jetty Design Report

Preliminary Jetty Design
Doris North Project, Hope Bay

Nunavut, Canada
Prepared for:
Miramar Hope Bay Limited
Suite 300, 889 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1
Canada
Prepared by:
SRK Project No. 1CM014.006
October 2005

Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project
Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada


SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
Suite 800, 1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X2

Tel: 604.681.4196 Fax: 604.687.5532
E-mail: vancouver@srk.com Web site: www.srk.com

SRK Project Number 1CM014.006

October 2005

Author
Maritz Rykaart, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Senior Engineer

Reviewed by
Cam Scott, P.Eng.
Principal

SRK Consulting
Preliminary J etty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada Page 1
MR/spk PreliminaryJ ettyDesign.Report.1CM014 006.emr.20051001_FINAL-Oct21.2005.doc, Oct. 21, 05, 2:26 PM October 2005
Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work..................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Report Organization............................................................................................................ 1
2 Sealift Off-Loading Alternatives ................................................................................. 3
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Sealift Types ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Deep Draft Vessels (Cargo Ships)..........................................................................................3
2.2.2 Shallow Draft Barges...............................................................................................................4
2.3 Alternative Barge Off-Loading Locations ............................................................................ 5
2.3.1 Existing Barge Landing Site....................................................................................................5
2.3.2 Roberts Bay Deep Water Port Site .........................................................................................5
2.3.3 East Shore Peninsula (J etty Site #2) ......................................................................................6
2.3.4 Southern Roberts Bay Shoreline Site (J etty Site #1 - Preferred Location).............................7
3 Investigations ............................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Barge Access...................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Bathymetry.......................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Shoreline Erosion Processes.............................................................................................. 9
3.5 Geotechnical Foundation Conditions .................................................................................. 9
3.5.1 EBA (1997) Roberts Bay Port Site Geotechnical Investigation...............................................9
3.5.2 J etty Foundation Drilling (SRK Phase I Investigation) ..........................................................10
3.5.3 In-Situ Vane Shear Testing (SRK Phase II Investigation).....................................................11
4 Conceptual Design Alternatives ............................................................................... 12
4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill J etty................................................................................. 12
4.3 Option 2: Rock Fill J etty with Arch Culverts ...................................................................... 13
4.4 Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed J etty with Prefabricated Decks ......................................... 13
4.5 Option 4: Conventional Piled J etty with Prefabricated Decks ........................................... 14
4.6 Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile J etty.................................................................................... 14
4.7 Option 6: Rock Fill J etty on In-Situ Frozen Ground........................................................... 15
4.8 Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill J etty.......................................................................... 15
5 Preferred Design ........................................................................................................ 17
5.1 Selection of Preferred Design........................................................................................... 17
5.2 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 17
5.3 Design Detail..................................................................................................................... 19
5.4 Optimization Opportunities................................................................................................ 19
5.5 Construction...................................................................................................................... 20
5.6 Maintenance...................................................................................................................... 21
5.7 Decommissioning.............................................................................................................. 21
6 References.................................................................................................................. 23

SRK Consulting
List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of J etty Design Criteria..................................................................................... 18

List of Figures

Figure 1: Site Map
Figure 2: Sealift Off-Loading Alternative Locations
Figure 3: Roberts Bay Bathymetry (per Frontier Geosciences Inc.)
Figure 4: Preferred J etty Location Plan
Figure 5: In-Situ Vane Shear Testing and Drill Hole Locations
Figure 6: Inferred J etty Centerline Profile
Figure 7: Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill J etty Plan
Figure 8: Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill J etty Section
Figure 9: Option 2: Rock Fill J etty with Arch Culverts Plan
Figure 10: Option 2: Rock Fill J etty with Arch Culverts Section
Figure 11: Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed J etty with Prefabricated Decks Plan
Figure 12: Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed J etty with Prefabricated Decks Section
Figure 13: Option 4: Conventional Piled J etty with Prefabricated Decks Plan
Figure 14: Option 4: Conventional Piled J etty with Prefabricated Decks Section
Figure 15: Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile J etty Plan
Figure 16: Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile J etty Section
Figure 17: Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill J etty Plan
Figure 18: Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill J etty Section
Figure 19: Typical Plan of Continuous Rock Fill J etty
Figure 20: Typical Section of Continuous Rock Fill J etty (Section A-A)
Figure 21: Typical Section of Continuous Rock Fill J etty (Section B-B)
Figure 22: Typical Plan for Possible Optimized J etty
Figure 23: Typical Section for Possible Optimised J etty

List of Appendixes

Appendix A MHBL Technical Memorandum
Appendix B Roberts Bay Bathymetry Report (Frontier Geosciences Inc. 2003)
Appendix C Summary of Roberts Bay Geotechnical Properties
Appendix D Phase I Foundation Investigation (SRK 2004)
Appendix E Phase II Foundation Investigation (SRK 2005)
Appendix F Technical Memorandum Outlining Preliminary J etty Design Calculations
Appendix G Typical Geogrid Specifications

SRK Consulting
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Miramar Hope Bay limited (MHBL) is the planning on developing a small gold mine on the Arctic
coastline in the Hope Bay Belt, Nunavut, Canada. This project, the Doris North Project is situated
approximately 4 km inland from Roberts Bay, is remote and all equipment and supplies can only be
economically transported to site via annual sealift during a short open water season in the late
summer.
Details of the project are documented in SRK (2005a), and stipulate the need for a sealift off-loading
facility (jetty) in Roberts Bay (Figure 1). This report outlines preliminary engineering that has been
completed in support of the jetty.
1.2 Scope of Work
The jetty design presented in the Preliminary Surface Infrastructure Design Report for the Doris
North Project, SRK (2005a) was selected based on baseline data and engineering investigations since
1997. The bulk of the engineering work has been completed by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
(SRK) on behalf of MHBL from 2002 onwards. Significant portions of this later work have never
been formally documented. MHBL subsequently contracted SRK to document all background data
feeding into the design of a jetty in a single report. The report would culminate in the selection of a
jetty alternative, complete with preliminary design details. The report therefore contains the
following information;
Review of alternative sealift options;
Summary discussion of all relevant baseline and geotechnical data;
Review of alternative jetty designs;
Complete preliminary design for the preferred jetty alternative.
This report is furthermore intended to provide the information necessary to satisfy additional
information requests and technical concerns raised during the conformity review process and
Technical Meetings held for the Project in Yellowknife in August 2005.
1.3 Report Organization
Section 2 of this report presents a discussion of the alternative sealift options that MHBL had
considered for the Doris North Project. These alternatives consist of shallow draft barges mobilised
from Hay River, Northwest Territories (NT), versus deep draft cargo ships mobilized from Montreal,
Quebec.
SRK Consulting
MHBL has initiated a series of technical studies to collect baseline and engineering data pertaining to
the design of a jetty at Roberts Bay. This data is summarized in Section 3 of this report, and in most
cases, detailed supporting documentation referred to in this section has been included as Appendices.
Seven different alternative jetty designs have been proposed for the Doris North Project. Section 4 of
this report describes these alternatives, and explains why a continuous rock fill jetty has been
selected as the preferred alternative.
Section 5 concludes with details of the preliminary design of a continuous rock fill jetty for the Doris
North Project. These details include design criteria, construction procedures and reclamation plans.
SRK Consulting
2 Sealift Off-Loading Alternatives
2.1 Introduction
This section of the report summarizes the sealift alternatives that were considered for the Doris North
Project. The first factor that MHBL had to consider was the type of sealift that would be used, and
the second was the preferred jetty location.
2.2 Sealift Types
2.2.1 Deep Draft Vessels (Cargo Ships)
Deep draft vessels (standard cargo ships) cruise annually into the Arctic to service various
communities and industry. Canadian registered vessels are staged out of Montreal, Quebec, and
travel down the St. Lawrence River, around the eastern coastline into the Arctic. These ships vary in
size and can hold anything from 9 million to 50 million tonnes of fuel and deck cargo and carry their
own barges onto which goods are reloaded for transfer to land.
The open water season for ships into Roberts Bay is usually a four to eight week period between
August and September. The ships can travel significantly faster than barges, and the shipping time
between Montreal and Roberts Bay would generally be less than four weeks. Assuming arrival in
Roberts Bay by the last week in August implies that MHBL would have to have their supplies ready
for shipping in Montreal by the end of J uly.
Montreal is a major international shipping port and most supplies and fuel can be sourced locally at
competitive prices, with very little order and delivery lead time. This offers MHBL opportunities for
saving, as well as further reducing the annual order lead time for re-supply.
The per tonne shipping rate for supplies and fuel on these large ships are significantly less than for
the barges (see Section 2.2.2), provided MHBL secures the entire cargo load for the ship. The annual
re-supply volumes that MHBL envisage, will, however not come close to the ship cargo capacity,
and as such the cost benefit is lost.
The ships offload their cargo onto the barges with cranes. These cranes have a 13 tonne maximum
capacity, and although this would be acceptable for normal operating re-supply, this restriction
would preclude transportation of the construction equipment, and mill modules.
In summary, even though the increased procurement time, and better fuel price is advantageous to
MHBL, these savings are weaned away as a result of MHBL not being able to take full advantage of
the large cargo capacity of the ships. Furthermore, the crane capacity effectively precludes the use of
ships for the initial two shipping seasons. This was therefore eliminated as a viable sealift alternative
for the Doris North Project.
SRK Consulting
2.2.2 Shallow Draft Barges
The most common form of sealift in the Canadian Arctic, especially the western and central Arctic is
shallow draft barges staged from Hay River, NT. These barge trains are pulled by tugs. There is not a
lot of choice when it comes to the selection of a shipping company, with the Northern Transportation
Company Limited (NTCL) being the only company operating barges (www.ntcl.com).
In order to take advantage of the short open water season, the fully loaded barges have to leave Hay
River by early J uly every year. Off-loading of goods is done on a loose schedule which depends to a
large extent of weather and ice conditions. Also, since barges often contain goods destined for more
than one location, offloading is staged.
MHBL currently uses barges for the re-supply of their exploration activities in the Hope Bay Belt.
On average the barges arrive in Roberts Bay by the second to third week of August. In order to meet
this deadline, the barge shipping company usually requires all goods to be in Hay River by the end of
J une. That means that the average delivery time for goods to site, excluding delivery time to Hay
River, is at least eight weeks.
Hay River is a large re-supply depot for the Arctic, but compared to Montreal, it is expensive and
time consuming to get supplies and fuel to Hay River.
The biggest barge currently in use is the NT 1500 Series, with a fully loaded capacity of 2,190
tonnes. There are future plans to put a new NT 2000 Series barge in production. This barge will
increase the cargo capacity by almost a factor of two.
With the aid of skilled tug skippers, the barges are highly manoeuvrable, and can be used in
extremely shallow water. Often the barges are simply rammed onto the shoreline with the tugs with
no need for offshore structures.
MHBL opted to continue using the barge and tug alternative for the annual sealift for the Doris North
Project. Although the barges are more expensive per tonne of transported goods when compared with
a fully laden ship out of Montreal, the annual re-supply tonnage for the Project is not sufficient to fill
up the ships, and therefore MHBL cannot benefit from reduced shipping rates.
Furthermore, since there is no natural deep water dock to offload directly from a ship, all goods will
have to be reloaded to barges before it can be moved closer to shore for final offloading. The
offloading facilities that MHBL would have to construct would therefore be the same irrespective of
which sealift option is selected.

SRK Consulting
2.3 Alternative Barge Off-Loading Locations
2.3.1 Existing Barge Landing Site
MHBL brings in an annual sealift to re-supply their exploration activities in the Hope Bay Belt. This
sealift is via barges from NTCL staged out of Hay River. There are no permanent barge off-loading
facilities in Roberts Bay. The barges are offloaded by pushing them directly onto a gravel beach
located on the south western shore of the Bay (Figure 2).
This gravel beach and the surrounding soils are permafrost of marine origin, and based on aerial
photography and other regional geotechnical investigations and thermal monitoring (EBA 1997;
SRK 2005a, b) the soils are likely to be ice-rich. The beach itself measures approximately 30 x 30 m
and provides a stable off-loading platform for the barges.
The benefits of continuous use of this site for the duration of the Doris North Project are clear. It is
located on the western side of the Bay, which is well protected from the prevailing winds and it may
not require the construction of a permanent off loading facility. In the event that the practice of
beaching the barges is considered to pose potential significant environmental effects, a dock (jetty)
could be constructed offshore; however, this structure would be relatively modest in size.
Therefore, to make this site functional as a permanent off-loading facility a dock (jetty) would have
to be constructed to protect the beach and an off loading area away from the beach on a permanent
pad would be required. This site is approximately 6 km from the camp/mill site (SRK 2005a),
requiring an additional 1.5 km of permanent all-weather road, including a major stream crossing.
Alternatively equipment can be off-loaded, secured and transported via winter road.
Based on all of these factors, MHBL decided not to pursue the use of this site as a permanent jetty
location for the Doris North Project.
2.3.2 Roberts Bay Deep Water Port Site
Historic site development studies (EBA 1997) within the Hope Bay belt identified a preferred deep
water sea terminal location on the west side of Roberts Bay (Figure 2). At that time the concept was
to use deep water ships for the annual sealift, and to transfer goods to barges for offloading at the
terminal.
The proposed port site is located in waters reaching 50 m depth with basalt rock outcrop on the west
shore serving as terminal facility area. Bathymetry data from a local hydrographic survey showed
that the sea bottom drops off steeply toward the east, reaching 35 m depth within 100 m offshore.
The basalt outcrop is surrounded by permafrost marine-derived sediments on the west side.
Based on field investigations carried out in 1997 it was concluded that a balanced bedrock cut and
fill would be required to grade the site by removing the top of the bedrock outcrop and filling the
SRK Consulting
marine lowland. This will create a portion of the site where support structures for the dock could be
founded.
Two options for barge berthing were considered; (a) a steel sheetpile cellular structure and (b) a
floating transition ramp using either a pontoon or small barge moored at the shore side.
The sheetpile cellular structure would require driving piles into bedrock (approximately 16 m below
mean sea level) and replacing all internal clay sediment with rock fill. The floating transition ramp
would require the construction of a fill structure to form an abutment in the shallow water. This fill
structure would consist of engineered fill placed in layers to the desired final grade.
This site has the distinct advantage of deep water, and since it is on the west shore of Roberts Bay,
adjacent to a steep cliff, it is well sheltered from the prevailing winds. It was however excluded as a
preferred alternative for the Doris North Project, primarily due to its distance from the camp/mill site
(approximately 9 km). The use of this site would required an additional 5 km of permanent all-
weather road, and a major stream crossing, or alternatively summer storage with winter transport via
a winter road.
2.3.3 East Shore Peninsula (Jetty Site #2)
Detailed bathymetry in Roberts Bay (see Section 3.2) suggests that there is a section of deep water
immediately west of the peninsula jutting 700 m out into the Bay south of the main island (Figures 2
and 3). Barges could enter this section of the bay from west of the island and berth up to a 30 to 50 m
long jetty.
Offshore geotechnical conditions were not evaluated in this zone, but from aerial photography and
regional data (EBA 1997; SRK 2005a, b) the soil lithology is probably soft marine sediments
overlying intact competent bedrock. The onshore terminus of this jetty would be on bedrock outcrop,
which covers most of the peninsula. Although the creation of road access through the bedrock
peninsula would require significant drilling and blasting, it would likely be cost effective, since the
development of the project requires substantial volumes of quarried material.
The site was however not selected as a preferred alternative due to concerns about potential
significant adverse environmental effects on aquatic life, specifically migrating Arctic Char which
are known to spawn in Little Roberts Creek. MHBL was of the opinion that the narrow channel
between the peninsula and island could cause conflict in the event that Char was moving towards the
spawning area.
It should be noted that no specific studies were conducted to confirm if a jetty in this location would
impact the Char; however, MHBL opted to err on the safe side.
SRK Consulting
2.3.4 Southern Roberts Bay Shoreline Site (Jetty Site #1 - Preferred Location)
The Bay bathymetry (see Section 3.2) indicated a section of deeper water leading up to the shallow
shelf along the southern shoreline of Roberts Bay (Figures 2 and 3). This location suggested that
constructing a 100 m long jetty would allow for the safe offloading of barges.
Shoreline geotechnical investigations (SRK 2005a) have confirmed the presence of ice-rich marine
silt and clay permafrost between patches of exposed bedrock. In order to allow the use of this site, an
all-weather road will have to lead from the jetty towards a lay-down area approximately 100 m
inland from the shoreline (a self-imposed restriction set by MHBL).
Offshore geotechnical investigations (see Section 3.4) confirmed that the jetty will have to be
constructed on deep soft marine sediments overlying bedrock, in shallow water.
Based on the evaluation of all the other alternative jetty locations, this site was selected as the
preferred sealift offloading site for the Doris North Project. Although it is recognised that an
approximately 100 m long jetty would have to be constructed on challenging foundation conditions,
the proximity of the site to the camp/mill is advantageous and offers potential for cost saving. There
are also no potential significant environmental effects associated with constructing the jetty at this
location (see Section 3.4).
SRK Consulting
3 Investigations
3.1 Introduction
MHBL initiated a number of technical studies to obtain baseline data that can be used to design a
jetty for the Doris North Project. These studies included confirming the feasibility of barges
accessing the site, providing adequate bathymetry, evaluating potential shoreline processes, wind and
wave heights etc., as well as confirming the jetty foundation conditions.
3.2 Barge Access
MHBL consulted with directly with NTCL on the feasibility of using the preferred jetty location as
an offloading facility. A representative from NTCL personally inspected the site, reviewed ortho-
photos, conducted an aerial reconnaissance of the site via helicopter, carried out a cursory
bathymetric reconnaissance via small boat, and finally manoeuvred a tug into the area under
consideration.
The findings of this consultation were documented in a Technical Memorandum (included as
Appendix A) by MHBL, and confirmed that the site would be suitable as an offloading facility as
seen from the perspective of the shipping company.
3.3 Bathymetry
Frontier Geosciences Inc. carried out an over water bathymetric survey at the southern extremity of
Roberts Bay in September 2003 (Frontier Geosciences 2003, also included as Appendix B). The
survey was completed with a marine depth sounder as recorded from a small boat. The depth sounder
data was correlated with a GPS to accurately locate each data point.
The bathymetry (Figure 3) indicated the presence of an elongate, north-south trending channel
defined generally by the 5 m water depth contour in the south, and water depths in excess of 30 m in
the north. The channel was found to be relatively wide; however, at the southernmost point it
narrows to approximately 150 m. A localized deeper water depression was also observed in the
middle of the survey area and west of the main island in the northeast segment of the area. The area
is bounded to the north, by a region of relatively shallow depths.
In the area of the jetty, water depths are shallow, in the order of 1 m, with a relatively steep drop off
to 5 m depth at around 75 to 100 m offshore. Limited boat draft and boulder hazards in this shallow
shelf precluded more detailed coverage of this area.
Subsequent to this bathymetric survey, SRK conducted a series of geotechnical investigations in the
jetty location (Section 3.5). Measurements of water depth at the proposed jetty terminus by SRK
engineers suggest that the water is shallower by approximately 1 m, than proposed by the
SRK Consulting
bathymetric survey by Frontier Geosciences. Should the measurements by SRK be accurate, it may
offer optimization opportunities for the jetty construction, and therefore MHBL proposes to carry out
an additional detailed bathymetric survey of the jetty location prior to proceeding with detailed
design of the jetty (see also Section 5.4).
3.4 Shoreline Erosion Processes
A number of field investigations were completed by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) during the
summer of 2004 to allow characterization of shoreline processes in Roberts Bay in the vicinity of the
jetty (Golder 2005). These studies were an expansion of scoping level studies that were originally
completed in J une 2004 (Golder 2004). The field programmes included; (1) collection of wave
height data, (2) collection of tidal data, (3) measurement of tidal currents, (4) characterization of
shoreline substrate, and (5) wind measurement.
Using a numerical model, calibrated with the field data, it was concluded that the largest and most
frequent waves at the jetty site come from the north, and the maximum waves are predicted to be 0.9
m in height.
The predominant force on long-shore transport of sediment in the foreshore zone of Roberts Bay was
estimated to be wind waves during the short summer open water season.
The net transport of sediment is north to south along the west side of the Roberts Bay shoreline, and
the area proposed for the jetty appears to be an area of low to zero long-shore transport.
Overall there is minimal material available for sediment transport in Roberts Bay. Cobbles and
boulders characterize much of the shoreline, which are not transportable by the local waves. The bed
of Roberts Bay, including shallow near shore areas, is comprised of marine clay. These clays appear
to be mobilized during storm events, with subsequent deposition during calm periods.
It was concluded that sediment transport is an episodic process, with most transport occurring during
summer months from the north. The mean wind speeds in the area are also too low to generate
appreciable sediment transport.
Therefore, it was concluded that the presence of the jetty is not anticipated to cause significant
potential adverse environmental effects on near- or long shore marine processes resulting in localized
changes in sediment transport and deposition patterns.
3.5 Geotechnical Foundation Conditions
3.5.1 EBA (1997) Roberts Bay Port Site Geotechnical Investigation
EBA Engineering Consultants Inc. (EBA) carried out a geotechnical investigation in May 1997
(EBA 1997) to characterize onshore and offshore foundation conditions to develop preliminary
SRK Consulting
designs for a deep water dock along the western shore of Roberts Bay (see Figure 2 and
Section 2.3.2 above).
The program consisted of six onshore geotechnical drill holes, four offshore geotechnical drill holes,
eight offshore probe holes and 11 bathymetric check points. The onshore drill holes were completed
in order to obtain geotechnical and permafrost data for preliminary design of foundation conditions
for terminal facilities. Three 15 m thermistor strings were installed in three separate boreholes to
provide ground temperature data.
The four offshore geotechnical drill holes provided lithology and soil samples of the ground
conditions in an area where a sheet pile structure was considered to provide barge berth. The eight
offshore probe holes provided data on the depth to seabed, depth to bedrock and lithology of the
marine sediments for potential ship anchoring and mooring locations. The bathymetric check points
provided depth to seabed along three lines extending east from the shoreline.
The onshore soils were found to be consistent with that observed during other later drilling programs
(SRK 2005a). The soils are of marine origin and generally consist of a thin layer of organic peat
overlying up to 5 m of silty clay of low plasticity with occasional sand laminae. A thin layer of sand
and gravel underlies the silty clay and this rests on intact competent volcanic rock identified as basalt
and rhyolite. Soil ice content was low to moderate. Soil pore water was saline, and although
measured salinities indicated values greater than the salinity of seawater, the report concludes that
the results may have been compromised by the brine used in the drilling fluid.
The offshore drill holes close to shore indicated a soil lithology consisting of silty clay of variable
thickness (2 to 8 m) overlying competent bedrock of the same origin as onshore. In one hole a sand
layer was found to underlie the silty clay. Laboratory measurements confirmed that the sediments
have an undrained shear strength between 2 and 22 kPa, is very soft and compressible, with low
plasticity.
Further offshore where water depths exceeded 50 m the lithology remains similar; however, the silty
clay thickness increases to between 6 and 14 m.
Although these investigations are located a significant distance from the proposed jetty location
(Figure 2), the general similarity of soil lithology that has been observed throughout the site
(SRK 2005a, b) suggest that this data will be a useful indicator to support site specific jetty
foundation data. Appendix C contains a summary of the pertinent geotechnical data on submarine
sediments as extracted from these drill holes.
3.5.2 Jetty Foundation Drilling (SRK Phase I Investigation)
SRK completed a reconnaissance level geotechnical investigation in April 2004 (Appendix D) at the
proposed jetty location (Figure 4). The intent of the drill program was to determine site specific
information pertaining to the proposed alignment of the jetty.
SRK Consulting
Four drill holes were completed along the proposed centerline of the jetty (Figure 5), spaced
approximately 25 m apart, extending out from the shoreline, to a maximum distance of
approximately 100 m.
The investigation confirmed that the water depth at the jetty location varies between 0 to 5 m
(Figure 6). Sea ice approximately 2 m thick develops in the winter and freezes to the bottom of the
seabed for at least the first 55 m of the proposed approximately 100 m long jetty. The drilling results
confirm sub-ocean permafrost to at least this location.
For the first 55 to 75 m from the shoreline, the jetty foundation consists of a 3 to 5 m thick layer of
frozen marine silt and clay over 6 to 9 m of sand and gravel. The remainder of the jetty has deeper
water and is underlain by unfrozen marine silt and clay, 8 to 12 m thick. The underlying basalt
bedrock is intact and competent. Appendix C contains a summary of this data.
3.5.3 In-Situ Vane Shear Testing (SRK Phase II Investigation)
A second phase geotechnical foundation investigation to specifically measure the in-situ shear
strength of the soft marine sediments at the proposed jetty location was conducted by SRK in
April 2005 (Appendix E).
The testing consisted of six borings approximately 5 m deep using a Nilcon vane-shear apparatus.
The six borings were all located at the terminus of the jetty where the proposed fill would be the
maximum (Figure 5), and where drilling data has confirmed the sediment layer to be the thickest and
thus potentially the most sensitive to excessive loading. At each boring location, vane shear tests
were taken at 5 or 6 depths to determine a depth profile of shear strength.
Shear testing in these deeper marine sediments approximately 90 to 100 m from the shore confirmed
that the upper 5 m of the marine sediments have peak shear strengths ranging between 14 and
28 kPa, with an average value of 21 kPa. Residual strengths ranged between 5 and 13 kPa with an
average value of 9 kPa. Generally the strength was observed to increase with depth.
SRK Consulting
4 Conceptual Design Alternatives
4.1 Introduction
A number of alternative jetty designs were evaluated for the Doris North Project. Brief details of the
conceptual alternatives are discussed in the following sections of this report. These alternatives were
developed with the assistance and guidance of Westmar Consultants Inc. (Westmar), an engineering
firm specializing in the design and construction of offshore infrastructure including large ports,
docks and jetties.
4.2 Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill Jetty
The shallow water depths leading to the terminus of the jetty, suggest that a simple continuous rock
fill jetty, 1 to 3 m thick would be a practical design alternative (Figures 7 and 8). The soft unfrozen
marine sediments approximately 50 to 100 m offshore has low bearing capacity, and therefore
special construction considerations have to be considered. Pre-loading would be one method of
overcoming the bearing capacity problem. This would be done by initially placing approximately
half the fill thickness, after which some time for settlement is allowed. Placement of the remainder
of the fill would follow at an appropriate time. Pre-loading could be done over a few summer
construction seasons, or alternatively the first fill could be placed in the winter (through the sea ice),
with the final fill following six months later during the open water season.
The bearing capacity concerns can also be overcome by constructing the fill in layers, with each
layer supported by geosynthetics (i.e. geogrids and geotextiles). These geosynthetics does not per se
increase the bearing capacity, but prevents the pad from spreading laterally, as well as precluding the
other possible failure mechanisms of a pad constructed on low strength ground. This technique of
reinforcing pads is commonly used, as documented in Koerner (2005).
Spreading construction of the jetty over a number of seasons, in order to allow for preloading of the
foundation would not be an acceptable approach to MHBL, and would result in the exclusion of this
design alternative, since the proposed MHBL construction and production schedule for the Doris
North Project would be compromised; however, preloading during the winter, with the remainder of
the fill being placed during the immediately following summer, would be an acceptable approach.
Notwithstanding the possibility of preloading, the inclusion of geosynthetics in the design would be
paramount to its acceptance, since that would ensure constructability. It is however likely, that even
with the inclusion of geosynthetics, the jetty will undergo differential settlement and annual
maintenance of the jetty will be required.
Preliminary cost estimates for this design alternative suggest, that construction would be less than
$0.3 million. This cost is considered to be all inclusive, since construction can be carried out with a
conventional construction fleet, by a suitably qualified and experienced earthworks contractor.
SRK Consulting
4.3 Option 2: Rock Fill Jetty with Arch Culverts
Prior to completion of the Golder (2005) shoreline processes study, one of the potential adverse
environmental effects associated with the continuous rock fill jetty (Option 1) was that the presence
of an impassable object jutting out 100 m from the shoreline may impede the passage of fish, and
that it may effect near- and long-shore erosion processes.
In order to partially mitigate against this potential adverse effect, a modified continuous rock fill
jetty was presented which includes a series of large diameter steel culverts (Figures 9 and 10). In
concept these culverts should achieve the goal of allowing fish to pass through the jetty; however,
the feasibility of keeping these culverts operational as differential settlement takes place may be
problematic.
The cost of including the culverts would not be significantly more than for the continuous rock fill
jetty; however, the cost of maintenance would be substantially increased if culverts had to be
replaced over time.
Due to the marginal benefits that the culverts offer, the increased maintenance risk, and the fact that
the presence of a rock fill jetty has been shown to not have any potential adverse environmental
effect, this jetty design alternative was not given further consideration.
4.4 Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed Jetty with Prefabricated Decks
In an attempt to minimize the amount of rock fill required, and to reduce the jetty footprint an
alternative design was considered which entailed construction of rock fill islands or buttresses. These
buttresses would be linked with prefabricated steel bridge decks or possibly pre-cast concrete decks
(Figures 11 and 12).
Summer construction of this type of design would require specialized working barges, which would
be cost prohibitive. Alternatively, winter construction would have to be carried out through the sea
ice, which would once again pose significant challenges to ensure ice-free working conditions.
Preliminary cost estimates suggest that this type of structure (under winter construction conditions)
would be approximately twice as expensive as a continuous rock fill jetty. This cost however has
significant uncertainties associated with potential technical complications which may substantially
increase the cost.
Finally, concerns with differential settlement of the buttresses and the associated deformation of the
bridge deck or pre-cast slabs, has resulted in the exclusion of this as a viable alternative jetty design.
SRK Consulting
4.5 Option 4: Conventional Piled Jetty with Prefabricated Decks
An alternative jetty design to Option 3, which keeps the benefits of a reduced footprint but mitigate
against the potential instability of the rock fill buttresses, would be to support the prefabricated
bridge decks or pre-cast concrete slabs with piled foundations (Figures 13 and 14).
Pile supported wharf structures have been successfully used in Arctic conditions. Generally the
arrangement would consist of steel pipe piles, cast in-place concrete pile caps and the prefabricated
steel bridge deck or pre-cast concrete slab on top.
The pile supported structure will be subject to berthing loads from the barges, as well as significant
sea ice pressures. Consequently, the piles will require socketing into the bedrock, and possible
protection through placement of a rock fill shell around each pile. Rock socketing increases the cost
of the structure, due to the need for specialized equipment, and the increased effort also substantially
increases the construction time.
Preliminary cost estimates suggest that this jetty design alternative would be in excess of $2 million,
excluding the cost of shipping specialized pile driving equipment to site. This jetty design alternative
was subsequently excluded from further consideration.
4.6 Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile Jetty
A sheet pile cell is a gravity type structure capable of withstanding high lateral loads from vessel or
ice impact without sustaining damage.
A jetty design which includes the use of two 23 m diameter sheet pile cells is presented in Figures 15
and 16. These cells would be placed on the soft marine sediments approximately 50 to 100 m
offshore to mitigate against the differential settlement that a continuous rock fill jetty (Option 1)
would be subjected to. These sheet pile cells would be linked to the shoreline with a 40 m long
continuous rock fill jetty which is founded on permafrost.
The sheet pile cells would have to be founded in bedrock, and the soft marine sediments within them
would have to be replaced by rock fill. This would require the use of specialized equipment, and if
permafrost is encountered, the sheet pile cells may not even penetrate the substrate.
Preliminary cost estimates for this jetty design were estimated at $7.4 million, excluding (1)
transportation of specialized equipment and supplies from Hay River, NT to Roberts Bay, (2) cost of
rock fill, and (3) fuel for construction equipment. An optimization was considered to the design
whereby only a single sheet pile cell was to be used; however the cost of this alternative still came in
at approximately $5 million.
Based on the cost of this design, it has been excluded as a viable alternative.
SRK Consulting
4.7 Option 6: Rock Fill Jetty on In-Situ Frozen Ground
The presence of submarine permafrost along a portion of the jetty alignment suggest that possibly the
entire jetty foundation could be artificially frozen, to provide a stable foundation that would preclude
differential settlement.
The layout would consist of placing a continuous rock fill jetty (similar to Option 1) on the frozen
seabed. In advance of placement of the rock fill, the silt and clay stratum within the footprint of the
jetty would be frozen using mechanical refrigeration. Mechanical refrigeration of this stratum would
be achieved by installing a network of thermosyphons below the seabed using directional drilling
techniques. The thermosyphons would then be connected to a refrigeration plant system which
provides the means to freeze the soil.
Based on discussions with a ground-freezing contractor, installation of the thermosyphons would
begin in the spring (May), with completion in the summer (J uly). Upon completion of the
refrigeration system, it has been estimated that the silt and clay stratum would require 12 months in
order to completely freeze. Consequently, placement of rock fill on the frozen seabed to form the
jetty cannot begin until one year after the refrigeration system has been operational. Based on this
schedule, the jetty would be ready for service two years following the start of ground freezing.
An order of magnitude cost estimate has been provided by a ground freezing contractor (Arctic
Foundations of Canada Inc.) The supply and installation of the refrigeration system is estimated at
$2.5 million and excludes (1) the supply of power to the refrigeration plants, (2) transportation of
equipment from Hay River, NT to Roberts Bay, and (3) the cost of rock fill.
Based on the cost of installing the ground freezing system and the prolonged schedule to complete
the jetty, ground freezing is not recommended at this site.
4.8 Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill Jetty
At the site of the jetty, the inshore seabed grade is shallow. In order to achieve water depths
sufficient for clearance of the loaded draft of the barges, an arrangement comprised of dredging the
seabed towards shore and placing a small rock fill jetty to the edge of the dredge pocket has been
investigated (Figures 17 and 18).
The barges would be orientated longitudinal to the jetty in order to minimize dredge volume. The
width of the dredge pocket would include an allowance on either side of the barge for a tug boat. The
depth of the dredge pocket would provide an under keel clearance of 1 m for the loaded barge at
lower low water level (LLWL). At the inshore side, below the footprint of the rock fill jetty,
dredging would extend down to the sand and gravel layer to remove the silt and clay stratum. The
dredged material would be side cast to locations within the vicinity of the site, subject to approval
from regulatory authorities. This material may in fact have to be relocated to deep water, which
would further increase costs.
SRK Consulting
The jetty itself would comprise a continuous rock fill structure founded on permafrost, similar to the
jetty described for Option 1.
A preliminary cost estimate suggest that this design will cost approximately $1.9 million, excluding
(1) transportation of equipment from Hay River, NT to Roberts Bay, (2) cost of rock fill, and (3) cost
of fuel.
Although no baseline data is available to confirm what the potential adverse environmental effects of
dredging would be, it is conceivable that these effects may be significant, and that fact combined
with the projected capital cost, resulted in the rejection of this alternative.
SRK Consulting
5 Preferred Design
5.1 Selection of Preferred Design
As discussed in Section 4 of this report, all of the proposed alternative jetty designs were judged to
be inappropriate for the Doris North Project, with the exception of the continuous rock fill jetty
(Option 1).
The most significant technical issue associated with the continuous rock fill jetty is the low strength
characteristics of the marine sediments, that will result in differential settlement of the jetty, and that
may require the inclusion of geosynthetics to help support the structure. Notwithstanding the
inclusion of the geosynthetics, and taking into account annual maintenance, the continuous rock fill
jetty was deemed to be feasible, and preliminary cost estimates suggests that it would be
economically justified for the Project.
The presence of an approximately 100 m long continuous rock fill jetty in Roberts Bay will have a
potential adverse environmental effect; however, shoreline process studies have confirmed that these
effects will not be significant (Golder 2005).
Therefore, the continuous rock fill jetty was selected as the preferred jetty design, and the following
sections of this report documents the details of the proposed preliminary design.
5.2 Design Criteria
Design criteria for the jetty are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the jetty will only be
used for a period of two to three weeks during the late summer (August) every year that it is in
operation. Furthermore, for the Doris North Project, the jetty is only expected to be used for a period
of four years. This includes two years of mining and two years of active decommissioning.
Subsequent to active decommissioning the jetty will no longer be required, since further annual re-
supply volumes are expected to be small and will be done via sealift to the existing barge landing site
(see Section 2.3.1).
MHBL therefore proposes to design the jetty with a minimal design life, and accept the risks and
consequences that this design criteria has. The risks include damage to the jetty due to large waves,
storm surges and sea ice. Furthermore, annual settlement and frost heave could result in damage to
jetty. MHBL will however implement the necessary maintenance actions to ensure safe operation of
the jetty when the time requires (see Section 5.6). The physical consequences of damage to the jetty
include addition of construction rock and an increased jetty footprint. MHBL acknowledges these
facts and have made allowance for these consequences (see Section 5.3). Operational consequences
for these damages include delays to the offloading of the barges, with associated increased
operational costs for the mine.
SRK Consulting
Table 1: Summary of Jetty Design Criteria
Design
Component
Design Criteria
Service Life
Approximately 4 years (two years of mine life +two years of active mine closure;
traditional barge landing and winter road, or winter airstrip will be used for the post
closure phase)
Vessels
Barge NT 1500 Series: 1,886 tonne dead weight; 76.2 m LOA; 17.1 m Beam; 0.97 m
minimum freeboard; 3.05 m Draft
Barge NT 2000 Series (Future): 3,870 tonne dead weight; 90 m LOA; 18.9 m Beam;
1.10 m minimum freeboard; 2.90 m Draft
Vehicles
Integrated Tool Carrier (TC-28) =11,412 kg
Wheel Loader Komatsu WA500-3; operating weight =31,000 kg (Supplied by NTCL
for off-loading only
(Provisions for unloading mill modules for the mine at the jetty have not been
included; these modules will be offloaded at the existing barge landing site)
Tides
Tide levels in Melville Sound (north of the site), as listed below, are taken from
Canadian Hydro-graphic Service Chart 7780. EHWL and ELWL are based on tides at
Cambridge Bay. Tides are referenced to local Chart datum.
Extreme High Water Level (EHWL) =0.5 m
Higher High Water Level, Large Tide (HHWL) =0.2 m
Higher High Water Level, Mean Tide =0.2 m
Mean Water Level (MWL) =0.0 m
Lower Low Water Level, mean Tide =-0.1 m
Lower Low Water Level, Large Tide (LLWL) =-0.1 m
Extreme Low Water Level (ELWL) =-0.3 m
This tide data is consistent with site specific data reported in Golder (2005) and
Frontier Geosciences (2003).
J etty Working
Platform
Minimum Water Depth: Established to provide a minimum of 0.5 m keel offset for the
Series 1500 barge below LLWL.
Deck Height: Established to provide 1.0 m of freeboard above the HHWL.
Roadway Width 6 m
Barge Ramp
Barges are supplied with a 25 ft long ramp to span between the barge and the jetty
structure. The maximum recommended grade of the ramp is 6%. Considering the
freeboard range of the barges (fully loaded to empty), a permanent ramp at the jetty
may be required. This will not affect the overall jetty footprint and well be fully
evaluated at the final design stage.
J etty Terminus Work
Area
NTCL requires only 6 m of work space to offload the barges; however, they prefer a
berthing face of at least 20 m wide. Barge unloading can be from barges orientated
laterally or longitudinally to the jetty.
Wave Conditions
Largest waves from North, with maximum wave height =0.9 m
Maximum sustained storm surge =1.0 m.
Geotechnical
Parameters
Existing Seabed: Unfrozen and frozen Silt and Clay; Saturated unit weight =18
kN/m
3
; Peak Shear Strength =15 kPa
Existing Seabed: Frozen Sand and Gravel; Saturated unit weight =18 kN/m
3

Engineered Fill: Rock fill; Unit weight =19.62 kN/m
3

Engineered Fill
Bulk Fill, Sub Grade: Run-of-quarry rock (<1,000 mm size fraction)
Transition Zone, Select Grade; Crushed and screened quarry rock (<200 mm size
fraction)
Surfacing Grade; Crushed and screened quarry rock (<38 mm size fraction)
SRK Consulting
MHBL will be the only official user of the jetty. MHBL does however acknowledge that local
communities may make use of the jetty whilst it is in operation. MHBL would not restrict access to
the jetty unless, MHBL is of the opinion that the jetty is not safe to use. In such instances MHBL
reserves the right to restrict access to the jetty.
5.3 Design Detail
Design details for the jetty are provided in Figures 19 through 21. Appendix F contains details of the
preliminary engineering design of the jetty. The total footprint of the jetty is estimated at
approximately 1,800 m
2
(this is the base footprint, i.e. the surface area covered by the pad). The total
amount of rock fill is estimated at approximately 5,600 m
3
(11,600 tonnes). For planning purposes,
and arbitrary allowance of 50% increase of this footprint and rock fill volume has been made (i.e.
increase in footprint of 900 m
2
and volume of 2,800 m
3
). This allowance caters for unforeseen
settlement and slumping.
Discounting the required overlap, the surface area coverage of the primary geogrid layer (based on a
single layer) is estimated at approximately 3,300 m
2
. This footprint exceeds the jetty footprint to
ensure that all rock fill will be on the primary geogrid layer. Typical specifications of the geogrid
are included as Appendix G.
5.4 Optimization Opportunities
Based on a fully laden NT Series 1500 barge draft of 3.05 m, and measuring from the LLWL, with a
keel offset of 0.5 m, the minimum water depth at the jetty terminus needs to be approximately 3.6 m.
The proposed preliminary jetty design shows a minimum water depth at the jetty terminus of just
over 5 m, which effectively allows for a keel offset of just under 1.3 m (based on the bathymetry
measured by Frontier Geosciences, see Section 3.3). As discussed in Section 3.3, there is some
uncertainty associated with the bathymetry data, and therefore the preliminary jetty design has been
based on conservative assumptions.
Prior to conducting the detailed jetty design, MHBL will carry out a detailed bathymetric survey of
the jetty area. If in fact, there is sufficient water depth at the jetty terminus, as is suggested by the
current bathymetric data, the jetty terminus will be moved closer inshore to coincide with a
minimum water depth of 3.7 m. This will result in the total jetty length reducing to 60 m, with a
subsequent reduction in footprint of 1,200 m
2
and 50% less rock fill would be required (Figures 22
and 23). Under this scenario, the bulk of the jetty will be on more stable frozen marine sediments,
and subsequently the construction and maintenance issues will be significantly improved.
As discussed in Appendix F, the size of the jetty terminus directly impacts the pressure that the jetty
exerts on its foundation. Prior to conducting the detailed jetty design, MHBL will conduct further
foundation testing at the jetty terminus, to confirm the optimal size of the jetty terminus, since it may
be beneficial to reduce its size. Such a reduction would however result in a smaller jetty footprint
and a smaller amount of construction rock being used.
SRK Consulting
Finally, a decision on the need to preload the jetty will be made after completion of further
geotechnical testing at the jetty terminus. Since all the potential optimizations that will be
considered at the detailed design stage will lead to a smaller jetty, with a reduced footprint and will
require less construction rock, the preferred design tabled at this time is conservative and
appropriate.
5.5 Construction
Construction of the continuous rock fill jetty will be carried out during the summer open water
season in Roberts Bay. Construction will be suspended for a two week period in late J uly to not
interfere with large numbers of capelin that move through the area during migration to their
spawning grounds.
Construction will consist of end-dumping the engineered fill (quarry rock) from the shoreline
towards the terminus of the jetty approximately 100 m offshore. After a few dump loads have been
placed, a loader or dozer will be used to flatten the advancing front such that equipment can continue
to end dump. In deeper water (more than 2 m depth) the initial rock fill be manually placed using an
extended boom excavator. This will reduce the impact surcharge on the soft marine sediments and
allow for more controlled placement of the fill.
Prior to placing any rock fill, a series of geosynthetics (at least two layers of geogrid) will be placed
on the seabed. These geogrids will extend at least 5 m beyond the outermost edge of the final jetty
footprint and will be at least 5 m ahead of the current fill being placed. The geogrid overlap will not
be less than 2 m. The placement of the geogrid will be done by Arctic divers.
After completion of the bulk fill to the terminus of the jetty, the transition zone and jetty surfacing
grade material will be placed once again moving from the shore advancing out towards the jetty
terminus.
At the outset of the construction season the entire perimeter of the jetty construction zone will be
encircled by a silt curtain, to effectively mitigate against the release of suspended solids as material
is dumped onto the soft marine sediments.
As discussed previously, further geotechnical investigation in the jetty terminus area will confirm
whether preloading of the jetty fill in areas that exceed 3 m in fill would be advantageous. If this is
recommended, the first lift will be constructed during the winter, though the sea ice.
The jetty will be constructed from clean rock located in Quarry #1 (Figure 1). This rock has been
geochemically tested to confirm that there would be no adverse environmental effects associated
with its use (AMEC 2003). The quarry rock will not be washed prior to placement. Since there will
be some blast residue on this rock when it is placed in Roberts Bay, SRK modelled the water quality
in the Bay to confirm that there would be no adverse environmental effects as a result of this
practice. The results of this calculation are documented as an Appendix to SRK (2005c).
SRK Consulting
5.6 Maintenance
It is expected that the jetty will continue to undergo differential settlement over its lifetime, although
the rate of settlement will likely exponentially decrease as time progresses, consistent with
consolidation theory. Considering the fact that the jetty will only be in use for two to three weeks in
any year, this differential settlement can be managed with a program of annual maintenance.
Annual maintenance will consist of adding rock fill to the jetty surface, such that the traffic grade
would be passable for barge off-loading equipment. Furthermore, the design freeboard of 1 m above
the HHWL would be maintained. For planning purposes it has been assumed that the jetty surface
would require an additional 50 cm of rock fill every year during its life. This means 350 m
3
of
additional construction rock will be required every year for four years.
During initial construction, a stockpile of additional crushed rock, specifically for jetty maintenance
will be left in Quarry #1 (Figure 1). Every year this fill, as required, will be added to the jetty traffic
surface by end-dumping and grading. If substantial fill is anticipated in deeper water, and there
would be potential for large boulders to run down the side slopes and disturb sediments on the
seabed, silt curtains will be deployed prior to undertaking any maintenance work. This will be to
effectively mitigate against any possible increased turbidity in the Bay.
The barge operator, NTCL, requires that MHBL carry out a bathymetric survey of the channel
leading up to the jetty every year prior to barge arrival. MHBL will extend this bathymetric survey
to include the jetty footprint, such that accurate records of the jetty can be kept. This data will
furthermore provide data with respect to the potential effect of the jetty on shoreline processes.
5.7 Decommissioning
The jetty will remain in operation for two years of active decommissioning after mining ceases. At
that time all mooring hardware will be dismantled and removed from the jetty. The jetty will then be
partially removed. Partial removal will entail lowering the jetty surface to 30 cm below LLWL.
This will be achieved by pushing the excess material to either side of the jetty, without actually
picking up and removing the material. This will result in an increase in the base footprint of the
jetty.
Complete removal is not possible without removal of a substantial volume of natural marine
sediments. This is due to the fact that the jetty will continue to settle into the marine sediments over
its lifetime.
This preliminary jetty design is specifically for the two year Doris North Project. Should further
exploration prove a larger project in the Hope Bay Belt, MHBL may decide to change the design of
the jetty to accommodate a larger scale and longer duration project. Such a change will naturally
result in a revised environmental review process; however, it should be noted that the jetty design as
proposed in this report, may become the foundation of a larger scale jetty at this location.
SRK Consulting
This report, Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada, has
been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

Prepared by:

Senior Engineer

Reviewed by:

Cam Scott, P.Eng.
Principal

SRK Consulting
6 References
AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. 2003. ARD and Metal Leaching Characterization Studies in
2003, Doris North Project, November.
EBA Engineering Consultants. 1997. Boston Gold Project Geotechnical Investigation Proposed
Roberts Bay Port. Report Submitted to BHP World Minerals, October.
Golder Associates Ltd., 2004. Supplementary Information on: Potential Impacts on Shorelines due to
Construction of Jetty at Roberts Bay Miramar Doris North Project. Golder Associates Ltd. Report
No. 04-1373-002.
Golder Associates Ltd., 2005. Potential impacts on shoreline due to construction of a jetty at Roberts
Bay Miramar Doris North Project. Golder Associates Ltd. Report No. 04-1373-009-4100: 29 p. +
6 app.
Frontier Geosciences Inc., 2003. Report on Marine Bathymetry Survey, Proposed Roberts Bay
Docking Facilities, Cambridge Bay Area, Nunavut. Report submitted to SRK Consulting,
September 2003.
Koerner, R.M., 2005. Designing with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, N.J ., 796
p.
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005a. Preliminary Surface Infrastructure Design, Doris North
Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October,
2005.
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005b. Preliminary Tailings Dam Design, Doris North Project,
Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October 2005.
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005c. Water Quality Model, Doris North Project, Hope Bay,
Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October 2005.

Figures
Roberts Bay Bathymetry
(per Frontier Geosciences Inc.)
APPROVED: FIGURE:
3
DORIS NORTH PROJ ECT
Preliminary J etty Design
PROJ ECT:
1CM014.006
DATE:
Sept. 2005
MIRAMAR HOPE BAY LIMITED
EMR
File Ref: Fig 3_PrelimJ etty_Roberts B_20050526.ppt
[INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED BY FRONTIER
GEOSCIENCES]
CORRECT LOCATION OF PROPOSED DOCK

Appendix A
MHBL Technical Memorandum
C:\Documents and Settings\mrykaart\My Documents\Barge Landing Investigation (Ted).doc 5/25/2005 6:21:11 PM

MIRAMAR HOPE BAY LTD.
311 West First Street, North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 1B5
Telephone: 604-985-2572 fax 604-980-0731

ME MO R A N D U M

TO: B. Labadie
Cc:
FROM: E. Mahoney
SUBJECT: Investigation of Barge Landing Area
DATE: Sept. 15, 2002

Executive Summary
Investigation was done into the suitability of the area proposed in the Scoping Study for
a barge landing area with the assistance of Steven McKnight, master of the MV Edgar
Kotokak, the tug delivering supplies to Roberts Bay. The presently proposed barge
landing area would be suitable for use, provided that a causeway roughly 100m long
were constructed with a landing area on the end of it. The MV Edgar Kotokak did a sea
trial approach to this landing area to ensure that there would be sufficient manoevering
room. As the causeway would be in water depths averaging 1m or less, construction
costs of this should be manageable.

Additional recommended work should include:
Actual measurements of tidal variation in Roberts Bay
More detailed bathymetry in the southern area of Roberts Bay (several days in a
small boat equipped with a depth sounder and GPS).
Investigation into the permitting issues related to construction of a causeway
from the shore

Details
Investigation was done into the suitability of the area proposed in the Scoping Study for
a barge landing area. Concerns included the shallow nature of the water close to shore
and the room to manoever the barges and tug in somewhat restricted waters. The
proposed site would be the optimal one to use if possible, as it would require minimal
construction of all-weather road.

Currently Proposed Site
2
The currently used barge offloading site is a very good location as there is deep water
just off the shore, and it is in an area where Roberts Bay is quite open. In order to use
this location during the mine operation (provided an all weather road is to be
constructed) 2 km of all weather road and a bridge crossing of a stream would have to
be constructed. The costs of this additional construction make it unattractive.

Water Level Variations
Roberts Bay has very low tidal variation, likely less than 0.5m, and it has been reported
that a strong NW wind can increase water depths by 0.5m and a strong SE wind can
decrease it a similar amount.

Vessels Currently Used
The tugs and barges employed by NTCL are shallow draft vessals, with the tugs
drawing roughly 2m of water. A fully loaded series 1500 barge, carrying 1,500 tonnes of
deck cargo and 1 million litres of fuel will draw 2m of water as well. A series 1500 barge
is 250 ft. long and 55 feet wide.

The MV Edgar Kotokak arrived at Roberts Bay on Sept. 15
th
, under the command of
Steven McKnight. It was pulling a series 1500 barge, with significant deck cargo, but no
fuel in its holds. It was pushed nose into the beach at the currently used barge landing
site. The nose of the barge grounded in 1m of water and forklifts began to offload
cargo.

NTCL Assistance
Mr. Gordon Norberg, of NTCL had previously informed us that the master of the tug
which delivered supplies to Roberts Bay this year would be able to inform us of the
suitability of a proposed landing site for their use. I discussed the potential offloading
site, and a few alternatives, with Mr. McKnight, and we reviewed ortho photos of the
area, topo maps, and the government navigation chart for Roberts Bay. We flew the
area in a helicopter, looking at possible sites, then scouted it in an aluminum runabout.
Mr. McKnight used a sounding pole from the runabout to check depths near shore in
several locations. As a final check, the MV Edgar Kotokak disengaged from the barge,
and was piloted in to the southern end of Roberts Bay to determine if there was
sufficient manoevering room in that somewhat restricted area.

Information Resulting from Investigation
One thing that was apparent from all of this data, is that near the shore of the southern
area of Roberts Bay the water is very shallow and the bottom slopes gently for a
distance out to where there is a drop-off. On the accompanying air photo there is a very
noticeable change in color in the water where this drop-off occurs. From the soundings
taken, it appears that the water depth at the edge of this drop-off is 1.0 and 1.5m. It is
unlikely that any barge could get much closer to shore than the edge of the drop-off.

An examination of the southern area of Roberts Bay was done to see if there was a
location more suitable than that proposed here, or where the required causeway could
be shortened. It was concluded that the best location is that currently proposed.
3

Design Considerations for Causeway
Any causeway constructed would need to be wide enough for equipment to travel
safely over in unloading the barge.
Bollards to attach the barge to, or pre-set anchor points on shore would need to
be present.
It would be best if the unloading area at the end of the causeway were designed
to allow for a barge to pull alongside. This would require a length of
approximately 50 to 75 ft. (15 to 23m).

C:\Documents and Settings\mrykaart\My Documents\Barge Landing Investigation (Ted).doc 5/25/2005 6:21:11 PM
Causeway
Not
Suitable
Tank Farm
Laydown
Area
Roberts Bay
Proposed Barge Landing Causeway
Location

Appendix B
Roberts Bay Bathymetry Report
(Frontier Geosciences 2003)
STEFFEN, ROBERTSON & KIRSTEN (CANADA) INC.
REPORT ON
MARINE BATHYMETRY SURVEY
PROPOSED ROBERTS BAY DOCKING FACILITIES
CAMBRIDGE BAY AREA, NUNAVUT
by
Russell A. Hillman, P.Eng.
PROJECT FGI-727 September, 2003
______________________________________________________________
Frontier Geosciences Inc. 237 St. Georges Avenue, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada V7L 4T4
Tel: 604.987.3037 Fax: 604.984.3074
CONTENTS
6 4. SUMMARY

5 3.2 Discussion
5 3.1 General
5 3. GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS
4 2.2 Survey Procedure
3 2.1 Equipment
3 2. THE MARINE BATHYMETRY SURVEY
1 1. INTRODUCTION
page
ILLUSTRATIONS
Appendix Bathymetry Contour Plan Figure 2
Page 2 Survey Location Plan Figure 1
location
(i)
Frontier Geosciences Inc.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the period September 8 to September 13, 2003, Frontier Geosciences Inc. carried out an
overwater bathymetric survey for Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten (Canada) Inc., at Roberts
Bay, Nunavut. A Survey Location Plan of the area is shown at an approximate scale of
1:5,000,000 in Figure 1. The investigation was carried out to determine water depths in an
area proposed for docking facilities.
The survey area is located at the southern extremity of Roberts Bay. The marine
bathymetry survey covered an area approximately 2.4 km north-south by approximately 1
km east-west.
1
2
KILOMETRES
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1:5,000,000
SRK CONSULTING
ROBERTS BAY, NUNAVUT
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
FRONTIER GEOSCIENCES INC.
SURVEY LOCATION PLAN
DATE: SEPT. 2003 FIG. 1
NORTHWEST
TERRITORIES
NUNAVUT YUKON
SITE
LOCATION
0 50 100 150 200
115W
110W
105W
100
60N
ARCTIC
CIRCLE
65N
2. THE MARINE BATHYMETRY SURVEY
2.1 Equipment
The overwater bathymetric survey was completed with a Marinetek, PCS-200 sounder. The
system was calibrated with respect to water temperature and water salinity and used a
broadband output with a 200 kHz centre frequency. Power for the field computer and
Marinetek Sounder was provided by a portable, 120 volt, AC generator set. The work was
carried out with a local, six metre, Lund aluminum survey boat powered by an outboard
motor.
Tidal fluctuations during the survey were monitored by a tide pole placed at low water, in
the southeast corner of the survey area. The tide pole location was surveyed in from a
control point (SAS 35) established by the surveyor. This control point located at
7,563,703.47N, 432,943.85E, is at an elevation of 14.18 m. The base of the tide pole was
determined to be at an elevation of -0.1 m. In the course of the survey, the tide pole was
checked two to three times a day with water level fluctuations noted to vary from -0.1 m to
0.3 m. These increases in water level were subtracted from the data, thus correcting the data
to the -0.1 m elevation at the base of the tide pole.
The GPS system utilised in the survey was a high resolution, DGPS (Differential Global
Positioning System) Max. Differential GPS uses two receivers to cancel out atmospheric
errors and Selective Availability (SA). The additional receiver is placed at a known
location and makes the same measurements as the roving receiver. The base receiver
compares its readings from its known position to that of satellites and creates a difference
between the two. This difference is made available to the roving receiver as differential
correction information. This correctional information allows the roving receiver to
calculate its true location. Information for receiver locations and corrections was provided
by the Omnistar system.
3
2.2 Survey Procedure
The bathymetric transducer was placed in the water at a depth of 0.15 metres on the
starboard side, 1 metre forward of the transom. The transducer location was carefully
determined to facilitate the best operating environment for the transmission and reception of
sound pulses. In operation, the source transducer pulsed twice every second with a
sounding frequency of 200 KHz. The pulses emitted from the transducer were reflected by
the sea bottom, then digitally recorded and visually reviewed in real time on the high
resolution display of the notebook computer. The digital record of the reflected signal was
stored in the notebook hard drive and played back to interpret the water depth.
The bathymetric data was correlated with the GPS data to accurately plot each pulse
position to be contoured for final data presentation. The bathymetry plan used the
positioning datum of NAD83 in UTM grid coordinates.
4
3. GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS
3.1 General
The results of the overwater bathymetric survey are shown in colour contour format at a
scale of 1:7,500 in Figure 2. The bathymetry data was reduced to local datum, which was
the base of a tide pole located at low water in the southeast corner of the survey area.
3.2 Discussion
The bathymetry data indicates the presence of an elongate, north-south trending channel
defined generally by the 5 m contour in the south and water depths in excess of 30 m, to the
north. The channel is quite broad to the north but narrows to a width of about 150 m in the
south. A localised, deeper water depression is also evident in the middle of the survey area
and west of the island in the northeast segment of the area. This area is bounded to the
north however, by a region of relatively shallow water depths.
In the area of the proposed dock structure, water depths are shallow and are of the order of
1 metre. Limited boat draft and numerous boulder hazards limited more detailed coverage
of this area. Water depths of 2 metres are extant about 150 m northwest of the shoreline, at
the proposed dock location.
5
4. SUMMARY
An overwater bathymetry survey was carried out over a segment of Roberts Bay in
Nunavut. The survey area is the site of a proposed docking structure and approaches for
ocean-going vessels.
The information in this report is based upon acoustic measurements and field procedures
and our interpretation of the data. The results are interpretive in nature and are considered
to be a reasonably accurate presentation of the ocean bottom configuration within the limits
of the overwater bathymetry method.
For: Frontier Geosciences Inc.
Russell A. Hillman, P.Eng.
6
FIG. 2 SCALE 1:7,500 DATE: SEPT. 2003
FRONTIER GEOSCIENCES INC.
BATHYMETRY CONTOUR PLAN
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
ROBERTS BAY, NUNAVUT
SRK CONSULTING
METRES
431500E 431600E 431700E 431800E 431900E 432000E 432100E 432200E 432300E 432400E 432500E 432600E 432700E 432800E
7563200N
7563300N
7563400N
7563500N
7563600N
7563700N
7563800N
7563900N
7564000N
7564100N
7564200N
7564300N
7564400N
7564500N
7564600N
7564700N
7564800N
7564900N
7565000N
7565100N
7565200N
7565300N
7565400N
7565500N
7565600N
0 100 200 300 400
0.0 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.7 9.6 12.6 17.1 23.0
DEPTH (m)
INSTRUMENT: MARINETEK PCS-200
DATUM: NAD83 UTM ZONE 13
NOTE: SHORELINE APPROXIMATE
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED DOCK
ISLAND

Appendix C
Summary of Roberts Bay Geotechnical Properties
UU
Triaxial
(kPa)
Vane
(kPa)
SRK45 15-16.4 m CL 34.8 42 24 18 94.5 49 0.37
SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m CL 56.8 39 22 17 94.8 43 0.40
SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m CL 37.2 34 18 16 93.7 27 0.59
SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m CL 58.6 38 22 16 96.4 39 0.41
SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m CL 32.6 22 15 7 76.7 20 0.35
EBA BH-12 2.44 - 2.59 m CL 47.3 40.5 22 18.5 44.2 39.8 16 0 84 35 0.53
EBA BH-15 3.96 - 4.57 m CL 67.5 41 18 23 52.5 43.2 4.3 0 95.7 43 0.53 1.8 14 5.5
EBA BH-18 4.27 - 4.57 m CL 43 42 20 22 54.8 38.6 6.6 0 93.4 45 0.49
EBA BH-19 0 - 0.61 m CL 34.4 26 14 12 61.5 34.4 3 1.1 95.9 49 0.24 1.82 8.5 5
EBA BH-28 3.81 - 4.42 m CL 40.8 30 16 14 46.4 29 23.4 1.2 75.4 32 0.44
EBA BH-29 2.59 - 2.74 m CL 63.3 43 25 18 46.8 44.6 8.6 0 91.4 37 0.49
EBA BH-15 3.05 - 3.2 m CH 74.8 52.5 29 23.5 56.1 41 2.9 0 97.1 41 0.57
EBA BH-26 3.05 - 3.66 m CH 70 56 23 33 17.5 47.3 35.2 0 64.8 11 3.00 1.78 3
EBA BH-11 0.91-1.07 m CL-ML 26 21 14 7 28 26.5 45.5 0 54.5 22 0.32
SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m SP 20 np np np 7.7 0 np
EBA BH-24 6.10 - 6.86 m SP 26.4 11.1 6 82.9 0 17.1 9
EBA BH-28 9.91 - 10.52 m SP 28.4 84.9 0.1 15
EBA BH-18 0 - 0.61 m 31.5 1.86 27.5 12
EBA BH-24 2.74 - 3.35 m 31.6 1.25 2
EBA BH-26 3.96 - 4.57 m 94.6 1.58 5
EBA BH-30 4.57 - 5.18 m 45.9 2.08 7.6
NOTES: np =non plastic
Yellow cells indicate there is no data available
Passing
2micron
(%) -
READ
from
PSD Activity
15
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plastic
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
Passing
#200 (%)
Bulk
Density
in Tube
(Mg/m3)
Summary of Lab & In-Situ Data Available for Roberts Bay Marine Sediments (SRK 2004 drill program & EBA 1997 drill program)
% Clay % Silt
%
Sand
%
Gravel
Undrained Shear
Strength
Sample ID
Lab Soil
Classification
Water
Content
(%)

Appendix D
Phase I Foundation Investigation (SRK 2004)

Phase I Foundation Investigation
Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location,
Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada

Prepared for

Prepared by

April 2004

Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed
Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris North
Project, Nunavut, Canada



Tel: 604.681.4196 Fax: 604.687.5532

SRK Project Number 1CM014.02

April 2004

Author
Dylan MacGregor, M.A.Sc., G.I.T.

Reviewed by
Senior Geotechnical Engineer

SRK Consulting
Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay J etty Location Page i
MR/spk Phase1FoundationInvestigation.Report.1CM014.02.MR.Rev02.doc, May. 26, 05, 3:10 PM April 2004
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Drill Program................................................................................................... 1
2 Methodology................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Drilling................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing.............................................................................................................. 2
3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Drilling Hole Locations ........................................................................................................ 3
3.2 General Drilling Conditions ................................................................................................. 3
3.3 Foundation conditions......................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 SRK 47....................................................................................................................................4
3.3.2 SRK 46....................................................................................................................................4
3.3.3 SRK 45....................................................................................................................................5
3.3.4 SRK 49....................................................................................................................................5
3.4 Laboratory Testing Results ................................................................................................. 5
4 Discussion.................................................................................................................... 6
5 References.................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables

Table 1: Initial Laboratory Testing Program for Samples from Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling,
Winter 2004........................................................................................................................ 2
Table 2: As-built Drillhole Coordinates, Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004................ 3
Table 3: Results of Initial Laboratory Testing Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004....... 6
List of Figures

Figure 1: Proposed J etty Layout
Figure 2: Drill Hole Locations
Figure 3: Inferred J etty Centerline Profile

List of Attachments

Attachment A: Drill Logs
Attachment B: Laboratory Test Results

SRK Consulting
Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay J etty Location Page 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
An eleven day visit to Miramars Doris North Project was made by Dylan MacGregor (GIT) of SRK
Consulting during the period of April 10-20, 2004. The primary purpose of this work was to conduct
a geotechnical drilling program at the south end of Roberts Bay. The drilling program targeted
foundation conditions in the footprint of the proposed jetty (Figure 1) described in the preliminary
surface infrastructure design report (SRK 2003). Specific goals of the drilling program consisted of
the following:
determine water depth along the proposed jetty alignment;
determine overburden thickness along the proposed jetty alignment;
collect soil samples for laboratory testing of soil properties;
determine underlying bedrock characteristics.
The following memo describes the findings of the April 2004 geotechnical drilling program and
summarizes the collated results. Drill logs, a plan layout of borehole collars, and a section along the
alignment of the proposed jetty, including the new geotechnical information, are included.
1.2 Summary of Drill Program
A series of three holes (SRK 45, SRK 46, and SRK 47) were planned along the alignment of the
proposed jetty at the south end of Roberts Bay. Two optional holes (SRK 48 and SRK 49) were also
under consideration, to be drilled if determined necessary on the basis of initial drilling results. One
of these optional holes (SRK 49) was deemed necessary to further define foundation conditions at
the loading terminus of the jetty. Proposed drillhole locations are shown in Figure 2.
Seasonal weather conditions prevailed for the duration of the drilling operation. Winds were
generally from the north at 5 to 20 km/h, with daytime temperatures of up to -5C and overnight
lows of -25C. During the day, conditions ranged from sunny to high overcast.
SRK Consulting
2 Methodology
2.1 Drilling
Drilling was conducted by Major Drilling, using a Boyles Brothers 37 diamond drill operating 24
hours/day with two - 12 hour shifts. All holes were drilled at an angle of -90. Core was NQ3 size
(45.1 mm diameter) and was drilled in runs of 1.5 m for boreholes SRK 46 and SRK 47 using the
triple tube coring technique.
For boreholes SRK 45 and SRK 49, core was NQ size (47.6 mm diameter) and drilled in runs of 3 m
using the standard diamond drilling technique. Holes were targeted to fully penetrate the overburden
sediments and to sample the upper 5 m of bedrock.
Samples of recovered overburden were collected for foundation indicator testing; samples were
shipped to EBA Engineerings soil testing lab in Yellowknife. Rock core was logged by Miramar
geologists according to standard exploration procedures, which include geotechnical
characterisation. As-built drillhole collars were surveyed by Miramars surveyor.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
A limited selection of samples, including at least one sample from each drillhole, were initially
selected for foundation indicator testing by EBA Engineering. Particle size distribution tests were
conducted, as well as moisture content and Atterberg Limits determinations where appropriate, all
according to standard soils testing procedures. Table 1 outlines the initial testing program.

Table 1: Initial Laboratory Testing Program for Samples from Roberts Bay
Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004
Particle size
distribution
SampleID
Field Soil
Classification
Sieve Hydrometer
Water Content
Determination
Atterberg
Limits
SRK45 15 - 16.4 m CL
SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m CL
SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m SP
SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m CL
SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m CL
SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m CL

SRK Consulting
3 Results
3.1 Drilling Hole Locations
The as-built collar locations differed slightly from planned locations; drill collars were surveyed
following drilling to record the as-built drillhole locations. Table 2 provides the surveyed
coordinates for the four Roberts Bay geotechnical drillholes.

Table 2: As-built Drillhole Coordinates, Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter
2004
HoleID Northing
1
Easting
1
Elevation
2
Inclination
SRK45 7563322.36 432531.51 -0.02 -90
SRK46 7563299.16 432543.76 0.02 -90
SRK47 7563272.79 432552.12 -0.07 -90
SRK49 7563337.64 432525.12 -0.34 -90
1. UTM Projection NAD 83 Zone 13.
2. Negative values represent collar elevation below survey grid datum.
Drilling results are summarized in a series of borehole logs. The complete logs are included here as
Attachment A, and a profile through the drillholes (Figure 3) displays the interpreted stratigraphy
along the proposed jetty centreline. The following briefly discusses drilling conditions and materials
encountered in each drillhole.
3.2 General Drilling Conditions
SRK 47 was drilled April 16-17, 2004. Water was hauled from Doris Lake to provide drilling fluid
via a dozer hauling a water tank, as Major Drilling considered that it would take too much time to
move the large pump from Doris Lake to Roberts Bay.
SRK 46 was drilled on April 17, 2004. Frank Ratte, a Miramar geologist, supervised the upper 14.3
m of drilling. An attempt was made to obtain seawater for drilling by augering a hole through the
sea ice near the collar of SRK 45 and pumping water to the drills holding tank using a small
portable Honda pump. This effort met with mixed success, with the pump performing poorly and
eventually freezing up. Ultimately the large pump was mobilized from Doris Lake and a reliable
supply was established using seawater.
At the start of the program, two NQ3 drill bits were available. These bits are required in order to use
the triple tube coring technique, as they cut a narrower diameter core than standard NQ bits. This
narrower core allows for the thickness of a split tube inside the core tube. While drilling through the
sand and gravel unit in SRK 46, one NQ3 drill bit was consumed. Pieces of the face of this bit were
later recovered after replacing the drill bit. The replacement bit was able to finish drilling borehole
SRK 46.
SRK Consulting
During final breakdown and removal of the rod string from SRK 46, it was necessary to remove the
core barrel and bit with the head open because the core barrel would not fit through the chuck jaws.
A small clamp with a 0.3 m arm perpendicular to the clamp axis was fixed to the core barrel to
prevent it from falling back into the drill hole. The rod string was broken at the top of the core barrel
immediately below the head, and the rods were pulled up through the head. The core barrel and
clamp were lowered down such that the clamp arm was supported by part of the frame of the drill
shack.
While the drillers were removing the rod from the head, the clamp holding the core barrel was jarred
loose, and the clamp and core barrel spun off of the frame and fell down the drill hole. Attempts to
fish the core barrel/ clamp unit out of the drill hole were unsuccessful. As the drill bit remained
fixed to the core barrel during this process, the second and last available NQ3 drill bit was lost as a
result of this mishap.
SRK 45 was drilled on April 17, 2004, using a NQ drill bit and standard exploration wireline coring
techniques. All sediment in SRK 45 was drilled without an inspector present, and recovered material
was boxed for later inspection. Recovery was generally poor.
As a result of the poor recoveries achieved at SRK 45, compounded by the apparent change in
geological materials along the long section of the proposed jetty, it was decided to drill optional hole
SRK 49. The information from this additional drill hole would better define foundation conditions
expected at the critical loading terminus of the jetty, where a large proportion of total rock fill is
expected to be placed.
SRK 49 was drilled on April 18, 2004, using a NQ drill bit and standard exploration wireline coring
techniques. All sediment in SRK 49 was cored without rotating drill rods. Rods were advanced by
downward head pressure alone. An inspector was present for the duration of drilling of SRK 49.
3.3 Foundation conditions
3.3.1 SRK 47
The borehole log for SRK47 is included in Attachment A. Sea ice was found to be 0.6 m thick and
frozen to the seabed. Overburden extended from 0.6 m to 9.8 m, and consisted of an upper 3.1 m
thick frozen unit of silt and clay underlain by 6.1 m of sand and gravel. Recovery of sample in the
sand and gravel unit was generally poor. Bedrock was intersected at 9.8 m depth and cored to a
depth of 14 m. The rock consisted of a fine grained grey-green basalt with an RQD of 80% and
greater.
3.3.2 SRK 46
The sea ice at SRK 46 was found to be 2.3 m thick; the borehole log for SRK46 is included in
Attachment A. It appears that the sea ice was frozen to the bed sediments, although one of the
drillers reported that there had been a small depth of liquid water above the sediment. The upper
SRK Consulting
sediments consisted of 4.9 m of frozen ice-rich silt and clay. These were underlain by 9 m of sand
and gravel. Poor sample recovery was experienced across the sand and gravel unit. Bedrock was
intersected 17.2 m below the collar elevation and consisted of medium to coarse grained gabbro,
having RQD values ranging from 57 to 84%.
3.3.3 SRK 45
Sea ice at SRK 45 was approximately 2 m thick, and covered approximately 3 m of unfrozen
seawater; the borehole log for SRK45 is included in Attachment A. The surface sediments appeared
to be 4 m of uniform fine grey sand. In general, recovery was poor for this unit, there was no intact
core recovered, and the material was visually dissimilar to other sands encountered in adjacent holes
to the south during the Winter 2004 geotechnical drilling program and previous geotechnical drilling
programs in the broader area. For these reasons, the material sampled over the 5 to 11 m interval is
considered to be anomalous and not to be representative of the foundation conditions in the area of
the proposed causeway. Due to the fact that an SRK inspector was not present during the drilling of
this hole, together with the poor recovery, the value of data from this hole is somewhat questionable.
From 11 to 13 m below the collar elevation, recovery improved to 50% and the material made a
transition from sand to fine grained soil. From 13 to 14.4 m, the material was a uniform, grey silt
and clay with high water content. This fine grained material overlay basalt bedrock. SRK 45 was
terminated after drilling 4.6 m of basalt; RQD ranged from 52 to 56%.
3.3.4 SRK 49
The borehole log for SRK49 is included in Attachment A. Sea ice at SRK 49 was 1.7 m thick, and
sea water beneath the ice extended to 5.1 m below the collar. Water depth at SRK49 was measured
using a weighted sounding line dropped through the drill rods following penetration of sea ice, and is
considered to be very accurate. Sediment encountered at 5.1 m was a dark grey fine grained material
that extended to the bedrock contact at 17.35 m.
Water content appeared to increase with depth, and organic content appeared to decrease with depth.
The colour of the material changed from a dark grey at surface to a medium grey at depth, and was
considered to reflect the organic content of the soil. Felsic volcaniclastic bedrock was cored from
17.35 m to 21.6 m. Bedrock RQD was moderately poor and ranged from 34 to 37%.
3.4 Laboratory Testing Results
A subset of five fine-grained samples and one coarse-grained sample were subjected to an initial
stage of foundation indicator testing. Table 3 summarizes the sample origins and the test results.
Complete results are included as Attachment B.
SRK Consulting
Table 3: Results of Initial Laboratory Testing Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling,
Winter 2004
SampleID
Lab Soil
Classification
Water
Content (%)
Liquid
Limit (%)
Plastic
Limit (%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
SRK45 15 - 16.4 m CL 34.8 42 24 18
SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m CL 56.8 39 22 17
SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m SP 20 na na na
SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m CL 37.2 34 18 16
SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m CL 32.6 22 15 7
SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m CL 58.6 38 22 16
4 Discussion
Figure 3 shows a longitudinal profile along the proposed jetty which shows the stratigraphy inferred
from the recent drilling results. Water depth was generally found to be slightly greater than expected
based on the bathymetry data (Frontier Geosciences 2003), with ice +water depths of 5 m in the
vicinity of the proposed jetty terminus. In the near-shore sediments sampled in holes SRK46 and
SRK47, an upper layer of fine-grained material overlies a sand and gravel unit. This coarse-grained
unit lies directly on bedrock, and appears to pinch out to the north between SRK46 and SRK45, as
shown in Figure 3.
In SRK45, the upper sediments consist of uniform fine grey sand. No intact core of this material was
obtained, and recovery was generally poor. The fine grey sand recovered from SRK45 is distinctly
different from the coarse granitic sand encountered in SRK47 and SRK46, as well as elsewhere
across the project site. This fine sandy material is interpreted to be distinct from the coarse sand and
gravel unit directly on bedrock to the south. The fine-grained sediment in SRK45 rests directly on
bedrock and appears similar to the fine-grained material to both north and south. This unit is
inferred to be continuous along the proposed jetty profile as shown in Figure 3. Drilling data
indicates a local bedrock high in the vicinity of SRK45.
The northernmost drillhole, SRK49, encountered 5 m of water over approximately 12 m of fine
grained silt and clay, as shown in Figure 3. The fine-grained unit extends from the sediment-water
interface to the bedrock contact, and varies uniformly from a dark grey organic rich material at
surface to a medium grey material with no visible organics at depth. The material is very soft, with
high water content, throughout the interval. Special consideration must be given to foundation
design for any infrastructure to be built on this material.
SRK Consulting
This report, Phase I Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris
North Project, Nunavut, Canada, has been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

Prepared by:


Reviewed by:


SRK Consulting
5 References
Frontier Geosciences Inc., 2003. Report on Marine Bathymetry Survey, Proposed Roberts Bay
Docking Facilities, Cambridge Bay Area, Nunavut. Report submitted to SRK Consulting,
September 2003.
SRK Consulting, 2003. Surface Infrastructure Preliminary Design, Doris North Project, Nunavut,
Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Ltd., October, 2003.

Figures

Attachment A
Drill Logs
HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Diamond Drill Core
SRK 45
-0.02 m
April 18, 2004
April 18, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563322.36 432531.51
2.0
5.0
8.0
Sea ice (estimated thickness)
Sea water
Fine gray sand, no fines recovered. Core not intact.
SP as above.
SP
SP
0.2 0.6
1
2
3
4
25%
25%
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION:
DATE AND TIME STARTED:
DATE AND TIME FINISHED:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 1 of 2
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
Material Description
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Diamond Drill Core
SRK 45
-0.02 m
April 18, 2004
April 18, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563322.36 432531.51
11.0
13.0
14.4
16.0
19.0
EOH
Transition from fine sand above to finer grained material
below.
Grey, fine grained, slight organic smell, soft, high water
content, some plasticity.
BASALT, pale green, fine grained to massive. Brecciated
from 15.11m to EOH. Fractures filled with hematite and
calcite.
SM
CL
56%
52%
0.2 0.6
5
6
7
8
50%
100%
90%
97%
SRK45
10-13 m
SRK45
15-16.4m
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 2 of 2
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Frank Ratte, Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Triple Tube Core
SRK 46
0.02 m
April 17, 2004
April 17, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563299.16 432543.76
2.3
2.55
3.8
5.2
6.7
8.2
9.7
Sea ice
ICE + ML
Vr, 25-30% ice. Grey silt with sand.
Vr, 0.5% ice. Grey, fine grained CL, trace shells.
Vr, 5-15% ice. Grey, fine grained CL.
Vr, 5-35% ice. Grey, fine grained CL.
Vr. Gravel with minor sand - poor recovery
LOSS
ICE
+ ML
ML
CL
CL
CL
SP
0.2 0.6
1
2
3
4
5
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5%
SRK46
0.55-1.66
SRK46
1.8-3.2
SRK46
3.2-4.7
SRK46
4.7-6.2
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 1 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Major Drilling
Triple Tube Core
SRK 46
0.02 m
April 17, 2004
April 17, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563299.16 432543.76
11.2
12.7
14.3
14.55
15.15
15.2
15.8
16.8
17.2
18.3
19.8
LOSS (recovered 1-5 cm gravel particle)
Granitic sand, no ice.
Granitic gravel
Granitic sand, coarsening upwards from fine to coarse, trace
fines.
Single granitic gravel particle.
LOSS
Gravel, subangular to subrounded, particles average 3 cm
diameter with maximum of 9 cm diameter, with lesser coarse
sand.
Gravel as above.
GABBRO, dark green and grey, medium to coarse grained,
non-magnetic, fractures filled with chlorite and hematite,
abundant calcite veining.
GABBRO, as above.
GABBRO, as above.
Loss
Loss
SP
GP
SP
SP
Loss
GP
GP
84%
84%
0.2 0.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 95%
0%
0%
80%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
SRK46
10.7-12.3
SRK46
12.3-13.8
SRK46
13.8-14.8
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 2 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Major Drilling
Triple Tube Core
SRK 46
0.02 m
April 17, 2004
April 17, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563299.16 432543.76
22.8
EOH
57%
0.2 0.6
14 95%
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 3 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Triple Tube Core
SRK 47
-0.07 m
April 16, 2004
April 17, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563272.79 432552.12
0.6
2.1
3.6
3.7
5.1
6.6
8.1
9.6
9.8
Sea ice
Vr, ice rich (25%). Grey, fine grained, trace black organics,
organic smell, moderate plasticity, CL.
Vr, minor Nbn, possibly rare 1-2 cm unfrozen layers. Grey
fine grained material as above, CL.
CL as above.
Nbn. Medium granitic sand, 1-6 cm granitic gravel particle,
very poor recovery.
LOSS
Granitic gravel up to 5 cm. Very poor recovery.
Sand, minor silt. Very poor recovery.
Granitic gravel up tp 5 cm. No sand or fines recovered.
CL
CL
CL
SP
Loss
GP
SP
GP
0.2 0.6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
90%
80%
100%
5%
0%
5%
10%
50%
SRK47
0.6-2.1m
SRK47
2.1-3.6m
SRK47
3.6-3.7m
SRK47
3.7-5.1m
SRK47
8.1-9.6m
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 1 of 2
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Triple Tube Core
SRK 47
-0.07 m
April 16, 2004
April 17, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563272.79 432552.12
11.1
14.0
EOH
BASALT, pale green, fine grained to massive. Rubble from
12.13 to 12.16 m. Fractures filled with chlorite and hematite.
Veinlets make up 1% of rockmass and consist of calcite and
hematite. No major veins.
87%
80%
0.2 0.6
10
11
100%
100%
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 2 of 2
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Diamond Drill Core
SRK 49
-0.34 m
April 18, 2004
April 18, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563337.64 432525.12
1.7
5.1
8.1
Sea ice
Sea water
Dark grey, fine grained material, organic smell, wet, unfrozen
CL.
Material as above.
CL
CL
0.2 0.6
1
2
3
4
17%
33%
SRK49
5.1-8.1 m
SRK49
8.1-11.1m
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 1 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Diamond Drill Core
SRK 49
-0.34 m
April 18, 2004
April 18, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563337.64 432525.12
11.1
14.1
17.1
17.35
Material similar to above. Wet, soft, lighter grey than
overlying material.
Material as above.
Material as above.
FELSIC VOLCANICLASTIC, subangular to subrounded
clasts in a fine-grained matrix.
CL
CL
CL
34%
0.2 0.6
5
6
7
75%
30%
100%
76%
SRK49
11.1 -
14.1 m
SRK49
14.1 -
17.1 m
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 2 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal
1CM014.02
Roberts Bay
Dylan MacGregor
Major Drilling
Diamond Drill Core
SRK 49
-0.34 m
April 18, 2004
April 18, 2004
76 mm (NQ)
7563337.64 432525.12
20.1
21.6
EOH
FELSIC VOLCANICLASTIC, subangular to subrounded
clasts in a fine-grained matrix.
37%
0.2 0.6
8 89%
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
DRILL CONTRACTOR:
DRILLING METHOD:
HOLE NO:
HOLE DIAMETER:
NORTHING: EASTING:
Sheet 3 of 3
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
(
m
)
L
i
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
S
o
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
Q
D
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
b
r
i
c
R
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
p
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
R
u
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%)
length of run
GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
WEATHERING
unweathered
slightly
medium
highly
completely
ROCK MASS
HARDNESS
v. hard
hard
medium
soft
v.soft
FABRIC
v. fine
fine
medium
coarse
v. coarse
ROUGHNESS
smooth
sl. rough
medium
rough
v. rough
DISCONTINUITY
SEPARATION
closed
v. narrow
narrow
wide
v. wide
DIP
vertical
steep
medium
shallow
horizontal

Attachment B
Laboratory Test Results
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services BH No: SRK -47, SRK -46, SRK -45, SRK -49.
Project No.: 1780108 Date Tested: April 29 - April 30, 2004
Location: By: NR
Client: SRK Consulting
BH No.Sample
No.
Depth (m)
% Moisture
Content
Description
SRK -47 2.1 -3.6 37.2 Clayey SILT, trace sand, CL
SRK -46 4.7 -6.2 199.4 56.8 SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL
SRK -46 12.3 -13.8 20.0 SAND, trace silt
SRK -45 15.0 -16.4 34.8 CLAY and SILT, trace sand, CL
SRK -49 5.1 -8.1 32.6 Sandy, clayey SILT, trace sand,CL
SRK -49 14.1 -17.1 58.6 SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL
Data presented hereon are for the sole use of the The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized
stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can industry standards., unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not
be held liable, for use made of this report by any include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material
other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
3560-2
3560-3
1884.4 3560-4
3560-5
1209.7
1001.4
1448.2
1252
1300.8
1402.4
2164.9
194
901.6
196.4
MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
3560-1 965
Test No. Dry+Tare Wet+Tare Tare
194.9
193
245
3560-6
1264.2
1437.1
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services BH No: SRK 45, SRK 46, SRK 47, SRK 49
Date Tested: April 29 - May 5, 2004
Project No.: 1780108 By: NR
Location:
Client: SRK Consulting
BH No. Sample Number LL, % PL, % PI, %
SRK 47 3560 - 1 2.1 - 3.6
34 18 16
SRK 46 3560 - 2 4.7 - 6.2
39 22 17
SRK 46 3560 - 3 12.3 - 13.8
NP
SRK 45 3560 - 4 15.0 - 16.4
42 24 18
SRK 49 3560 - 5 5.1 - 8.1 22 15 7
SRK 49 3560 - 6 14.1 - 17.1 38 22 16
Data presented hereon are for the sole use of the The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized
stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can industry standards., unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not
be held liable, for use made of this report by any include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material
other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS
Depth (m)
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services 40
Project Number: 1780108 25
Client: SRK Consulting 20
Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager 16
Date Tested: 12.5
Borehole Number: SRK 45 10
Depth: 15.0 - 16.4 m 5
Sample Number: n/a 2.5 100
Lab Number: 1.25 100
Soil Description: CLAY and SILT, trace sand, CL 0.63 100
Natural Moisture Content: 34.8% 0.315 99
Remarks: LL=42%, PL=24%, PI=18% 0.16 99
0.08 94.5

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
May 4 - May 6, 2004

3560-4

GRAIN SIZE (millimeters)
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
Reviewed By: P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized
Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include
or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should
engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the
stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be
held liable, for use made of this report by any other
party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Date Tested: 12.5
Depth: 4.7 - 6.2 m 5 100
Soil Description: SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL 0.63 100
Remarks: LL=39%, PL=22%, PI=17% 0.16 99
0.08 94.8

May 4 - May 6,2004

3560-2

P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
Reviewed By: P.Eng.
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Attention: 16
Date Tested: 12.5
Depth: 12.3 - 13.8 m 5 100
Sample Number: 2.5 100
Lab Number: 1.25 96
Soil Description: SAND, trace silt 0.63 82
Remarks: NP 0.16 18
0.08 7.7

May 4, 2004

3560-3
Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
Reviewed By: P.Eng.
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Date Tested: 12.5
Depth: 2.1 - 3.6 m 5 100
Soil Description: Clayey SILT, trace sand, CL 0.63 100
Remarks: LL=34%, PL=18%, PI=16% 0.16 99
0.08 93.7

May 4 - May 6,2004

3560-1

P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
Reviewed By: P.Eng.
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Date Tested: 12.5
Depth: 5.1 - 8.1 m 5 100
Soil Description: Sandy, clayey SILT, CL 0.63 99
Remarks: LL=22%, PL=15%, PI=7% 0.16 97
0.08 76.7

May 4 - May 6, 2004

3560-5

P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
Reviewed By: P.Eng.
SIEVE
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
Date Tested: 12.5
Depth: 14.1 - 17.1 m 5
Soil Description: SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL 0.63 100
Remarks: LL=38%, PL=22%, PI=16% 0.16 99
0.08 96.4

May 4 - May 6, 2004

3560-6

P
E
R
C
E
N
T

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
.0005 .001 .1 .5
100
10 .01 .002 .02 .005 .05 .2 1 50 2 5 20
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
4 3/8 1/2 1 3/4 11/2 2 3 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8
SIEVE SIZES
CLAY SILT
GRAVEL SAND
Reviewed By: P.Eng.

Appendix E
Phase II Foundation Investigation (SRK 2005)

Phase II Foundation Investigation
Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location

Prepared for

Prepared by

May 2005

Phase II Foundation Investigation:
Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location

North Vancouver, B.C. V7P 3S1


Tel: 604.681.4196 Fax: 604.687.5532

SRK Project Number 1CM014.04-0110

May 2005

Authors
Dylan MacGregor, M.A.Sc., GIT
Peter Mikes, EIT

Reviewed by
Maritz Rykaart, Ph.D, P.Eng.

SRK Consulting
Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay J etty Location Page i
DBM/spk 2005.J etty.Investigation.report.1CM014.004.dbm.rev02.doc, May. 26, 05, 3:17 PM May 2005
Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
2 Field Program............................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Boring locations................................................................................................................... 2
3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 3
4 References.................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Undrained Shear Strengths ........................................................................... 3

List of Figures

Figure 1: Hope Bay Doris North Project Site Map
Figure 2: Proposed J etty In-Situ Testing Locations
Figure 3: Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #1
Figure 9: Undrained Shear Strength Profiles

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Detailed Calculations

SRK Consulting
Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay J etty Location Page 1
1 Introduction
As part of the ongoing process of obtaining site information upon which surface infrastructure
designs can be based for the Doris North Project, MHBL contracted SRK to undertake a second
phase foundation investigation at the site of the proposed jetty at Roberts Bay (Figure 1) during April
2005. The primary objective of this field program was to collect in-situ measurements of undrained
shear strength for the fine-grained soils identified in the jetty footprint during 2004 drilling (SRK
2004).
This report presents the results of the in-situ testing of the fine-grained sediment within the proposed
jetty footprint. Included is a description of the field investigation and a summary of the in-situ testing
results.
2 Field Program
The in-situ testing was carried out April 13 to 15 and April 17, 2005, by SRK staff Dylan
MacGregor and Peter Mikes, with assistance by Anastasia Ledwon of MHBL. Six borings were
completed, with strength testing completed at five to six discrete depths at each boring location.
2.1 Methods
Testing of undrained strength of the jetty foundation soils was accomplished using a Nilcon vane
shear apparatus that was rented from Roctest Telemac of Montreal. This apparatus consisted of a
boring rig capable of driving a vane into the soil by means of a string of 1.0 m rods, and a torque
recording head that rotated the rods and recorded the torque required for rotation. The shear vane
was fixed to the end of the rod string, and test depth was gauged from the number and the position of
the rods.
To access the marine sediments located within the jetty footprint, 0.15m diameter holes were
augered through the sea ice. A tent was initially set up over the holes to provide a degree of shelter,
as the testing apparatus does not function properly under cold or windy conditions. A survival
shelter on skids was used at the final four locations due to the poor performance of the tent under
windy conditions.
At each boring location, the length of auger required to penetrate the sea ice was recorded. The vane
and rod assembly was then inserted into the auger hole, and lowered until the vane contacted the
sediment. The total depth of water (liquid and frozen) was recorded, and the vane was advanced to
the depth of the initial test.
Once the vane was positioned at the desired depth, torque was applied to the rods via a torque-
recording head mounted on top of the boring rig. The rods were rotated at a constant rate of
SRK Consulting
approximately 6 per minute, and the developed torque was recorded on pressure-sensitive paper
disks by means of a metal recording arm that rotated with the rods.
At each depth, an initial test was conducted where the torque developed prior to failure of the soil
was recorded (the peak torque), as well as the torque required to turn the rods following failure (the
residual torque). The soil at the test depth was then remoulded by manually turning the rods 20
times with a pipe wrench, and the torque required to turn the vane in this remoulded soil (the
remoulded torque) was recorded.
As part of this second test, a slip coupling mounted immediately above the vane allowed a limited
rotation of the rods only, without rotation of the vane. This portion of the test recorded the torque
required to turn only the rods (the rod rotation torque), and allowed the removal of rod resistance as
part of data processing. A more detailed description of the method is found in Roctest (2002).
2.2 Boring locations
In-situ testing was carried out at six locations, as shown in Figure 2. These locations are situated
within the footprint of the jettys northern terminus. Foundation testing focussed on this area
because this portion of the footprint will receive the largest thickness of rock fill during construction,
and as such is the most sensitive to excessive loading. Drilling in 2004 indicated that the shallow
sediment was of a common soil type between the tested area and the shoreline to the south (SRK
2004).
At each boring location, vane shear tests were taken at 5 or 6 depths, nominally every meter from the
sediment surface to a depth of 5m. The near-surface sediment has the greatest risk of failure due to
loading during the construction phase, and consequently testing focussed on this portion of the
deposit.
SRK Consulting
3 Results
The calculated undrained peak, residual and remoulded shear strengths are summarized in Table 1
below and strength profiles for each boring are shown in Figures 3 though 8 with a compilation of all
profiles for comparison shown in Figure 9.
Table 1: Summary of Undrained Shear Strengths
Boring Coordinates
1

Hole
ID
E N
Test
Depth
(m)
Peak
Strength

(kPa)
Residual
Strength

(kPa)
Remoulded
Strength

(kPa)
Sensitivity
(Peak/Remoulded)
0.5 16.69 7.24 2.85 5.85
1 13.31 6.18 0.63 21.13
2 14.37 7.45 2.80 5.13
3 20.91 8.61 4.07 5.14
4 25.88 11.62 3.96 6.53
1 432,514 7,563,338
5 27.25 10.35 4.17 6.53
1 16.48 8.98 3.91 4.22
2 15.90 5.65 3.06 5.19
3 18.49 12.68 4.23 4.38
4 17.38 8.40 3.38 5.14
2

432,539 7,563,351
5 20.49 11.62 2.90 7.05
1 19.91 8.19 4.44 4.49
2 17.11 7.55 3.80 4.50
3 21.97 8.56 3.27 6.71
4 22.08 9.35 3.22 6.85
3 432,525 7,563,343
5 24.08 9.72 2.43 9.91
1.25 15.32 4.65 4.01 3.82
2.25 16.11 6.23 3.17 5.08
3.25 26.72 8.77 4.07 6.57
4.25 28.10 10.19 3.38 8.31
4 432,543 7,563,339
5.25 24.14 9.24 1.85 13.06
1.25 19.86 9.51 3.96 5.01
2.25 16.21 6.34 2.59 6.27
3.25 26.67 11.14 4.33 6.16
4.25 26.88 9.35 3.75 7.17
5 432,528 7,563,333
5.25 25.09 11.04 2.64 9.50
1 16.43 8.61 2.38 6.91
2.5 16.48 5.92 3.75 4.39
3.5 25.35 9.72 4.28 5.93
4.5 22.92 8.13 2.27 10.09
6 432,516 7,563,329
5.5 14.42 4.65 1.00 14.37
Maximum Value 28.10 12.68 4.44 21.13
Minimum Value 13.31 4.65 0.63 3.82
Average Value 20.42 8.57 3.24 7.14
1. UTM projection NAD83 Zone 13
SRK Consulting
The strength profiles are generally consistent for each boring with the top 2 to 3 meters of marine
sediment being distinctively weaker than the lower portion of the profiles. The peak strength values
show results typical of a soft to very soft soil, ranging from 13.31 to 28.10 kPa with an average value
of 20.42 kPa. The residual strengths average to be 42% of the peak strength and are generally
consistent as a percentage of the peak strength with depth.
The soil sensitivity, the ratio of the peak undisturbed undrained shear strength to the remoulded
undrained shear strength has an average value of 7.14 and was found to generally increase with
depth. The sensitivity of the soils ranged from a medium sensitive soil close to the surface, to an
extra sensitive soil on the bottom end of the profile.

SRK Consulting
This report, Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris
North Project, Nunavut, Canada, has been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

Prepared by:


Peter Mikes, E.I.T.

Reviewed by:


SRK Consulting
4 References
Roctest. 2002. Instruction Manual: Vane Borer Model M-1000. Roctest Limited, Montreal, QC.
SRK Consulting, 2004. Phase I Foundation Investigation, Proposed Roberts bay Jetty Location,
Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, April
2004.

Figures
Figs 3-4-5-6-7-8-9_ Vane Borer Data_ck.xls/Fig 3-B#1
Undrained Shear Strength Profile -
Boring #1
Phase II J etty Foundation Investigation
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
DATE
May 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
Residual Strength (kPa)
Remoulded Strength (kPa)
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
Boring #2
DATE
MAY 2005
APPROVED
E.M.R.
FIGURE
4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
Boring #3
DATE
May 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
Boring #4
DATE
May 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
Boring #5
DATE
May 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
Boring #6
DATE
May 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Peak Strength (kPa)
Figs 3-4-5-6-7-8-9_ Vane Borer Data_ck.xls/Fig 9-All Data Graph
PROJ ECT
1CM014.004
DATE
MAY 2005
APPROVED
EMR
FIGURE
9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Boring 1 - Peak
Boring 1 - Residual
Boring 1 - Remolded
Boring 2 - Peak
Boring 2 - Residual
Boring 2 - Remolded
Boring 3 - Peak
Boring 3 - Residual
Boring 3 - Remolded
Boring 4 - Peak
Boring 4 - Residual
Boring 4 - Remolded
Boring 5 - Peak
Boring 5 - Residual
Boring 5 - Remolded
Boring 6 - Peak
Boring 6 Residual
Boring 6 - Remolded
Undrained Shear Strength -
Profiles Combined

Appendices

Appendix 1
Detailed Calculations
M Torque (Kg m)
a Distance from zero torque reference line (cm)
K Calibration constant =1.0563 kg.m/cm
M
f
Torque required to rotate rods
M
s
Torque required to rotate rods +vane at yielding
M
v
Torque required to rotate vane at yielding (Mf - Ms)
S
u
Shear strength (kg/cm
2
)
C Vane form constant (8x17.2cm) =0.05 m
-1
cm
-2
Symbols
Residual
Calibration constant, K (kgm/cm):
1.0563 Equations: M
v
=K*(a
s
-a
f
)
Vane form constant, C (10
-2
x cm
-3
):
0.05 S
u
=M
v
* C * 100
Residual Strength Remolded
a
f
(cm) a
s
(cm) M
v
(kgm) S
u
(kPa) a
s
(cm) M
v
(kgm) S
u
(kPa) a
f
(cm) a
s
(cm) M
v
(kgm) S
u
(kPa)
1A 0.5 0.02 3.18 3.34 16.69 1.39 1.45 7.24 0 0.54 0.57 2.85
1B 1 0.13 2.65 2.66 13.31 1.30 1.24 6.18 0 0.12 0.13 0.63 No extra wieght on frame
1C 2 0.18 2.9 2.87 14.37 1.59 1.49 7.45 0.09 0.62 0.56 2.80 No extra wieght on frame
1D 3 0.24 4.2 4.18 20.91 1.87 1.72 8.61 0.22 0.99 0.81 4.07 Extra wieght: 325 lbs
1E 4 0.1 5 5.18 25.88 2.30 2.32 11.62 0.38 1.13 0.79 3.96 Extra wieght: 180 lbs
1F 5 0.51 5.67 5.45 27.25 2.47 2.07 10.35 0.51 1.30 0.83 4.17 Extra wieght: 325 lbs; difficult to push down relative to previous advance
2A 1 0.1 3.22 3.30 16.48 1.80 1.80 8.98 0.05 0.79 0.78 3.91 Easy to drive vane down
2B 2 0.14 3.15 3.18 15.90 1.21 1.13 5.65 0.12 0.70 0.61 3.06 Easy to drive vane down
2C 3 0.30 3.80 3.70 18.49 2.70 2.54 12.68 0.20 1.00 0.85 4.23 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
2D 4 0.32 3.61 3.48 17.38 1.91 1.68 8.40 0.25 0.89 0.68 3.38 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
2E 5 0.30 4.18 4.10 20.49 2.50 2.32 11.62 0.38 0.93 0.58 2.90 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
3A 1 0.07 3.84 3.98 19.91 1.62 1.64 8.19 0.05 0.89 0.89 4.44 Very easy to advance - pushed down by hand.
3B 2 0.19 3.43 3.42 17.11 1.62 1.51 7.55 0.19 0.91 0.76 3.80 Easy to push down - pushed by hand. (2 people)
3C 3 0.39 4.55 4.39 21.97 2.01 1.71 8.56 0.3 0.92 0.65 3.27 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
3D 4 0.41 4.59 4.42 22.08 2.18 1.87 9.35 0.41 1.02 0.64 3.22 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
3E 5 0.42 4.98 4.82 24.08 2.26 1.94 9.72 0.42 0.88 0.49 2.43 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs)
4A 1.25 0.8 3.7 3.06 15.32 1.68 0.93 4.65 0.05 0.81 0.80 4.01 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs)
4B 2.25 0.2 3.25 3.22 16.11 1.38 1.25 6.23 0.21 0.81 0.63 3.17 Easy to push.
4C 3.25 0.44 5.5 5.34 26.72 2.10 1.75 8.77 0.28 1.05 0.81 4.07 Moderately difficult to drive
4D 4.25 0.29 5.61 5.62 28.10 2.22 2.04 10.19 0.47 1.11 0.68 3.38 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs)
4E 5.25 0.42 4.99 4.83 24.14 2.17 1.85 9.24 0.55 0.90 0.37 1.85 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs)
5A 1.25 0.25 4.01 3.97 19.86 2.05 1.90 9.51 0.05 0.8 0.79 3.96 Easy to drive into sediment
5B 2.25 0.1 3.17 3.24 16.21 1.30 1.27 6.34 0.22 0.71 0.52 2.59 Easy to drive into sediment
5D 4.25 0.41 5.5 5.38 26.88 2.18 1.87 9.35 0.27 0.98 0.75 3.75 Moderately difficult to drive
5E 5.25 0.2 4.95 5.02 25.09 2.29 2.21 11.04 0.5 1 0.53 2.64 Moderately difficult to drive
6A 1 0.13 3.24 3.29 16.43 1.76 1.72 8.61 0.05 0.5 0.48 2.38 Easy to advance
6B 2.5 0.3 3.42 3.30 16.48 1.42 1.18 5.92 0.21 0.92 0.75 3.75 Moderately difficult to drive
6D 4.5 0.58 4.92 4.58 22.92 2.12 1.63 8.13 0.38 0.81 0.45 2.27 Moderately difficult to drive
6E 5.5 0.8 3.53 2.88 14.42 1.68 0.93 4.65 0.5 0.69 0.20 1.00 Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs)
Boring # Depth (m) Comments
Undisturbed Peak Strength

Appendix F
Technical Memorandum Outlining Preliminary Jetty Design Calculations

Suite 800 1066 West Hastings Street
Canada

vancouver@srk.com
www.srk.com

Tel: 604.681.4196
Fax: 604.687.5532

BW/EMR TechMemoJ ettyDesign_emr.doc, 10:52 AM, Oct. 3, 05
Technical Memorandum

To: Brian Labadie - MHBL Date: September 14, 2005
cc: Project File From: Maritz Rykaart, Ben Wickland
Subject: Preliminary J etty Design Calculations Project #: 1CM014.006

1 Introduction
This technical memorandum documents design calculations and assumptions for the geotechnical
aspects of the proposed continuous rock fill jetty in Roberts Bay, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. This
jetty will be part of the development infrastructure for the proposed Doris North Project, a small gold
mine being developed by Miramar Hope Bay Limited. Complete details and drawings of the
proposed jetty are documented in the following report;

SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. 2005. Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay,
Nunavut, Canada. Technical report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, Project No.
1CM014.006, October 2005.

This design is preliminary in nature, and is intended to be used to confirm general feasibility of the
concept proposed, and allow for cost estimation to 15% accuracy.
2 Preliminary Design
2.1 Design Approach
The continuous rock fill jetty will be constructed on soft marine sediments. It is therefore necessary
to confirm that the load applied by the jetty will be less than the allowable (ultimate) bearing
capacity of the marine sediments. For the purpose of this design it is reasonable to assume that the
base of the rock fill jetty is a shallow foundation (Holtz and Kovacs 1981).
2.2 Data Sources
Geotechnical data for the jetty foundation material has been documented in the Preliminary J etty
Design Report mentioned in Section 1 of this technical memorandum. This data includes drill holes,
in-situ vane shear testing and laboratory foundation indicator testing. The data is deemed adequate
to conduct a preliminary design for the jetty.
2.3 Applied Loads
2.3.1 Dead Loads
The limiting case for the proposed jetty geometry is described by a cross section through the jetty
head. This jetty head consists of a 25 m wide roadway crown over a 6.5 m deep fill with side slopes
of 1.2:1. Under this scenario, the base of the foundation is 40.8 m wide, and the water level is 1.5 m
below the roadway.

SRK Consulting Page 2 of 5

For a 1 m deep section through the jetty head fill, the volumes, unit weights, and total dead load for
the geometry described above are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Jetty head section volumes, unit weights, and loads.
Section Volume m
3
Unit Wt. (kN/m
3
) Load (kN)
Unsaturated upper fill 40.2 19.62 789
Saturated lower fill 173.0 9.81 (submerged) 1,697
Total fill 213.2 2,486

Thus, for a total area of 40.2 m
2
, the applied load of 2,486 kN, due to the weight of the fill, results in
an applied stress, q
a
, of 61.8 kPa over the area of the footing.
2.3.2 Live Loads
Live loads on the jetty include the traffic of loaders, as well as the action of ice, wind, and snow.
The action of ice, wind and snow are not considered here.

The total load applied by a Komastsu WA500-3 Wheeled Loader (the largest equipment to be used)
with a fully laden shipping container is approximately 48,100 kg. Over a 1 m deep section of the
jetty head, the applied load is equivalent to an additional increase in applied stress, q
a
, of 1.2 kPa.
2.3.3 Total Load
The total load exerted by the jetty on the marine foundation is thus the sum of the live and the dead
load, i.e. 61.8 +1.2 =63 kPa.
2.4 Bearing Capacity
Nilcon vane shear test results for the upper 5 m of marine sediment at the jetty head location are
summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Nilcon vane shear test results for proposed jetty head location.
Peak (kPa) Residual (kPa) Remoulded (kPa)
Maximum 28.1 12.7 4.4
Minimum 13.3 4.7 0.6
Average 20.4 8.6 3.2

The bearing capacity of the sediment was calculated on the basis of peak undrained shear strength of
15 kPa. The average plasticity index of CL samples taken from the proposed jetty location, and from
the 1997 investigation in the area (EBA 1997) was 17.5%, and no vane shear correction was applied
to field values.

For undrained loading at the surface of the marine sediment, the ultimate bearing capacity equation
reduces to:

q
u
=N
c
C
u

where, q
u
is ultimate bearing capacity, N
c
is a bearing capacity coefficient, and C
u
is the undrained
shear strength. The value of N
c
for a soft sediment varies to a maximum of 5.14. Accordingly, the
ultimate bearing capacity, q
u
, of the sediment is 77.1 kPa.

2.5 Bearing Capacity Factor of Safety
The factor of safety is calculated as follows:

F.S. =q
u
/q
a
=77.1 kPa / 63 kPa =1.22
2.6 Consolidation Settlement
2.6.1 Total Settlement
The proposed jetty will undergo settlement due to the consolidation of the underlying marine
sediment. Samples were not tested for compressibility, but total settlements and time to consolidation
are estimated here based on sample void content as determined from saturated water content, the
depth of the sediment layer, and assumed values of compression index and coefficient of
consolidation. Values of parameters used for the calculation of total settlement are included in
Table 3.

Table 3. Design values for consolidation calculations.
Component Value
Thickness of marine sediment layer 13 m
Saturated unit weight of marine sediment 18 kN/m
3

Initial effective stress at midpoint of the layer 53.2 kPa
Initial void ratio 1.27
Compression Index 0.25 to 0.5 (assumed)
Applied stress 62 kPa
Coefficient of consolidation 10 m
2
/year (assumed)

Assuming an increase in effective stress equal to the dead load of 61.8 kPa, the midpoint of the
profile will undergo a change in effective stress from 53.2 kPa to 115.2 kPa. The total expected
settlement is estimated to be approximately 0.5 m to 1.0 m.
2.6.2 Time Rate of Consolidation
Estimates of time of consolidation indicate up to 0.15 m settlement after one year, and up to 0.3 m
after 5 years. The actual rates of settlement may vary considerably from estimates.

Rates of consolidation are estimated from coefficient of consolidation. The coefficient of
consolidation of 10 m
2
/year listed in Table 3 was approximated from the average liquid limit of near
40% and Figure 9.10, page 404, Holtz and Kovacs (1981).

Time to consolidation is highly dependent on the hydraulic conductivity of the sediment, which was
not measured. The drilling program observed some sandier sediments, which will have higher
hydraulic conductivity than clay rich portions. The presence of sandy layers may increase the rate of
consolidation.
3 Design Options
Alternative geometries and the effect of including geosynthetic re-enforcement of the base of the
jetty fill were examined for effect on applied load q
a
and factor of safety, F.S.


3.1 Jetty Head Geometry
Options for decreasing the pressure at the base of the jetty head fill include flattening the side slopes,
and reducing the width of the fill. The variation in applied stress is illustrated in Table 4. The most
conservative design includes a design profile with a 6 m roadway with 4:1 side slopes. Predicted
loads are converted to factors of safety, F.S.s, in Table 5.

Table 4. Variation in applied stress, q
a
, due to changes in jetty head geometry.
Top Width (m)
Side Slope
(H:V) 25 15 10 6
1.2:1 61.2 55.6 51.1 46.1
2:1 55.6 50.0 46.1 42.0
3:1 51.1 46.1 42.7 39.6
4:1 48.2 43.6 40.8 38.2

Table 5. Factor of Safety for alternate jetty head geometries (excluding live loads).
Top Width (m)
Side Slope
(H:V) 25 15 10 6
1.2:1 1.26 1.39 1.51 1.67
2:1 1.39 1.54 1.67 1.84
3:1 1.51 1.67 1.80 1.95
4:1 1.60 1.77 1.89 2.02

3.2 Geosynthetic Re-Enforcement
The use of geosynthetic (geotextile and geogrid) re-enforcement at the base of the fill was
investigated for effect on bearing capacity (Koerner 2005). Two suppliers were also contacted for
information regarding the use of geosynthetics. Principle advantages to using a geosynthetic re-
enforcement at the base of the jetty fill include:

Prevent rock fill from sinking upon initial placement during construction
Reduction of differential settlements
Even distribution of stress over marine sediment allowing use of N
c
=5.14
Prevent movement of fines into overlying coarse layers

The soft marine sediments at the proposed jetty location may fail during construction if the ultimate
bearing capacity is exceeded. With time, the sediments will consolidate, and the allowable load will
increase. However, localized loading may cause a failure, and a geosynthetic re-enforced pad will
help reduce the potential for failure.

A possible re-enforcement configuration over the base of the jetty fill includes a multiple layer
structure of three to four layers of bi-axial geogrid, separated by 0.6 m of rock fill passing 30 cm.
The jetty embankment fill may be constructed directly on top of the re-enforced layers.


Case studies where geosynthetics has been used for this type of application are listed on the web site
of one of the suppliers (www.tenax.net/geosynthetics/case_history). SRK is not aware of any case
study of geosynthetic re-enforced pad constructed in an arctic environment. However, geosynthetics
are commonly used in conventional applications in the arctic (liners, ponds, etc.), and therefore there
is no reason to believe that this application would not be feasible. This statement is supported by the
suppliers that was contacted, that are prepared to guarantee their product for this application in the
arctic.
4 Recommendations for Further Work
Based on the results of this preliminary design, it is evident that a jetty can be constructed as
planned. Prior to conducting the detailed design it would be beneficial to conduct another field
investigation in the jetty foundation sediments, specifically to collect undisturbed samples upon
which triaxial shear testing and consolidation testing can be done.
5 References
EBA Engineering Consultants. 1997. Boston Gold Project Geotechnical Investigation Proposed
Roberts Bay Port. Report Submitted to BHP World Minerals, October.

Holtz, R.D., and Kovacs, W.D. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice-Hall
Inc. New J ersey, pp.733.

Koerner, R.M. 2005. Designing with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, N.J ., 796
pages.

Appendix G
Typical Geogrid Specifications
GE0 78.7 - E 02/04
TENAX LBO SAMP
Type: 220 - 330 - 440
Bi-oriented geogrids
TENAX LBO SAMP are polypropylene geogrids especially designed for soil stabilization and reinforcement applications.
The LBO SAMP geogrids are manufactured from a unique process of extrusion and biaxial orientation to enhance their tensile properties.
TENAX LBO SAMP features consistently high tensile strength and modulus, excellent resistance to construction damages and
environmental exposure. Furthermore, the geometry of the TENAX LBO SAMP allows strong mechanical interlock with the soil being
reinforced.
Typical applications
Base reinforcement; reduction of required structural fill; load distribution; reduction of mud pumping; subgrade stabilization; embankment
stabilization; slope reinforcement; erosion control mattresses.
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
TEST
METHOD
UNIT DATA NOTES
STRUCTURE BI-ORIENTED GEOGRIDS
MESH TYPE RECTANGULAR APERTURES
STANDARD COLOR BLACK
POLYMER TYPE POLYPROPYLENE
CARBON BLACK CONTENT ASTM D1603 2.0%
PACKAGING ISO 10320
ROLLS IN POLYETHYLENE BAGS
WITH I.D. LABEL
DIMENSIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS
TEST
METHOD
UNIT
LBO 220
SAMP
LBO 330
SAMP
LBO 440
SAMP
NOTES
APERTURE SIZE MD mm 41 40 34 b,d
APERTURE SIZE TD mm 31 27 27 b,d
MASS PER UNIT AREA ISO 9864 g/m 250 370 640 b
ROLL WIDTH m 4.0 4.0 4.0 b
ROLL LENGTH m 100 75 50 b
ROLL DIAMETER m 0.41 0.45 0.52 b
ROLL VOLUME m 0.69 0.81 1.10 b
GROSS ROLL WEIGHT kg 107.0 118.0 135.0 b
TECHNICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
TEST
METHOD
UNIT
LBO 220
SAMP
LBO 330
SAMP
LBO 440
SAMP
NOTES
MD TD MD TD MD TD
STRENGTH AT 2% STRAIN ISO 10319 kN/m 7.0 7.0 10.5 10.5 14.0 15.0 b,c,d
STRENGTH AT 5% STRAIN ISO 10319 kN/m 14.0 14.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 30.0 b,c,d
PEAK TENSILE STRENGTH ISO 10319 kN/m 20.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 a,c,d
YIELD POINT ELONGATION ISO 10319 % 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 b,c,d
NOTES:
a) 95% lower confidence limit values, ISO 2602
b) Typical values
c) Tests performed using extensometers
d) MD: machine direction (longitudinal to the roll)
TD: transverse direction (across roll width)
Typical Tensile Characteristics

TENAX LBO SAMP
0 5 10 15
STRAIN, [%]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
TENSILE STRENGTH, [kN/m]
C
B
A
MD
TENAX LBO SAMP
0 5 10 15
STRAIN, [%]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
TENSILE STRENGTH, [kN/m]
C
B
A
TD
GEOGRID TYPE:
A = TENAX LBO 220 SAMP
B = TENAX LBO 330 SAMP
C = TENAX LBO 440 SAMP
The TENAX Laboratory has been created in
1980 and has been continuously improved with the
purpose of assuring unequalled technical
development of the products and accurate Quality
Control,
The TENAX Laboratory can perform mechanical,
hydraulic and durability tests, according to the most
important international standards like ISO, CEN,
ASTM, DIN, BSI, UNI.

TENAX SpA
Geosynthetics Division
Via dell'Industria, 3
I-23897 Vigan (LC) ITALY
Tel. (+39) 039.9219307
Fax (+39) 039.9219200
e-mail: geo.div@tenax.net
Web Site: www.tenax.net
TENAX International B.V.
Geosynthetics Division
Via Ferruccio Pelli, 14
CH-6900 Lugano SWITZERLAND
Tel. (+41) 091.9242485
Fax (+41) 091.9242489
e-mail: geo@tenax.ch
Web Site: www.tenax.net

A4 Jetty Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A4 Jetty Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary Jetty Design

Doris North Project, Hope Bay

You might also like