Tailings Dam Breach Analysis –

Addressing the Challenges from Owner, Regulator,

Practitioners and Researchers Perspective

A state of practice
undergoing significant
changes

TAIINGS DAM BREACH ANALYSIS

Michel Julien, Agnico Eagle Mines

2

Context
Tailings management has been changing rapidly in the last 5 years:

1. State of Practice: undergoing important changes in response to recent events,

expectations of stakeholders/rights holders and technology

2. Change of Conditions: climate change, environment, land use and regulatory context

Dam Breach Analysis:

• Used to be done as a ticking box exercise

• Now, it is a sensitive study with huge consequences for operators and communities with
some important communication and disclosure considerations and links to ERP
3

DBA for Tailings Dams: a Complex Problem

• State of practice still not well established and based on very approximate
techniques ---- and these studies have huge consequences for a project

• May lead to wide range of scenarios – worst one will always prevail

• Default assumption: irrespective of engineering controls, the system will fail

• May lead to difficult conversations – talking about risk is difficult when private
properties involved

• Need to be ready to tackle complex messaging when agreement is reached

• Realism on what can be achieved with warning and alarm systems

4

Range of Behaviors
Failure of Brumadinho dam - Córrego do Feijão Failure of Cadia (2018) – slumping of
mine – January 25 2019 – massive liquefaction in embankment with limited liquefaction of tailings
14 seconds

As opposed to conventional water dams:

wide range of responses
5

The Main Challenges with Dam Breach Analysis

A state of practice that is still defining itself:

• Uncertainties with evaluation methods

• Uncertainties with tailings behavior after failure.

The practitioners in this field are taking naturally a defensive position:

• Fear of potential liabilities

• Tendency to give range of possibilities
• The worst case will be driving the design

The challenges with communicating the results:

• The invalidation of design – design may include additional robustness that become
invalidated
• The tough discussions of risk analysis when properties are involved
6

Stability Analysis versus Dam breach Analysis

• Stability analysis: solid practice – vs - Dam Breach Analysis: evolving state of practice
• Assumptions do not take into account the engineering controls
• Models vary from very theoretical to super empirical!
e.g. empirical relationships
Volume of tailings to be released : 𝑉𝐹 in Mm3
Total volume in the TSF: 𝑉𝑇 in Mm3
Distance of flow : 𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 in km
Height of dams: 𝐻 in m
𝑉𝐹 = 0.354 ∗ 𝑉𝑇1.01

𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.61 ∗ (𝐻𝑉𝐹 )0.66

Site 1 : approx. 100Mm 3 tailings stored→ Volume that could be released: 37M m 3 → distance : 200 km (H=40 m)

Site 2: approx 30 Mm 3 tailings stored → Volume that could be released: 11M m 3 → distance : 73 km (H=30m)

Concha Laurrauri, P. and U. Lall (2018). Tailings dam failures: updated statistical model for discharge and runout. Environments, 5:28
7

Assessment of the Tailings Behavior: Separated at Birth

Disconnect between design of tailings dam and dam breach analysis (geotech vs rheology)

Tailings dam design:

• Design done to avoid failure with parameters toward or at failure

• Determination of shear strength parameters: peak and post-peak and residual strength
• Reliability on in situ data (CPTu) supported with lab data

Dam breach analysis:

• Analysis done after failure
• The challenge is to determine the actual behavior of failed material
• Use of rheology (dynamic viscosity and yield stress) to determine resistance to flow
• Parameters determined in the lab generally for tailings transport equipment (e.g. pumps)
8

An Example
Excerpts from an actual report:
XXXX used the estimated solids content (70% to 73%) and the laboratory tested
yield strength (20 Pa) of the XXXX tailings to identify their flow behaviour when
mobilized.
Both “slurry flow” … and “granular flow” … were proposed as plausible, based on
literature sources.
Slurry flow was modelled using the Bingham Non-Newtonian Model, which led to
long run-out distances of the mobilized tailings.
Granular flow was modelled assuming a frictional rheology model as well as a
plastic rheology model.
9

An Example
Excerpts from an actual report:
Granular flow Slurry flow
Outcome :
Volume mobilized: 1Mm3 to 23.6Mm3
Flow max: 1200 m3/sec to 6150 m3/sec
Breach width: 100 m to 200 m
Distance: 400 m to +20 km
Residences impacted: <2 to >30

It took about 3 years to converge toward a reasonable range

10

Suggested Best Practices

• Aim is to reduce the range of possible scenarios

• Aim is to achieve alignment between different contributors on the range of

possibilities (Owner, Responsible Person, Engineer of Record, Designer and
Independent Reviewers) before presenting them formally

• When alignment achieved, the Owner needs to be prepared to update its

ERP and to communicate the outcome of the analysis to regulators and
impacted communities

• Realistic expectations on the usage of warning and alarm system

• The focus should be on the communication of risks and mitigation measures

already in place
THANKS