Slope Stability Analysis Veladero Mine

1746 Cole Blvd, Suite 130
Lakewood, CO 80401
P: 303.532.5300
Technical Memorandum
T O: Project Files
FROM: Alcides Panez, Dante Bolanos P.E.
REVIEWED BY: Troy Meyer P.E.
DATE: 2021/11/10
PROJECT
NAME: Veladero Dam Safety Review
PROJECT NO.: 713.001
SUBJECT: Slope Stability Analysis –Phase 1 and Phase 6 Embankment
CC: Julio Torino, Miguel Gutierrez, Julio Juarez
ATTACHMENTS: A: Stability Analysis Cross-Section Location
B: Analysis for Phase 1 Embankment
C: Analysis for Phase 6 Embankment
D: Analysis for Phase 6 Embankment Downstream Slope
E: Analysis for Phase 6 Embankment Foundation Strength
1.0 Introduction
Tierra Group International, Ltd. (Tierra Group) completed slope stability analyses to support the
dam safety review (DSR) for the Veladero Valley Heap Leach Facility (HLF). The current facility
was constructed in six phases, including two in-heap solution storage ponds with retention
embankments, one at Phase 1 and the second at Phase 6. Phases 1 through 6 are currently
operating. Phase 7 construction is scheduled to start by the fourth quarter of 2021.
The objective of the slope stability analyses is to evaluate the overall physical stability of the
solution pond retention embankments under static and seismic conditions. This memorandum
presents the slope stability analysis for the solution pond retention embankments for Phase 1 and
Phase 6 (Phase 1 Embankment and Phase 6 Embankment).
2.0 Section Geometry

Critical cross-sections were selected to evaluate the retention embankments. The sections were
developed with AutoCAD and then imported into GEOSLOPE. The ore heap was modeled as fully
loaded, based on the loading plan provided by the mine. Cross-section locations are shown in
plan view (Figure 01, Attachment A).
Veladero Mine | Slope Stability Analysis Minera Andina del Sol S.R.L.
3.0 Slope Stability Analysis

3.1 Methodology
Limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were completed using the computer program SLOPE/W
Version 11.0 (GEOSLOPE, 2021). SLOPE/W allows the use of several methods to search for the
critical slip surface, the surface with the lowest factor of safety (FOS) for a given geometry,
material properties, and pore water pressure distribution. The Morgenstern-Price method was
selected and used because this method satisfies both force and moment equilibrium.
3.2 Slope Stability Criteria
The minimum required FOS for the embankments were adopted based on Barrick’s Tailings and
Heap Leach Management Standard (2016). Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize these requirements
for the retention embankments (dams) and ore pile, respectively. It should be noted that the
criteria for the dams may be applicable to the ore pile if failure of the ore pile would impact the
integrity of the retention embankments and release process fluid from the ponds.
TABLE 3.1: BARRICK’S MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTORS OF SAFETY (DAM)
Phases Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake

Construction 1.3 1.1 1.1
Operation and Closure 1.5 1.1 1.1
TABLE 3.2: BARRICK’S MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTORS OF SAFETY (LEACH FACILITY)

Construction 1.3 1.0 1.1
Table 3.3 lists the minimum required FOS for embankments according to the Canadian Dam
Association (CDA, 2019) Guidelines for comparison with Table 3.1 (provided for reference only).
TABLE 3.3: CDA MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTORS OF SAFETY (DAM)

Construction 1.3 [1] 1.0 1.2
[1]
Note: It should not be simply adopted because it is “End construction”. It will depend on risk
assessment during construction.
3.3 Site Seismicity

Golder Associates (Golder) conducted a site seismic hazard assessment (SHA) in 2017,
completed in two parts:
713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 2 of 13

 SHA for the soil foundation underlying the pregnant solution storage area (Phase 1 In-
Heap Solution Pond) using an average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters (m)
(VS,30 = 500 meters per second (m/s)); and
 SHA for shallow bedrock site using a VS,30 = 1,000 m/s.
Table 3.4 summarizes the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) estimated by Golder.
TABLE 3.4: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PGA
50th
Foundation Condition 1/475 1/2,475 84th Percentile [1]
Percentile [1]
VS,30 = 500 m/s 0.48g 0.82g 0.45g 0.83g
VS,30 = 1,000 m/s 0.33g 0.57g 0.33g 0.62g
[1]
Note: Weighted average of ground-motion predictions. 50th percentile is the median and 84th percentile is the
median plus one standard deviation.
Tierra Group performed a review of the SHA completed by Golder (Golder, 2017). Based on
recommendations from this SHA and the geotechnical assessment completed by Knight Piesold
for the Phase 6 design, Tierra Group adopted PGAs estimated for VS,30 = 500 m/s and 1,000 m/s.
3.4 Hazard Classification

Knight Piésold Argentina Consultores S.A. (Knight Piésold, 2019a) completed a high-level hazard
consequence classification for the Phase 1 Embankment using the CDA guidelines. A “High”
hazard classification was selected, which is the second-highest in the CDA guidelines. However,
the hazard classification was updated and listed as “extreme” in the Knight Piésold design basis
document for Phases 6 through 9 (Knight Piésold, 2020).
Under the Barrick 2016 guidelines, the design earthquake for an “Extreme” consequence
classification is 1 in 10,000-year (probabilistic approach) or maximum credible earthquake (MCE),
estimated by a deterministic approach. The MCE (PGA=0.83g and 0.62g) were selected to
evaluate the stability of the retention embankments.
3.5 Seismic Stability Modeling

Pseudo-static analyses for the embankments were performed for seismic loading conditions. A
horizontal loading coefficient of 0.42g and 0.31g were applied as inertial forces, equal to one-half
the PGA (MCE). Additional pseudo-static analyses were completed with a horizontal loading
coefficient of 0.24g (PGA=0.48g, 475-year event, VS,30 = 500 m/s) and 0.17g (PGA=0.33g,
475-year event, VS,30 = 1,000 m/s).
In addition to pseudo-static loading conditions, simplified seismic-induced deformations were

estimated. Simplified deformation analysis evaluates earthquake-induced deformation of slopes
based on the Newmark method. The Newmark approach uses a sliding block analogy, where a
rigid block slides down an inclined plane when subjected to a pseudo-static horizontal
acceleration that results in a FOS less than 1.0. Variations of the Newmark method are grouped
into four categories: rigid-block, decoupled, coupled, and a unified approach.

A simplified deformation calculation method was determined using the Jibson (2011) approach.
The approach is based on the period ratio (Ts/Tm), which is the fundamental site period (Ts) divided
by the mean period of the earthquake motion (Tm). The site period is calculated using the
maximum vertical distance between the ground surface and the slip surface, and the shear-wave
velocity of the material above the slip surface. The mean period is calculated based on the
earthquake moment magnitude and the source distance. In theory, a coupled analysis offers the
best results; however, for period ratios below 0.1, when the landslide acts as a rigid block, the
rigid-block method is more appropriate (Jibson, 2011).
The calculated period ratios were estimated to be greater than 0.1, indicating that a coupled
analysis method would provide the best results. Tierra Group selected the Bray and Travasarou
(2007) method (a coupled analysis model), included in the Seismic Landslide Movement Modeled
using Earthquake Records (SLAMMER) program developed by the United States Geologic
Survey (USGS, 2013).
3.6 Material Properties

Material properties for the foundation, embankment fills, liner interface, and ore were adopted
from the design reports for the different phases, as well as inspection and slope stability analysis
reports. Material properties adopted for the stability analysis for Phase 1 and Phase 6
Embankments are summarized in Tables 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.
TABLE 3.5: SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES (PHASE 1 EMBANKMENT)
Unit Effective Friction Angle (°)

Cohesion
Materials Weight Pseudo- Post-
(kPa) Static
(kN/m3) Static Earthquake
Foundation (Rock) 24 [1] 0 45° [1] 45° [1] 45° [1]
Foundation (Soil) 20 [1] 0 38.5 [1] 38.5 [1] 38.5 [1]
Embankment Fill (Rock) 18 [1] 0 40° [1] 40° [1] 40° [1]
Embankment Fill (Structural) 15.7 [1] 0 32° [1] 32° [1] 32° [1]
Ore 20 [1] 0 35° [1] 35° [1] 35° [1]
Ore (Saturated) 18 [1] 0 30° [1] 30° [1] 30° [1]
Phase 1 Liner System 20 [1] Normal/Shear Stress Function [2]
Phase 2 (2B&2C) Liner System 20 [1] Normal/Shear Stress Function [3]
[1]
Notes: Adopted from Golder’s design for Phase 1 (2002) and Golder’s Dam Inspection (2012).
[2] Based on interface testing to support Golder’s design for Phase 1 (2002). 80-mil linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE) smooth geomembrane versus soil liner.
[3] Based on interface testing to support Vector’s design for Phase 2B&2C (2008). 80-mil LLDPE textured
geomembrane versus soil liner.

TABLE 3.6: SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES (PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT)
Unit Effective Friction Angle (°)

Materials Weight Cohesion Pseudo- Post-
(kN/m3) Static
(kPa) Static Earthquake
Foundation (Natural Ground) 19 [1] 0 30 [1] 30 [1] 30 [1]
Embankment Fill (Structural) 20 [1] 0 35° [1] 35° [1] 35° [1]
Ore 18 [1] 0 35° [2] 35° [2] 35° [2]
Ore (Saturated) 18 [1] 0 30° [3] 30° [3] 30° [3]
Phase 6 Liner System 19 [4] Normal/Shear Stress Function [4]
[1]
Notes: Adopted from Knight Piesold slope stability analysis for Phase 6 (2019b).
[2] Adopted from Phase 1 Design. Knight Piesold modeled the ore using direct shear test data. No triaxial test
data was provided to Tierra Group to complete these analyses.
[3] Tierra Group assumed 30° to model the saturated ore for Phase 6. Similar to the approach adopted by
Golder to evaluate Phase 1 Embankment.

[4] Based on material properties and interface testing adopted by Knight Piesold for Phase 6 (2019b). 80-mil
LLDPE single side textured geomembrane versus soil liner. Testing completed in November 2015 and
reported in 2016 (Knight Piésold, 2016).
It is unclear how the 30-degree friction angle for Phase 6 Embankment foundation was estimated.
During the October 2021 site visit, Tierra Group requested additional details for the foundation
strength properties from Knight Piésold. At the time this document was prepared, the requested
information was yet not available.
3.6.1 Liner System Interface

For facilities such as heap leach pads and municipal landfills, the liner system interface tends to
control the stability of the structure due to the low-strength interfaces between the geosynthetic
products and the materials underlying and/or overlying them. Through the years, different
interface tests were completed for Veladero HLF for the different phases. Interface data for
Phases 1, 2, 2B&2C (Golder, 2002; Vector, 2008) and Phase 6 (Knight Piésold, 2019b) were
evaluated for the analyses reported herein. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 presents plots of normal stress
versus shear stress (peak and residual strength, respectively) for Phase 1, 2, and 2B&2C.
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 presents plots of normal stress versus shear stress (peak and residual
strength, respectively) for Phase 6.

PEAK
1,800
1,600
1,400
Shear Stress (kPa) 1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Normal Stress (kPa)
Phase1(2002)‐GSE 80mil LLDPE smooth Geomemb. vs Soil Liner
Phase2(Aug2006)‐GSE 80mil LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Geocomposite
Phase2B&2C(Feb2008)‐80mil LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Soil Liner
FIGURE 3.1: PHASE 1 - NORMAL STRESS VERSUS SHEAR STRESS (PEAK STRENGTH)
RESIDUAL
1,800
1,600
1,400
Shear Stress (kPa)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Normal Stress (kPa)
Phase1(2002)‐GSE 80mil LLDPE smooth Geomemb. vs Soil Liner
Phase2(Aug2006)‐GSE 80mil LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Geocomposite
Phase2B&2C(Feb2008)‐80mil LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Soil Liner
FIGURE 3.2: PHASE 1 - NORMAL STRESS VERSUS SHEAR STRESS (RESIDUAL STRENGTH)

PEAK
1400
1200
Shear Stress (kPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Normal Stress (kPa)
(Nov 2015)‐(A1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Soil Liner
(Nov 2015)‐(B1‐1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. Smooth side vs 270 g/cm2 Geotext.
(Nov 2015)‐(B1‐2) 2.0mm LLDPE DST Geomemb. vs 270 g/cm2 Geotext.
(C1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. vs Geocomposite
FIGURE 3.3: PHASE 6 - NORMAL STRESS VERSUS SHEAR STRESS (PEAK STRENGTH)
RESIDUAL
700
600
Shear Stress (kPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Normal Stress (kPa)
(Nov 2015)‐(A1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. Textured side vs Soil Liner
(Nov 2015)‐(B1‐1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. Smooth side vs 270 g/cm2 Geotext.
(Nov 2015)‐(B1‐2) 2.0mm LLDPE DST Geomemb. vs 270 g/cm2 Geotext.
(C1) 2.0mm LLDPE SST Geomemb. vs Geocomposite
FIGURE 3.4: PHASE 6 - NORMAL STRESS VERSUS SHEAR STRESS (RESIDUAL STRENGTH)
The liner system interface observations included:

 The geomembrane/geocomposite interface is limited to the bottom of the valley for the
initial phases of the HLF (Phases 1 to 5). Therefore, it does not play a significant role in
the facility’s stability in these areas;
 It is unclear why the interface testing of smooth geomembrane/soil liner (Phase 1) yielded
higher strength than the textured geomembrane/soil liner (Phase 2B&2C). Soil liner for
Phase 1 is classified as clay with a plastic limit (PL) of 18. Soil liner for Phase 2B&2C is
classified as clayey sand with gravel with 14.4 PL and 28.5% of fines content;

 Interface testing for 80-mil LLDPE geomembrane versus soil liner for Phase 2 was not
completed due to the laboratory equipment capacity limit; and
 Interface testing for Phase 6 was completed for preliminary liner configurations (Knight
Piésold, 2016). Liner configurations were later modified for the final design (2019b) and
construction. No interface testing was completed for the modified liner configurations.
4.0 Results
Table 4.1 summarizes the slope stability analysis results under static, pseudo-static, and post-
earthquake loading conditions. Pseudo-static PGAs of 0.83g (Phase 1 Embankment) and 0.62g
(Phase 6 Embankment), approximately the 84th percentile of the MCE, was adopted for the
pseudo-static analyses. Failure of the analyzed ore heap slopes can impact the containment of
the pregnant solution storage areas (Basins of the In-Heap Solution Pond #1 and #2) and the
stability of the embankments.
TABLE 4.1: SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS
Location Static FOS Pseudo-Static FOS Post-Earthquake FOS

(Slip Surface Shape) Min. Computed Min. Computed Min. Computed
Phase 1 – Heap and Pond
1.5 2.23 1.1 0.83 1.1 2.23
Basin (Circular)
1.5 2.12 1.1 0.79 1.1 2.10
Basin (Composite)
Phase 1 – Embankment
1.5 2.22 1.1 0.92 1.1 2.22
(Circular)
1.5 1.74 1.1 0.71 1.1 1.74
Basin (Circular)
1.5 1.74 1.1 0.81 1.1 1.50
Basin (Composite)
Phase 6 –Embankment
1.5 1.46 1.1 0.64 1.1 1.46
(Circular)
Pseudo-static analyses tend to be conservative because they assume that the horizontal force
acting on the slope is permanent and in one direction. Dynamic loads due to an earthquake are
momentary and happen for a short period of time. Therefore, a pseudo-static FOS equal to or
less than 1.0 does not necessarily imply that failure of the slope is imminent but rather the potential
for some permanent downward slope movement.
Additional pseudo-static analyses, using a less conservative return period of 1 in 475 years
(PGA=0.48g and 0.33g), and determination of yield acceleration were performed. The yield
acceleration is the horizontal acceleration of the slope under the influence of a postulated
earthquake at which movement is imminent.
Results of these additional analyses (PGA = 0.48g and 0.33g) are compared with the initial results
of the pseudo-static stability analysis (PGA = 0.83g and 0.62g), and a further simplified
deformation analysis was completed to evaluate if predicted deformations are acceptable.

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 summarize the analysis results for Phase 1 and Phase 6 Embankments,
respectively.
TABLE 4.2: PHASE 1: SUMMARY OF PSEUDO-STATIC AND DEFORMATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Location FOS for FOS for Yield Acceleration Deformation

(Slip Surface Shape) PGA = 0.83g PGA = 0.48g (FoS = 1.0) (cm)
0.83 1.16 0.31g 5.9
Basin (Circular)
0.79 1.11 0.29g 6.4
Basin (Composite)
0.92 1.25 0.365g 21.7
(Circular)
TABLE 4.3: PHASE 6: SUMMARY OF PSEUDO-STATIC AND DEFORMATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Location FOS for FOS for Yield Acceleration Deformation

(Slip Surface Shape) PGA = 0.62g PGA = 0.33g (FoS = 1.0) (cm)
0.71 1.10 0.212g 10.3
Basin (Circular)
0.81 1.11 0.216g 21.2
Basin (Composite)
0.64 0.89 0.13g 109.3
(Circular)
The simplified seismic-induced deformation analyses for Phase 1 Embankment indicate mean
deformations less than 30 centimeters (cm) which are within the expected MCE range.
Deformation for Phase 6 Embankment was estimated to be greater than 100 cm (109 cm). Slope
stability analysis results for Phase 1 and Phase 6 Embankments are reported in Attachments B1
and C1, respectively. Deformation analysis results for Phase 1 and Phase 6 Embankments are
presented in Attachments B2 and C2, respectively.
The Phase 6 Embankment was evaluated with different downstream slopes (2.5H:1V, 4.0H:1V,
and 5.0H:1V [horizontal:vertical]). The evaluation included slope stability analyses (static,
pseudo-static, post-earthquake conditions) and simplified deformation analysis. A PGA of 0.62g
(MCE) was adopted for the pseudo-static analysis. The results of the slope stability and
deformation analysis are presented in Attachment D. Table 4.4 summarizes these results.

TABLE 4.4: PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT SLOPE, SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS
Phase 6 Embankment Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake Deformation

Downstream Slope FOS (Min. 1.5) FOS (Min. 1.1) FOS (Min. 1.1) (cm)
Slope 2H:1V (Existing) 1.46 0.64 1.46 109.3
Slope 2.5H:1V 1.57 0.65 1.57 90.3
Slope 4.0H:1V 1.89 0.73 1.89 48.2
Slope 5.0H:1V 2.12 0.78 2.12 5.6
Additionally, a sensitivity pseudo-static slope stability analysis for different foundation effective
friction angles was performed. Figure 4.1 depicts the results of this analysis.
Phase‐6 HLF Pond Embankment
Pseudo‐Static Analisis, Coefficient=0.31g (1/2 PGA)
Sensitivity Analysis
1
0.95
Computed Pseudo‐Static FOS
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Foundation Effective Friction Angle (°)
FIGURE 4.1: PHASE 6: FOUNDATION FRICTION ANGLES VERSUS COMPUTED PSEUDO-STATIC FOS
Due to the high MCE, all pseudo-static FOS were computed below the minimum required FOS
(1.1). In addition to the pseudo-static slope stability analyses, static, post-earthquake analysis
and simplified deformation analysis were completed for foundation friction angles of 35° and 40°.
The results of the slope stability and deformation analysis are presented in Attachment E. The
results are summarized in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5: PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION, SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS
Phase 6 Embankment Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake Deformation

Foundation FOS (Min. 1.5) FOS (Min. 1.1) FOS (Min. 1.1) (cm)
Friction angle = 30° 1.46 0.64 1.46 109.3
Friction angle = 35° 1.75 0.77 1.75 56.6
Friction angle = 40° 2.08 0.91 2.08 33.6
Despite the computed pseudo-static FOS not meeting the required minimum FOS, the estimated
mean deformations for 35° and 40° foundation friction angles are significantly less than what was
estimated for 30° (109.3 cm).
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Phase 1 Embankment
 The liner interface for Phase 1 (80-mil LLDPE smooth geomembrane versus soil liner)
shows higher strength than the liner interface for Phase 2 (80-mil LLDPE textured
geomembrane versus soil liner). Tierra Group used the lower interface strength results in
this stability analysis. Tierra Group recommends completing interface testing on the liner
system installed for the Phase 1.
 Computed FOS under static conditions meet or exceed the minimum required FOS
recommended by Barrick and CDA guidelines.
 Pseudo-static analyses under the MCE resulted in FOS less than the minimum required
FOS recommended by Barrick and CDA guidelines.
 Under an earthquake of the 475-year return period, all pseudo-static analyses resulted in
FOS equal or greater than the minimum required FOS recommended by Barrick and CDA
guidelines. A 475-year return period is typically adopted as the operational basis
earthquake (OBE) for HLFs. However, the embankments should be evaluated as dams
following the guidelines applicable to these structures based on hazard classification.
 In general, results for Phase 1 Embankment indicate global failure is not expected under
MCE loading; however, damage to the structure and the liner system may occur. This is
allowable based on the project design criteria.
 In addition, these analyses assume the saturated ore will not liquefy under earthquake
loading, which has not been verified with field investigations and engineering studies.
Liquefaction susceptibility of the saturated ore should be studied with a suitable field
program and engineering analyses.
5.2 Phase 6 Embankment
 It is unclear how the 30° friction for Phase 6 Embankment foundation was estimated.
During the October 2021 site visit, Tierra Group requested Knight Piésold provide
additional details and is currently waiting to receive this information.

 The slope stability analyses to support the final Phase 6 design were completed using
interface data for the preliminary liner configurations, which were modified for the final
design. It is recommended to perform interface testing for the liner configurations used for
the final design and/or used for the construction (current existing liner configurations).
 Computed FOS under static conditions meet or exceed the minimum required FOS
recommended by Barrick and CDA guidelines.
 Pseudo-static analyses under the MCE resulted in FOS less than the minimum required
FOS recommended by Barrick and CDA guidelines.
 Under an earthquake of 475-year return period, with the exception of the pseudo-static
analysis for Phase 6 Embankment (FOS = 0.89), all pseudo-static analyses resulted in
FOS equal or greater than the minimum required FOS recommended by Barrick and CDA
guidelines.
 Slope stability analyses for the Phase 6 Embankment resulted in pseudo-static FOS less
than the minimum required. Simplified deformation analysis, adopting the MCE peak
ground acceleration (PGA=0.62g), resulted in a mean deformation of approximately
109 cm. To support the design of the Phase 6 Embankment, Knight Piésold (2019b)
completed slope stability analyses under static and seismic conditions, and the lowest
FOS was estimated to be 1.4 and 1.0, respectively. Minimum FOS of 1.5 and 1.1 for static
and pseudo-static were adopted by Knight Piésold. Simplified deformation analysis
(Newmark, 1965) resulted in estimated deformations less than 10 cm. Knight Piésold
completed these analyses under an earthquake of 475-year return period (PGA=0.33g).
 For Phase 6 Embankment and under MCE, deformation analysis indicates estimated
displacement greater than 100 cm. Under normal operational conditions, the solution is
not expected to reach maximum design levels. However, a worst-case scenario that
combines MCE with the solution at maximum levels could potentially result on the release
of the solution to the environment.
 The additional slope stability analyses performed for the Phase 6 Embankment to evaluate
different downstream slopes and foundation with higher strength did not result in pseudo-
static FOS equal or greater than the minimum required. However, the simplified seismic-
induced deformation analyses resulted in mean displacement below 100 cm.
 As mentioned in Section 3.6; it is unclear how the 30° friction angle for Phase 6
Embankment foundation was estimated by Knight Piésold. Additional geotechnical
investigation, including fieldwork, laboratory, and engineering analyses may be required if
the strength properties for the foundation are not properly verified.
 Tierra Group understands that the interface testing for the Phase 6 design was completed
for preliminary liner configurations (Knight Piésold, 2016). These configurations were later
modified for the final design (Knight Piésold, 2019b) and construction. No interface testing
was completed for the modified liner configurations. Tierra Group recommends completing
interface testing for the modified liner configurations as soon as possible and updating the
slope stability as needed.

6.0 References
Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick), 2016. Tailings and Heap Leach Management Standard.
Barrick Document Reference BCG-MI-ST-01. Effective date 11 March 2016.
Bray, J.D. and T. Travasarou, 2007. Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced
Deviatoric Slope Displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 133, pp. 381-392.
Canadian Dam Association Guidelines, 2019. Technical Bulletin: Application of Dam Safety
Guidelines to Mining Dams, Canada, 2019 Edition.
GEOSLOPE International Ltd., 2021. GEOSLOPE International Software, Slope Stability
Analysis (SEEP/W and SLOPE/W), Version 11, http://www.geoslope.com/.
Golder Associates, 2002. Heap Leach Facility Design, Technical and Economical Evaluation,
Volume III of IV, September 2002.
Golder Associates, 2012. Informe de Inspeccion – Plan de Acción Durante Emergencias
(PADE), October 2012.
Golder Associates, 2017. Seismic Hazard Assessment Veladero Mine VFL Facility Site, San
Juan Province, Argentina. Report prepared for Barrick Veladero, San Juan, Argentina,
20 February 2017.
Jibson, R.W., 2011. Methods for Assessing the Stability of Slopes During Earthquakes – A
Retrospective. Engineering Geology, Vol. 122 (2), pp. 43-50.
Knight Piesold Argentina Consultores S.A., 2016. Estudios de Factibilidad Fase 6 a 9 SLV e
Ingenieria de Detalle Fase 6. Informe de Estudios Geotecnicos, June 2016.
Knight Piesold Argentina Consultores S.A., 2019a. Engineer of Record Inspection Annual
(2018), October 2019.
Knight Piesold Argentina Consultores S.A., 2019b. Ingenieria de Detalle Fase 6, Análisis de
Estabilidad: Muro de Cierre, Apilamiento y Traza de Aducción, January 2019.
Knight Piesold Argentina Consultores S.A., 2020. Valley Leach Facility (VLF) Phase 6-9
Expansion – Design Basis Report, June 2020.
Newmark, N.M., 1965. Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments. Geotechnique,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp 139-159.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. Seismic Landslide Movement Modeled using
Earthquake Records (SLAMMER) Software, USGS Techniques and Methods 12-B1.
Vector Argentina S.A., 2006. Ingenieria de Detalle, Sistema de Lixiviación, Fase 2,
Setiembre 2006.
Vector Argentina S.A., 2008. Ingenieria de Detalle, Sistema de Lixiviación en Valle, Fase 2B &
2C, Junio 2008.
This memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Minera Andina del Sol S.R.L. for specific application to
the area within this memorandum. Any use which a third party makes of this memorandum, or any reliance on or
decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Tierra Group International, Ltd. accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
memorandum. It has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.

ATTACHMENT A
STABILITY ANALYSIS CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
ATTACHMENT B
ANALYSIS FOR PHASE-1 EMBANKMENT
B1 Slope Stability Analysis
B2 Simplified Seismic-Induced Deformation Analysis

APPENDIX B1
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
VELADERO VALLEY HEAP LEACH FACILITY
PREGNANT SOLUTION STORAGE AREA #1 (PHASE 1)
01a. Static (OreHeap)
Horz Seismic Coef.:
Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective

Weight Function Cohesion Friction
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°)
Embankment Fill Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 40
(Rock)
Embankment Fill Mohr-Coulomb 15.7 34.5 32
(Structural)
Foundation (Rock) Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 45
Foundation (Soil) Mohr-Coulomb 20 0 38.5
Ore Mohr-Coulomb 20 0 35
Ore (Saturated) Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 30
Phase1 (80mil Smooth Shear/Normal Fn. 20 Phase1 (80mil
LLDPE/SL)-Peak Smooth
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 2.23
Phase2 (80mil Shear/Normal Fn. 20 Phase2 (80mil
Textured Textured
LLDPE/SL)-Peak LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

SectionA1_20210729.gsz
07/29/2021 1:10,000
01b. PseudoStatic (OreHeap, PGA=0.48g)
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.24

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 1.16
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 0.83
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
01b. YieldAcceleration (OreHeap, FOS=1.00)

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 1.00
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
01c. Post-Earthquake (OreHeap)
Horz Seismic Coef.:
Color Name Model Unit Strength Function Effective Effective

Weight Cohesion Friction
Embankment Fill (Rock) Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 40
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Residual Textured
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,300 2.23
Phase2 (80mil Textured Shear/Normal Fn. 20 Phase2 (80mil
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
02a. Static (Interface)
Horz Seismic Coef.:

Impenetrable Bedrock (Impenetrable)
Smooth Smooth
4,300 2.12
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
02b. PseudoStatic (Interface, PGA=0.48g)

Smooth Smooth
4,300 1.11
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000

Smooth Smooth
4,300 0.79
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
02b. YieldAcceleration (Interface, FOS=1.00)

Smooth Smooth
4,300 1.00
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
02c. Post-Earthquake (Interface)
Horz Seismic Coef.:

LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,300 2.10
Textured Textured
LLDPE/SL)-Residual LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
03a. Static (Embankment)
Horz Seismic Coef.:

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 2.22
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
03b. PseudoStatic (Embankment, PGA=0.48g)

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 1.25
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 0.92
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
03b. YieldAcceleration (Embankment, FOS=1.00)

(Rock)
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
4,300 1.00
Textured Textured
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
03c. Post-Earthquake (Embankment)
Horz Seismic Coef.:

Embankment Fill (Rock) Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 40
(Structural)
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,300 2.22
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
4,200
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

07/29/2021 1:10,000
ATTACHMENT B2
SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC-INDUCED DEFORMATION ANALYSIS
Simplified Deformation Analyses
Client Name: Minera Andina del Sol S.R.L

Project Name: Dam Safety Review
Project #: 713
Date: 8/4/2021
HLF - Phase-1 Ore Heap and Pond (Circular)
Method: Bray and Travasaraou (2007)

Inputs: Reference:
Earthquake Magnitude = 8 Mw (From site-specific seismic study, Golder 2017)
Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.83 g (From site-specific seismic study, Golder 2017)
Critical Yield Acceleration = 0.290 g (From slope stability analysis)
Thickness of Landslide Mass (H) = 178.00 m (From slope stability analysis)
Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) = 500 m/sec Assumed shear-wave vel. of quaternary material between HLF/bedrock
Site Period (Ts) = 1.42 s 4*(H/Vs) or 2.6*(H/Vs). Bray and Travasaraou 2007
1.5*Ts = 2.14 s Bray and Travasaraou 2007
Spectral Acceleration (1.5*Ts) = 0.4 (From site-specific seismic study, Golder 2017)
References:
Bray and Travasarou, 2007, Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced Deviator Slope Displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
Jibson, Randall, 2011. Methods for Assessing the Stability of Slopes During Earthquakes - A Retrospective. Engineering Geology, v.122, p.43-50.
SimpliedDeformationAnalyses_NoLargeButtress.xlsx

Project #: 713
Date: 8/4/2021
HLF - Phase-1 Ore Heap and Pond (Composite)

Inputs: Reference:
References:

Project #: 713
Date: 8/4/2021
HLF - Phase-1 Solution Pond Embankment Slope

Inputs: Reference:
References:
ATTACHMENT C
C1 Slope Stability Analysis
C2 Simplified Seismic-Induced Deformation Analysis

ATTACHMENT C1
Color Name Model Unit Effective Effective
Strength SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 01a. Static (OreHeap)
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) Horz Seismic Coef.:
LLDPE/SL)-Peak Textured
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Phase6 Embankment Mohr-Coulomb 20 0 35
Fill (Structural)
Phase6 Foundation Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 30
Phase6 Ore Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 35
(Saturated)
1.74
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

SectionB_Phase6Dam_20210920.gsz
09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 01b. PseudoStatic (OreHeap, PGA=0.33g)
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.17
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
1.10
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 01b. PseudoStatic (OreHeap, PGA=0.62g)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
0.71
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 01b. YieldAcceleration (OreHeap, FOS=1.00)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Color Name Model Unit Effective Effective Strength Function 01c. Post-Earthquake (OreHeap)
Weight Cohesion Friction Horz Seismic Coef.:
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
Fill (Structural)
Phase6 Ore (Saturated) Mohr-Coulomb 18 0 30
1.74
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Horz Seismic Coef.:
Color Name Model Unit Effective Effective Strength
Weight Cohesion Friction Function
Textured Textured
(Saturated)
1.74
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Textured Textured
(Saturated)
1.11
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Textured Textured
(Saturated)
0.81
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Textured Textured
(Saturated)
1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Horz Seismic Coef.:
Color Name Model Unit Effective Effective Strength Function
Textured Textured
(Saturated)
1.50
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 03a. Static (Embankment)
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) Horz Seismic Coef.:
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
1.46
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 03b. PseudoStatic (Embankment, PGA=0.33g)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
0.89
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 03b. PseudoStatic (Embankment, PGA=0.62g)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
0.64
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Weight Cohesion Friction Function 03b. YieldAcceleration (Embankment, FOS=1.00)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Fill (Structural)
(Saturated)
1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
Color Name Model Unit Effective Effective Strength Function 03c. Post-Earthquake (Embankment)
Weight Cohesion Friction Horz Seismic Coef.:
LLDPE/SL)-Residual
Fill (Structural)
1.46
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

09/20/2021 1:10,000
ATTACHMENT C2
SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC-INDUCED DEFORMATION ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT D
DOWNSTREAM SLOPE
D1 Downstream Slope, Stability Analysis
D2 Downstream Slope, Simplified Seismic-Induced Deformation Analysis


Project #: 713
Date: 9/20/2021
HLF - Phase-6 Ore Heap and Pond (Circular)

Inputs: Reference:
References:
SimplifiedDeformation‐Phase6_20210920.xlsx

Project #: 713
Date: 9/20/2021

Inputs: Reference:
References:

Project #: 713
Date: 9/20/2021

Inputs: Reference:
References:
ATTACHMENT D1
DOWNSTREAM SLOPE, STABILITY ANALYSIS
Color Name Slope Stability Unit Effective Effective Strength Function
Material Model Weight Cohesion Friction SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
03a. Static (Embankment) (2)
Impenetrable Bedrock
(Impenetrable)
Embankment Slope 1V:2.5H Downstream
LLDPE/SL)-Peak
Phase6 Embankment Fill Mohr-Coulomb 20 0 35

(Structural)

1.57
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
03b. PseudoStatic (Embankment, PGA=0.62g) (2)
Impenetrable Bedrock Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.31
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.65
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
03b. YieldAcceleration (Embankment, FOS=1.00) (2)
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
Color Name Slope Stability Unit Effective Effective Strength Function SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Material Model Weight Cohesion Friction
03c. Post-Earthquake (Embankment) (2)
Impenetrable Bedrock Embankment Slope 1V:2.5H Downstream

(Impenetrable)
Phase6 (80mil Textured Shear/Normal Fn. 19 Phase6 (80mil Textured


(Structural)

1.57
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) 03a. Static (Embankment) (3)
Impenetrable Bedrock Embankment Slope 1V:4H Downstream
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.89
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) 03b. PseudoStatic (Embankment, PGA=0.62g) (3)
(Impenetrable) Embankment Slope 1V:4H Downstream
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.73
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) 03b. YieldAcceleration (Embankment, FOS=1.00) (3)
(Impenetrable) Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.185
Embankment Slope 1V:4H Downstream
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
Material Model Weight Cohesion Friction 03c. Post-Earthquake (Embankment) (3)
Impenetrable Bedrock Embankment Slope 1V:4H Downstream

(Impenetrable)


(Structural)

1.89
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable) Embankment Slope 1V:5H Downstream
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

2.12
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.78
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
Material Model Weight Cohesion Friction
(Impenetrable)


(Structural)

2.12
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
ATTACHMENT D2
DOWNSTREAM SLOPE, SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC-INDUCED
DEFORMATION ANALYSIS

Project #: 713
Date: 11/8/2021
HLF - Phase-6 Dam Foundation (FA=35°)

Inputs: Reference:
References:
SimpDef‐Phase6DamFoundationFA_20211108.xlsx

Project #: 713
Date: 11/8/2021
HLF - Phase-6 Dam Foundation (FA=40°)

Inputs: Reference:
References:
SimpDef‐Phase6DamFoundationFA_20211108.xlsx
ATTACHMENT E
FOUNDATION STRENGTH
E1 Foundation Strength, Stability Analysis
E2 Foundation Strength, Simplified Seismic-Induced Deformation

Analysis
ATTACHMENT E1
FOUNDATION STRENGTH, SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Impenetrable Bedrock Existing Embankment Slope (phi 35° Foundation)
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)
Phase6 Foundation (Phi35) Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 35

1.75
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
Existing Embankment Slope (phi 35° Foundation)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.77
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)


(Structural)

1.75
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

2.08
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.91
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)


(Structural)

2.08
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)

LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

2.08
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.28
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

0.91
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)
LLDPE/SL)-Peak

(Structural)

1.00
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
(Impenetrable)


(Structural)

2.08
4,400
ELEVATION (MASL)
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
DISTANCE (M)

08/11/2021 1:10,000
ATTACHMENT E2
FOUNDATION STRENGTH, SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC-INDUCED
DEFORMATION ANALYSIS

Project #: 713
Date: 11/8/2021
HLF - Phase-6 Downstream Slope 2.5H:1V

Inputs: Reference:
References:
SimpDef‐Phase6DamSlope_20211108.xlsx

Project #: 713
Date: 11/8/2021

Inputs: Reference:
References:

Project #: 713
Date: 11/8/2021

Inputs: Reference:
References:

Slope Stability Analysis Veladero Mine

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

Slope Stability Analysis Veladero Mine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1746 Cole Blvd, Suite 130

2.0 Section Geometry

3.0 Slope Stability Analysis

Phases Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake

TABLE 3.2: BARRICK’S MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTORS OF SAFETY (LEACH FACILITY)

Phases Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake

TABLE 3.3: CDA MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTORS OF SAFETY (DAM)

Phases Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake

3.3 Site Seismicity

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 2 of 13

TABLE 3.4: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PGA

3.4 Hazard Classification

3.5 Seismic Stability Modeling

In addition to pseudo-static loading conditions, simplified seismic-induced deformations were

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 3 of 13

3.6 Material Properties

TABLE 3.5: SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES (PHASE 1 EMBANKMENT)

Unit Effective Friction Angle (°)

geomembrane versus soil liner.

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 4 of 13

TABLE 3.6: SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES (PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT)

Unit Effective Friction Angle (°)

Golder to evaluate Phase 1 Embankment.

3.6.1 Liner System Interface

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 5 of 13

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 6 of 13

The liner system interface observations included:

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 7 of 13

TABLE 4.1: SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS

Location Static FOS Pseudo-Static FOS Post-Earthquake FOS

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 8 of 13

TABLE 4.2: PHASE 1: SUMMARY OF PSEUDO-STATIC AND DEFORMATION ANALYSIS RESULTS

Location FOS for FOS for Yield Acceleration Deformation

TABLE 4.3: PHASE 6: SUMMARY OF PSEUDO-STATIC AND DEFORMATION ANALYSIS RESULTS

Location FOS for FOS for Yield Acceleration Deformation

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 9 of 13

TABLE 4.4: PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT SLOPE, SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS

Phase 6 Embankment Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake Deformation

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 10 of 13

TABLE 4.5: PHASE 6 EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION, SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS

Phase 6 Embankment Static Pseudo-Static Post-Earthquake Deformation

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 11 of 13

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 12 of 13

713 DSR-SS_20211110.docx 2021/11/10 Page 13 of 13

B1 Slope Stability Analysis

B2 Simplified Seismic-Induced Deformation Analysis

Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective

LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)

01a. Static (OreHeap)

Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective

LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)

01b. PseudoStatic (OreHeap, PGA=0.48g)

Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective

LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)

01b. PseudoStatic (OreHeap, PGA=0.83g)

Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective

LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)

01b. YieldAcceleration (OreHeap, FOS=1.00)

Color Name Model Unit Strength Function Effective Effective

LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 2) LINER INTERFACE DATA (PHASE 1)

01c. Post-Earthquake (OreHeap)

Color Name Model Unit Strength Effective Effective