TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: February 9, 2012 Project No.: 113-81597FS

To: Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan Company: Lydian International, Ltd.

From: George Lightwood, Senior Mining Engineer Email: RKiel@Golder.com

Rick Kiel, Senior Geological Engineer

cc: Brent Bronson, Dale Armstrong, Gareth Digges la Touches, Alan Hull, Charlie Khoury (Golder);
Kathy Hicks & John Eyres (WAI); Brad Schwab (KD Engineering); Herb Welhener (IMC)

RE: STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS OVER PROPOSED AMULSAR MINING OPERATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum has been prepared in response to key stakeholder issues of concern in
relation to the proposed mining operations at Amulsar. Specifically, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) has
developed technical responses to the following three comments and questions that have been raised by
stakeholders: (1) the effects of blast vibrations on the supply and quality of Jermuk mineral water; (2) the
effect on the national drinking water lake and water quality in general; and (3) whether blasting and
vibrations can cause an earthquake, thereby leading to effects on items 1 and 2, or present a risk to the
Kechut reservoir. A similar response to stakeholder concerns over the potential for blast vibrations to
cause damage to buildings was addressed by Wardell Armstrong Inc. (WAI) and this response is included
as Attachment A to this technical memorandum.

2.0 EFFECTS OF BLASTING ON NATURAL SPRINGS NEAR JERMUK

Natural springs are located near the town of Jermuk, which is located approximately 12 km northwest of
the proposed open pit mine. The regional groundwater flow paths near the town of Jermuk and around
the Amulsar project are shown on Figure 1. While we do not believe that blasting at the mine will affect
springs in Jermuk, the mere knowledge that blasting is taking place may induce some individuals to have
concerns that blasting is affecting the flow from the springs. The following provides some discussion on
impacts of vibrations from blasting to help alleviate these concerns.

The maximum level of vibration induced from blasting is measured as the peak particle velocity and is
dependent on the weight of explosive detonated and distance from the blast. For a given amount of
explosive detonated within an 8 millisecond (ms) delay period, the peak particle velocity decays with
distance from the blast. Explosive charges detonated at time intervals greater than 8 ms do not
constructively interfere, that is, they do not add together to increase vibrations.

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Golder Associates Inc.
44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, CO 80228 USA
Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 2 113-81597FS

The effects of blasting induced vibrations on structures and natural features are typically based on
damage surveys of structures located near blasts with corresponding vibration measurements. Golder
did not locate specific references on the effects of blast-induced vibration on natural springs; however, we
did locate and review numerous studies on the effects of blasting vibrations on water wells. While we do
not know the condition of the natural springs in Jermuk, there are similarities between water wells and a
natural spring, particularly if a casing has been installed in the spring to facilitate water production.

A summary of the results of the studies on blasting effects on water wells is provided by Suskind (2000).
In these studies peak particle velocities of the blast induced vibrations ranged from 0.5 to 25 inches per
second (13 to 635 mm/s) for wells as close as 56 feet (17 m) from the blast zone. In one study (Suskind,
et al.) the first signs of blasting included damage to the bond of a cement well casing occurred at 4.7 in/s
(119 mm/s), however, in all cases, including a case where the measured peak particle velocities were
25 in/s (635 mm/s), the wells are reported to have maintained pressure and well casing was undamaged.
Suskind (2000) lists 5 in/s (127 mm/s) as the peak particle velocity tolerance for buried utilities, including
wells and pipelines.

The predicted peak particle velocities for typical bench blasting in open pit mines are based on empirical
vibration attenuation relationship as follows (ISEE, 1998).

𝐷 −1.6
𝑉 = 𝐻� � , where
𝑊 0.5

 V is the peak particle velocity in millimeters per second (mm/s)

 D is the distance from the explosive charge to the point of measurement in meters (m)
 W is the maximum weight of the explosive charge detonated per 8 millisecond (ms) delay
in kilograms (kg)
 H is the ground response factor and is equal to the following values:
 Lower bound of typical data: H = 172
 Average value of typical data: H = 1140
 Upper bound of typical data: H = 1752

We understand that the mine expects to use two types of explosives, ammonium nitrate fuel oil mix
(ANFO) and emulsion explosives. The maximum charge weight per delay is expected to be 44 kg of
emulsion in wet holes and 161 kg of ANFO in dry holes. The town of Jermuk is approximately 12 km from
the proposed open pit. Based on the above blast vibration attenuation relationships, the weight of
explosive per delay, and the distance between the mine and Jermuk, the expected range of peak particle
velocities at Jermuk induced from the blasting at the mine would range from approximately 0.003 to
0.03 mm/s. This is approximately four orders of magnitude (10,000 times) less than the vibration
tolerance threshold for wells and buried utilities (Suskind, 2000). Furthermore the safe distance from any
blast to a nearby well, based on the a vibration tolerance of 127 mm/s PPV is calculated to be

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 3 113-81597FS

approximately 65 m based on the upper bound of vibrations measured from typical bench blasting. By
comparison, the town of Jermuk is 12 km away, about 200 times the safe distance from the blasting
operations.

While we do not believe that blasting at the mine will affect springs in Jermuk, the mere knowledge that
blasting is taking place may induce some individuals to have concerns that blasting is affecting the flow
from the springs. This is analogous to the complaints residential well owners make regarding effects of
blasting on domestic water wells. Matheson, et al. (1997), summarized information on the most common
complaints regarding blasting effects on water wells, the possible causes of the complaints, and the
relation between blasting and the complaint causes. This publication stated:

“Probably the most frequent blast related complaint is that a well has “gone dry.” Related
complaints about reductions in ground water quantity are also common. Blasting does not
cause wells to go dry or reduce the water quantity available to a well.
“The major complaints for changes in well water production capacity include loss of quantity
production, air in water and/or water lines, damage to pump, and damage to well screen or
borehole.
“The review of research and common causes of these problems indicates that most of these
complaints are not related to blasting and can be shown to be related to either environmental
factors, poor well construction, or wells whose elements required repair or replacement prior
to blasting.”

3.0 EFFECTS TO WATER QUALITY

Potential effects to water quality on nearby Kechut Reservoir or to the Vorotan River and Lake Spandaryn
and nearby villages will be managed by programmatic environmental controls as well as design and
engineering controls that have been incorporated in the design for the heap leach and process area
facilities, the waste stockpile storage area, and by development of a site drainage plan which will include
surface water diversions and stormwater and erosion protection measures. In addition, the project will
include groundwater and process solution fluid monitoring systems adjacent to all facilities consistent with
international standard of care and practice for similar mining operations. The potential effects to water
quality are addressed below due to blasting and to operations. Figure 1 shows the Amulsar Project
facilities relative to the main water bodies in the vicinity.

3.1 Effects on Water Quality Due to Blasting

A commonly specified limiting vibration tolerance for structures in the United States is a range from
0.5 in/s to 0.2 in/s (5 mm/s to 50 mm/s). This is supported from studies by the United States Bureau of
Mines (Suskind, et al., 1980). This is also the basis for the regulation of blasting induced vibrations from
coalmines in United States by the Office of Surface Mining. These limits were set to prevent cosmetic
threshold “hairline” cracking in residential structures from blast-induced vibrations. The vibration level

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 4 113-81597FS

required for compromising the structural integrity of the residence or building is much greater than these
limiting threshold values.

Suskind (2000) lists the key USBM findings from the study:

 “Lowest cracking value from all studies: 0.51 in/s (13 mm/s)
 “Lowest USBM value for crack extension in plaster: 0.72 mm/s (18 mm/s)
 “Lowest USBM value for crack extension in wallboard: 0.79 mm/s (20 mm/s)
 “Lowest USBM valued crack in concrete masonry, also called concrete block: 6.37 in/s
(162 mm/s)”

Based on the above blast vibration attenuation relationships and considering that the maximum charge
weight per delay is 161 kg, limiting threshold vibrations for the onset of cosmetic damage might occur at
distances of 70 to 300 meters from the blast. Beyond this distance, the decay of the peak particle velocity
would result in values much lower than this threshold value shown through studies to result in even the
most superficial damage to structures. The Kechut Reservoir Dam is located 9 km from the open pit, so it
is inconceivable that blasting at the open pit would affect the structural integrity of the dam. We
understand that the National Drinking Water Lake (Lake Sevan) receives water from tunnels that are
connected to Lake Kechut. Lake Kechut is in turn connected to Lake Spandaryn. It is Golder’s
understanding that gravity conveyance from Lake Spandaryn to Lake Kechut does not occur due to
problems encountered during construction. Lake Spandaryn is located 8 km from the open pit and Lake
Kechut is located 9 km from the open pit, so it is not reasonable that blasting at the open pit would affect
the structural integrity of any of the hydraulic features at either Lake Spandaryn or Lake Kechut, thereby
affecting the National Drinking Water supply at Lake Sevan.

3.2 Effects on Water Quality Due to Amulsar Project Operations

There is a variety of ways that water quality could potentially be affected by mining operations at the
Amulsar Project. To prevent this from occurring, Lydian and its consultants will include programmatic and
design controls as part of the planning and design for the various project components so that water
quality is not affected. Mining operations with the highest potential to impact water quality include
(1) transportation of materials and chemicals to the project site; (2) operations of the heap leach facility;
(3) management of mine waste and stockpiles, (4) open pit and haulage operations; and (5) camp facility
and administrative operations.

3.2.1 Handling, Management & Transportation of Materials & Chemicals

Lydian will implement procedures and protocols for the safe handling, management, and transportation of
materials and chemicals during transport to the site and while in storage and in use on the project site.
Lydian intends to become a signatory to the International Cyanide Management Code (ICMC, 2006) and
have initiated a preliminary internal audit protocol document that focuses exclusively on the safe

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 5 113-81597FS

management of cyanide. Additional protocols and operating procedures for other materials and
chemicals, such as petroleum products and lubricants, explosives, and general supplies will be in place
prior to start of operations. The company will also implement new miner training and orientation similar to
those procedures developed in the US by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to assure
that workers are adequately trained in handling and working with the various chemicals and materials
used in the mining and processing of gold ore for the Amulsar Project.

3.2.2 Heap Leach Facility Operations

The heap leach facility (HLF) at Site 6 will consist of a composite lined heap leach pad and composite
double-lined process ponds and an adsorption-desorption-recovery (ADR) plant located along a gently
sloping plateau east of the Vorotan River. The heap leach and associated process facilities will be
designed, operated and decommissioned in accordance with the ICMC guidelines. Features associated
with the ADR plant and HLF operations include diesel generators and fuel storage, reagent and cyanide
storage tanks and facilities and associated ADR plant buildings. Secondary containment for all of the
ADR plant components will be included in the design and typically will include concrete and/or
geomembrane lined areas with collection sumps to manage and contain any spills. A composite lined
stormwater pond is included in the design downgradient of the process ponds to allow for containment of
stormwater from large rainstorms, snowmelt, and operational upsets such as loss of power. The process
and stormwater ponds are currently designed to accommodate 150% of the 100-year, 24-hour design
storm event runoff from the Ultimate pad and collection pond areas. The final issued for construction
level design will verify that the process and stormwater ponds will also safely contain inflows from the
wettest month in the climate database. An additional level of emergency containment is planned for the
project to include a clay-lined overflow pond located downgradient from the stormwater pond to contain
any potential overflow from the HLF collection pond system that exceeds the project design containment
criteria mentioned above.

In addition to these design containment features, leak collection and recovery systems (LCRS) and leak
detections systems are planned for the heap leach pad and the process ponds as a first means of
detection and containment of any potential leaks from the HLF. The LCRS systems are designed in the
ponds to allow for containment, collection and recovery (i.e., pumpback) of solutions that leak from the
upper primary liner and to ensure there is no hydraulic head on the lower secondary liner, to minimize any
potential for offsite migration. Further monitoring and controls will include downgradient groundwater
monitoring wells located between the HLF and the Vorotan River. Details of the HLF design, leak
detection and LCRS monitoring components are included in technical memoranda prepared by Golder
(Golder, November and December 2011). The closest point of potential impact to surface water
downgradient from the HLF is the Vorotan River located 1,200 meters to the east. The above design
containment features, combined with good operating practices, will provide a high level of engineering
and programmatic environmental controls to prevent impacts to the groundwater or Vorotan River in this

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 6 113-81597FS

vicinity. More details of the complete design and monitoring systems will be provided in the Bankable
Feasibility Study (BFS).

3.2.3 Mine Waste & Stockpile Management

The project will include mine waste stockpiles and stockpiles of growth media (topsoil and local
overburden) for use during reclamation. Engineered controls will be developed to manage surface water
and groundwater impacts from the mine waste stockpiles and stockpiles required. The design of these
engineered controls will depend on the results of ongoing waste rock geochemical characterization and
will be designed to prevent impacts related to potential acid mine drainage or metal leaching from the
mine waste stockpile and/or growth media stockpiles. These controls may consist of underdrains for
control and management of seepage below the waste stockpile, downgradient collection ponds, passive
or active water treatment facilities, surface water diversion channels, and sediment ponds. More details
of the complete design and monitoring systems will be provided in the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS).

3.2.4 Open Pit Mining & Haulage Operations

The project will include phased development of open pits and construction of haul roads and conveyor
systems for transport of waste and ore to the waste stockpile and heap leach facility, respectively.
Engineered controls and operating procedures will be included in the design and put in place by Lydian to
prevent impacts to water quality. Lydian will develop an explosive management program to properly
manage ANFO storage and handling and manage the blasts to control or otherwise limit incomplete
blasting to avoid impacts to surface water or groundwater. Surface water management will include
surface water diversions and controls adjacent to disturbed areas to prevent nonimpacted run-on water
from becoming impacted and to prevent impacted waters from bypassing any containment controls. Mine
impacted areas that will be managed include mine pits, haul roads, conveyor corridor, mine waste
stockpiles and the heap leach facility. More details of the complete design and monitoring systems will be
provided in the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS).

3.2.5 Camp Facility Operations

The project will include a mine camp and administration facility to house workers. This is planned for
development near the HLF along the road from Gorayk. The mine camp facilities would include
engineered controls for management of ordinary household waste and wastewater from the camp. More
details of the complete design will be provided in the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS).

4.0 EFFECTS OF BLASTING ON EARTHQUAKES

Most earthquakes are caused by movement along faults in the earth’s crust and are assumed to originate
from a point referred to as the focus or hypocenter. The focal depth can be tens to several hundred
kilometers below the surface of the earth, which is much greater than either the depth of the open pit or
the depth of any blast hole. For example, the minimum focal depth for magnitude 5 earthquakes in

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 7 113-81597FS

eastern North America has been estimated to be approximately 3.0 km (Alexander and Zamani, 2002). In
contrast, the depth of the proposed open pit is about 150 m, which is an order of magnitude less than the
estimated focal depth of the shallowest moderate sized earthquake.

Hawkins, (2000) notes that some earthquakes have been shown to impact shallow groundwater flow in
the Appalachian Plateau. Hawkins also provides an example of a 5.2 magnitude earthquake that is
believed to have dewatered some wells near Jamestown, Pennsylvania in 1998. Oriard (1999) cites
examples of fluctuations in wells resulting from the Alaska earthquake of 1964, a magnitude
9.2 earthquake (Kramer, 1996). Hawkins notes that a rough equivalency between the energy released
from a magnitude 1.0 earthquake is approximately 90,000 kg of explosive per delay and that a magnitude
5.0 earthquake releases approximately 10,000 times the energy as a magnitude 1.0 earthquake. As the
maximum anticipated charge weight per delay in the open pit is 161 kg, the amount of energy released by
a blast is many orders of magnitude less than that released by an earthquake.

Since the shallowest earthquakes originate much deeper in the earth’s crust and release an amount of
energy many orders of magnitude greater than a typical blast in an open pit mine, blasting at the open pit
mine will not result in earthquakes, and particularly the magnitude of earthquakes associated with
fluctuations in water levels observed in wells. Therefore, since blasting will not result in earthquakes, no
effects related to blasting will result to the water supply at either Kechut Reservoir or Lake Spandaryn.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The planned engineering design, controls and operating procedures as discussed in this technical
memorandum, combined with the distance of the mine pit and facilities from Lake Spandaryn and Lake
Kechut provide a robust system of controls to prevent impacts to water quality.

Specifically as presented in this technical memorandum, and provided that the design, controls and
operating procedures are properly implemented and maintained by Lydian the supply and quality of
Jermuk mineral water should not be effected. Additionally, the national drinking water lake (at Lake
Sevan) and water quality in general should not be effected regionally or locally; and blasting and
vibrations are not estimated to be significant enough to cause an earthquake, thereby leading to effects
on either the Jermuk mineral water or present a risk to the Kechut or Spandaryn reservoirs.

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

Gary Patrick & Armen Stepanyan February 9, 2012
Lydian International, Ltd. 8 113-81597FS

6.0 REFERENCES
Alexander, S.S., and A. Zamani. 2002. Magnitude-Dependent Minimum Focal Depth for Earthquakes in
Easter North America, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #S21B-0996.

Golder Associates Inc. 2011. Conceptual Design and Scoping Level Cost Estimates, Site 6 Heap Leach
Facility, Technical Memorandum dated November 29, 2011.

Golder Associates Inc. 2011. International Cyanide Management Code Internal Audit Protocol, Amulsar
Project. September.

Golder Associates Inc. 2012. Heap Leach Facility Overflow Pond and LCRS Features, Letter dated
December 14.

Hawkins, J. 2000. Impacts of Blasting on Domestic Water Wells, paper presented at the Workshop on
Mountaintop Mining Effects on Groundwater, May 9.

International Cyanide Management Code 2006. International Cyanide Management Institute,

International Cyanide Management Code for the Manufacture, Transport and Use of Cyanide in the
Production of Gold. www.cyanidecode.org.
th
ISEE. 1998. Blaster’s Handbook, 17 ed., International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, Ohio.

Kramer, S. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.

Matheson, G.M., and D.K. Miller. 1997. “Blast Vibration Damage to Water Supply Well Water Quality
and Quantity,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting
Technique, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Oriard, L.L. 1999. Explosives Engineering, Construction Vibrations, and Geotechnology, International
Society of Explosive Engineers. Cleveland, Ohio.

Suskind, D.E., and M.S. Stagg. 1994b. Surface Mine Blasting Near Pressurized Transmission Pipelines,
Mining Engineering, December, pp. 1357-1360.

Suskind, D.E. 2000. Vibrations from Blasting, International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland,
Ohio.

Suskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.E. Wiegand, and C.H. Dowding. 1994a. Surface Mine Blasting Near
Pressurized Transmission Pipelines. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 9523, 51 pp.

Suskind, D.E., V.J. Stachura, M.S. Stagg, and J.W. Kopp. 1980. Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507, 74 pp.

I:\11\81597FS\0100\0122 TM\015_TM_Rev0\11381597FS_015_TM_Rev0 ResponseToStakeholderConcerns 09FEB12.docx

FIGURES
 45°20'0"E 45°30'0"E 45°40'0"E 45°50'0"E

LEGEND

Estimated Regional Groundwater Flow Paths

Ar
pa Amulsar
Dr Jermuk
a in
a ge Basin

Jermuk Springs
Geothermal Water Holes
Geothermal Water Well Springs
Sources of Fresh Water
Sources of Mineral Water

Jermuk rot
an
Water Holes
Vo iver
z R
Site Features

39°50'0"N
39°50'0"N

Project Licenses Boundary

Road from Jermuk to Amulsar Project
Vorot
an Drainage Basin Boundaries
Kechut Dra
Reservoir ina Water Body
ge
B a si n H
! Site Features (see map for details)
Vorotan River
Potential Waste Rock Proposed Mine Location
Storage H
!
Site Gas Pipeline
Pi Ga
pe s
lin
e
C:\Users\DZelmanFahm\Desktop\11x17_Flowpath-dga_drainagebasins.mxd | 2/9/2012 1:30:49 PM | DZelmanfahm

Amulsar
Mine Pit
Heap Leach

Project
Facility H
!
REFERENCES
Ga
sP Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 38N.
i pe
lin
e

39°40'0"N
39°40'0"N

Da

4,800 2,400 0 4,800

D
ra
rb

METERS
in SCALE 1:200,000 1 CENTIMETER = 2,000 METERS
ag WHEN PRODUCED AT SIZE 11X17IN (27.94 X 43.18CM)
e Lake
Ba Spandaryn
PROJECT

sin LYDIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

AMULSAR GOLD PROJECT
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
GORAYK, ARMENIA
TITLE

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW PATHS

JERMUK AND AMULSAR AREA
PROJECT No. 11381597FS FILE No. N/A

DESIGN DA 2/9/2012 SCALE AS SHOWN REV 0

GIS DZF 2/9/2012

45°20'0"E 45°30'0"E 45°40'0"E 45°50'0"E

CHECK REK 2/9/2012 FIGURE 1
Tucson, AZ REVIEW BRB 2/9/2012
 ATTACHMENT A
STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY WARDELL ARMSTRONG INC.
Wardell Armstrong International
Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6EH, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)1872 560738 Fax: +44 (0)1872 561079 www.wardell-armstrong.com

Our Ref: 52-0088 3rd February 2012

FAO: Armen Stepanyan

Lydian International Ltd,
1st Floor – Capstan House,
St. Helier,
Jersey
JE2 4ZY

Cursory Assessment of Blast Vibration from Amulsar Open Pit Mine in Relation to
Potential Building Damage

In blasting, the ground vibration measured at a certain point is dependent upon the amount of
explosive and the distance of the blast from the point. The level of vibration will rise as the
amount of explosive increases; and will decrease as the distance between the blast and the
monitoring location (and/or sensitive receptor) increases. The amount of explosive is taken as the
largest amount which is detonated at one particular instant in time, or the Maximum
Instantaneous Charge (MIC).

Many blasts are multi-hole blasts and can have delays between each hole being detonated, which
is an excellent way of reducing vibrations. However, it should be remembered that the generally
accepted "8 millisecond rule" suggests that any holes detonated within 8ms of each other should
be considered as going off simultaneously. Therefore to reduce the MIC, charges should be
detonated at least 8ms apart.

The mine expects to use two types of explosives: ANFO in dry holes and emulsion explosives in
wet holes. The MIC is expected to be no greater than 161kg of either ANFO or wet hole explosive.
The distance to the edge of the town in question (Jermuk) is approximately 15km from the
proposed open pit. The nearest village (Gorayk) is situated approximately 5km distant.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Wardell Armstrong International is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong International Limited, INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
Registered in England No. 3813172
LAND AND PROPERTY
Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom
MINING, QUARRYING AND MINERAL ESTATES
UK Offices: Stoke-on-Trent, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, London,
Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, Truro, West Bromwich. International Offices: Almaty, Beijing WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Using the US Bureau of Mines formula:

�Q
V = 1140 � R �1.6
where V= vibration in peak particle velocity (mm/s), Q = MIC (kg) and R = distance (m) between
charge point and point of potential damage.

In relation to Jermuk, V = 0.0138mm/s for the worst case scenario of the 161kg of explosive. This
level of ground vibration would be impossible to detect using a geophone. In relation to Gorayk, V =
0.0802.

The recommended vibration limits are usually imposed for the following structures:

• Historic or monument buildings of special significance – 2mm/s;

• Houses and low rise residential commercial buildings – 10mm/s, and
• Commercial/industrial buildings of reinforced concrete/steel construction – 25mm/s.

It is common practice to maintain a vibration of less than 5mm/s at most dwellings. A MIC of 161kg is
expected to produce a peak particle velocity of 2mm/s at a distance of 650m, 5mm/s at 375m and
10mm/s at 240m from the perimeter of the pit. This is considered to be conservative and is
demonstrated in Figure 1 (to be used for estimation purposes only), over page.

In conclusion, the likelihood of a building located in Jermuk, at 15km or more from the open pit, or of
a dwelling located in Gorayk village being damaged from blast vibration is zero.

We trust this is helpful.

Yours sincerely
for Wardell Armstrong International Ltd

BRUCE PILCHER
Principal Mining Engineer
bpilcher@wardell-armstrong.com

2
 Figure 1 - Vibration Graph.

𝑅
Based on 𝑉 = 1140(𝐷)−1.6 Where V is vibration (PPV) and D is scaled distance� 1�. This applies to a single
𝑄
2
instantaneous charge. If multiple short delay firing is being used, the effective instantaneous charge may be
considered as 1.5 times the charge per delay. Note logarithmic scale.