New Prosperity Project · New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal...

New Prosperity Project -Review of Geochemical Source Terms,

Water Quality, Metal Leaching,and Acid Rock Drainage,

July 2013

prepared for:

Tsilhqot'in National Government

prepared by:

Kevin A. Morin, Ph.D., P.Geo., L.Hydrogeo.Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

A Division of Morwijk Enterprises Ltd.

July 19, 2013

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

<contact information removed>

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text


SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal Leaching, and Acid Rock Drainage i

Professional Geoscientist Notice

This study is based on detailed technical information interpreted through standard andadvanced chemical and geoscientific techniques available at this time. As with all geoscientificinvestigations, the findings are based on data collected at discrete points in time and location. Inportions of this report, it has been necessary to infer information between and beyond the measureddata points using established techniques and scientific judgement. In our opinion, this reportcontains the appropriate level of geoscientific information to reach the conclusions stated herein.

This study has been conducted in accordance with British Columbia provincial legislationas stated in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.

Kevin A. Morin, Ph.D., P.Geo.Registration No. 18,721Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists

Minesite Drainage Assessment Group

New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal Leaching, and Acid Rock Drainage ii

Statement of Qualification and Expertise

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION

I, Dr. Kevin A. Morin, Ph.D., P.Geo, L.Hydrogeo., am the author of this review. I have practicedGeoscience, focussing mostly on minesite drainage and water contamination, for 35 years. I am aregistered Professional Geoscientist in the Canadian Province of British Columbia and a LicensedHydrogeologist in the U.S. State of Washington.

EDUCATION

Ph.D., Hydrogeology, University of Waterloo, Canada. 1984.M.Sc., Geology with Minors in Mathematics and Engineering,

University of North Dakota, USA. 1979.B.Sc., Secondary Education with Teaching Certificates in Earth/Space and General Sciences,

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, USA. 1977.

EXPERIENCE

Kevin Morin has more than 35 years of experience in the fields of water contamination, contaminantmigration, hydrogeology, geochemistry, environmental impact assessment, and computer modellingrelated to mining and industrial activity. He specializes in the design and application of field andlaboratory studies, and in the development and usage of conceptual and mathematical models, forthe environmental and geological sciences. This experience encompasses hundreds of proposed,operating, and closed mining operations, more than twenty industrial sites, four commercial/urbandevelopments, four highway-related projects, two water-reservoir projects, and seven detailedcomputer programs. These projects have been located on every continent of the world, exceptAntarctica, and in widely diverse biogeoclimatic zones.

Dr. Morin is an author or co-author of more than 100 publications and Internet case studies onvarious aspects of geochemistry, contaminant migration, hydrogeology, waste management, andenvironmental protection. Many of these can be found at MDAG.com. He is also a co-author ofthe first textbook on drainage chemistry and water contamination from various minesite components,entitled Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies, andauthor of Minesite Drainage Chemistry: An Introduction. His professional positions in consulting,university, research, and regulatory enforcement provide a wide expertise in environmentalgeochemistry and environmental protection.

Dr. Morin is a registered Professional Geoscientist in the Province of British Columbia and aLicensed Hydrogeologist in the State of Washington. He is a member of the InternationalAssociation of Hydrogeologists and the Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers of theNational Ground Water Association.


New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal Leaching, and Acid Rock Drainage iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Professional Geoscientist Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Statement of Qualification and Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. GEOCHEMICAL SOURCE-TERM PREDICTIONS AND WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. PREDICTION OF ACID ROCK DRAINAGE (ARD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.2 Criteria for Predicting Which Rock Will Release ARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 Lag Time for ARD To Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. THE PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. THE REQUIREMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.2 Quotations on the Requirement for Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 Existing Information on Water Treatment for New Prosperity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.1 Water Quality and Water Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.2 Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal Leaching, and Acid Rock Drainage 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Tsilhqot'in National Government (TNG) has asked the Minesite Drainage Assessment Group(MDAG) to review and comment on the New Prosperity Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This EIS was submitted for review by Taseko Mines Limited (Taseko). Our focus was on issuesrelated to geochemical source terms at the proposed site, water quality and contamination, metalleaching (ML), and acid rock drainage (ARD).

To explain our focus in more detail, we can use the simplified approach to an environmentalassessment: source 6 pathways 6 receptors = effects/impacts. We reviewed the potential sourcesof water contamination at the proposed New Prosperity Project. The contaminant sources areminesite components, like waste rock (separated into “PAG” and “non-PAG” at New Prosperity),tailings, pit walls, ore, mine roads, overburden, etc. The typical terminology used in BritishColumbia for this work is “ML-ARD” and “geochemical source terms”.

Our objective is to focus on the major errors and oversights in predictions of geochemical sourceterms at the New Prosperity Project. Our review finds that the EIS significantly underestimateswater contamination and aqueous concentrations from the sources into the pathways (groundwatersand surface waters) and receptors (lakes and streams). In other words, loadings and concentrationsof contaminants leaving some minesite components are expected to be higher than predicted in theNew Prosperity EIS, and some will occur sooner than predicted.

The major concerns discussed in this report are:C geochemical source terms and water qualityC prediction of acid rock drainage (ARD)C the proposed soil stockpileC the requirement for water treatment



2. GEOCHEMICAL SOURCE-TERM PREDICTIONS AND WATER QUALITY

2.1 Introduction

In the EIS, detailed predictions of geochemical source terms can be found in portions like Appendix2.7.2.1-I Water Quality Prediction Results 2-7-2-1-I and 3-7-GG Tailings Source Term Inputs toWater Quality Predictions v3d017.

Some examples of predicted source terms from the EIS are listed in Table 1. It is important to notethat concentrations draining from some minesite components at New Prosperity would violate water-quality guidelines and/or would be toxic to aquatic life. This includes the Non-PAG stockpile, theOre Stockpile, and the TSF Pond (which would be higher as explained below).

There are two aspects of these source terms that could lead to greater-than-predicted degradation ofwater quality in Fish Lake and other waters. First, concentrations could be higher than predicted(e.g., the TSF Pond as explained below), or additional contaminants not predicted in the EIS (e.g.,nitrite, as explained below) would be present. My review has found this to be the case. Second,more contaminated water than predicted will escape the minesite components, bypass interceptionwells, pass through liners, and move faster and in greater volumes. This issue is not addressed inmy review.

Table 1. Examples of variable concentrations in mg/L from simulations during operation inthe New Prosperity EIS

Component Cd (mg/L) Cu (mg/L) NO3-N (mg/L) Se (mg/L) SO4 (mg/L) Zn (mg/L)

Non-PAG Pile 4 100 2000 40 1800 200

Ore Stockpile 4 500 4000 40 1800 100

TSF Pond* 0.001 0.055 1.9 0.014 1000 0.038

Main Embank SeepPond 1

0.002 0.065 1 0.03 1000 0.13

Plant Site 0.001 0.1 0 0.01 2000 0.02

Mine Roads 0.000009 0.001 0 0.00005 2.2 0.001

* = does not include recirculation of water year after year, which causes some aqueous concentrations to increaseyear after year



2.2 Major Issues

1. Water temperature was not incorporated into predictions. Distortions and changes toambient water temperature can adversely affect water quality and aquatic life. Therefore,the full impact of the New Prosperity Project on water quality has not been properlydetermined.

2. In some cases, pH was not predicted. pH is an important water-quality parameter, and it canaffect aqueous concentrations of some elements. Therefore, the full impact of the NewProsperity Project on water quality has not been properly determined.

3. Reasonableness of EIS predictions for nitrate and ammonia cannot be confirmed. Also,predictions of nitrate and ammonia were missing from some sources, like tailings-beachchemistry for runoff and infiltration. There are no source-term predictions for nitrite, whichcan be toxic at concentrations lower than nitrate and ammonia (note: nitrite has beenmeasured in baseline studies of Fish Lake). The EIS and Response to Information Request7g specifically reference “Ferguson and Leask (1988)” for predictions of nitrogen species,and this reference from Environment Canada clearly included nitrite as well as nitrate andammonia. Without reasonable predictions for nitrite, as well as nitrate and ammonia inplaces, the full impact of the New Prosperity Project on water quality has not been properlydetermined.

4. The water in the TSF Pond would be recirculated, around and around, year after year. Thisis like filling a bath tub with the water previously drained from the tub. As a result, thetailings pond does not start each year at baseline conditions, but instead some aqueousconcentrations will increase through time. Because of this geochemical accumulation,concentrations in the pond and in groundwater flowing from the TSF have been significantlyunderestimated. Therefore, the full impact of the New Prosperity Project on water qualityhas not been properly determined.

Underestimation of TSF Pond concentrations at New Prosperity has a daisy-chain effect on water-quality predictions along the source 6 pathway 6 receptor system. It works like this:

• Recirculation of the tailings pond is not properly considered in geochemicalsource-term predictions. Thus, aqueous concentrations are underpredicted (too low)for most years of operation.

• Because tailings-pond concentrations are underpredicted, seepage concentrations areunderpredicted.

• Because seepage concentrations are underpredicted, TSF seepage effects on Trib 1water are underestimated.

• Because aqueous concentrations in Trib 1 are underestimated, aqueousconcentrations in Fish Lake are underestimated.



3. PREDICTION OF ACID ROCK DRAINAGE (ARD)

3.1 Introduction

At New Prosperity, near-neutral drainage from minesite components can be just as toxic to aquaticlife as acidic drainage (ARD). Previous emphasis on ARD in the 2009 Prosperity EIS drew attentionaway from the toxicity of neutral drainage, but the 2010 Panel testimony re-balanced the emphasis. This is highlighted in the discussion of water treatment in Section 5 of this review.

Despite serious concerns over near-neutral drainage chemistry, mine wastes at New Prosperity can,and have, released ARD. Laboratory-based kinetic tests, called “humidity cells”, have been run forup to several years and some released acidic water. This confirmed the potential for ARD.

At many large proposed mining projects around the world, geochemical investigations are conductedat a scale intermediate between 1-kg laboratory scale and full operations with hundreds of millionsof tonnes. This is done to guide the scaling up and the geochemical predictions based on thelaboratory testwork.

However, these critical larger on-site kinetic tests have never been conducted at the New Prosperitysite. In other words, the New Prosperity Project has taken the results of 1 kg laboratory tests underrelatively steady conditions and scaled them up to hundreds of millions of tonnes (scaling factorsof hundreds of billions) under variable on-site conditions, with no intermediate on-site confirmation. This critical work was not done by Taseko even though the importance for the “in-between” on-sitekinetic tests was pointed out to Taseko years ago.

Therefore, ARD predictions for full-scale minesite components at New Prosperity are not reliable,and underestimate ARD potential as explained in the next two subsections. This has also led toARD predictions in the EIS that contradict testwork in the EIS as shown below.

3.2 Criteria for Predicting Which Rock Will Release ARD

Because ARD is a general environmental concern at minesites that is typically underpredicted1, itis important to look closer at the New Prosperity humidity cells and how they agree with, orcontradict, the ARD criteria in the New Prosperity EIS.

One cell (K3), from the older “Phase 4” set of humidity cells, contained abundant NeutralizationPotential (NP = 21 kg/t CaCO3 equivalent), but was acidic from the start. Three cells (HC4, HC5,and HC13) from the more recent “Phase 5” cells were acidic even though NP was measurable (NP= 5, 9, and 19 kg/t). The net acidity from HC5 was not revealed until after the 2010 Panel hearings,despite requests for data before the hearings.

1 Kuipers, J.R., A.S. Maest, K.A. MacHardy, and G. Lawson. 2006. Comparison of Predicted and ActualWater Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements. A book releasedby Earthworks and copyrighted by Kuipers & Associates and Buka Environmental.



The EIS text states that ARD has been conservatively predicted, but the EIS testwork shows this isincorrect. The ARD predictions initially used the ratio of Neutralization Potential (NP) to AcidPotential (AP), and designated all samples with values of NP/AP below 2.0 to be net acid generatingsomeday (= “PAG” = will release ARD someday) after a “lag time”. Two humidity cells that startedacidic had NP/AP values of 2.6 and 2.8, which contradicts the initial criterion in the EIS.

As a result of this discrepancy, the New Prosperity EIS introduces an adjustment to the precedingcriterion, by subtracting a certain amount of NP. The revised predictor is: (NP-10)/AP < 2.0 willbe net acid generating. This results in improved predictions, because the two cells that started acidichave “adjusted” values of 1.4 and 1.3, and are thus predicted to be acidic after a lag time.

However, the EIS then makes serious errors by stating that the adjusted criterion (NP-10), whichprovides correct predictions, is conservative and only preliminary:

“Subsequent ML/ARD characterization showed that the ‘NP-10’ value underestimates actualavailable NP, indicating that the preliminary classification is conservative in that itoverestimates the tonnage of PAG waste.” (italics are added as my emphasis) (Page 446)

“In summary, the bulk laboratory measured NP can be used without adjustment as anestimate of the neutralization potential that is available to consume acid under neutral pHweathering conditions. Therefore, the provisional adoption of (NP-10) to represent availableNP for waste scheduling purposes is conservative.” (Page 462)

“Taseko has used a criterion of (NP-10)/AP < 2 to define PAG rock for planning purposes;this provides an additional factor of safety to allow for uncertainties such as the possiblepreferential release of pyrite along veins by blasting.” (Page 485)

Again, the New Prosperity testwork shows these statements in the New Prosperity EIS are wrong. The adjusted criterion is not conservative and does not allow for uncertainties, but correctly predictsNew Prosperity testwork where the original criterion was wrong. Furthermore, the fact that is called“preliminary” means it is subject to later change if the EIS is ever accepted, possibly to an incorrectcriterion. This should not be allowed. A “final” criterion should be presented in the EIS, not a“preliminary” one. If there is so little certainty that only preliminary criteria are available on themajor water-quality issue of ARD, then the Panel has no reliable basis to responsibly assess thelikely impacts and magnitude of ARD.

3.3 Lag Time for ARD To Start

One of the important issues in assessing source term geochemistry and its predicted effects on waterquality has to do with the time at which geochemical reactions start to affect minesite drainagechemistry and quality. This is important because the potential need to mitigate the impacts (e.g.,with water treatment) during or after the mine life has significant implications for economic andtechnical feasibility of the project. When ARD does not appear immediately, there is a “lag time”from the start of construction until the onset of ARD. For New Prosperity, it was calculated in theEIS using the following equations.



In the EIS, the lag time until ARD is released from New Prosperity rock was estimated by:tonset = (ICCa,Mg/AP)/(k.{ICCa,Mg/AP}crit)k=1.65x10-5 week{ICCa,Mg/AP}crit = 1.5

The preceding equations indicate the lag time is based on:• first, all measured NP being reactive (“therefore that NP = ICCa,Mg”, Page 462) although

testwork showed all measured NP was not reactive (see Section 3.2 above), and • second, the NP/AP criterion is 1.5 instead of 2.0 (also discussed above). Thus, this equation for lag time substantially underestimates ARD and thus overestimates lag times. It also contradicts other portions of the EIS, as well as the New Prosperity kinetic testwork.

By applying the above values, the equation becomes:tonset = 777 years * NP/AP

Again, using “NP” without “NP-10” overestimates the lag time, and ARD will appear sooner thanpredicted.

Based on this equation, the two cells that started acidic should not have become acidic until morethan 2,000 years. Even using (NP-10) instead of NP shows the two cells should not be acidic until1,000 years. However, ARD appeared immediately!

Furthermore, Under I.R.7, Natural Resources Canada asked for clarification and details of theseequations for predicting unreasonably long lag times. After reviewing the company’s response,NRCan said it still has a “problem” with the lag-time equations (NRCan, March 2013).

The EIS explains that PAG rock placed in the TSF will be submerged within a few years, whichaccording to the EIS lag-time equation would occur before ARD is released. Similarly, the EISexplains that PAG rock in the Ore Stockpile would be removed and processed before ARD isreleased. Both these minesite components send water to Fish Lake. So, the release of ARD withina few years, instead of decades to centuries as envisioned in the EIS, would increase contaminantlevels in the waters leaving the TSF and Ore Stockpile and entering Fish Lake.

Due to the inappropriate lag-time equations in the EIS:• The predicted source terms and aqueous concentrations from the TSF and Ore Stockpile

could be even further underestimated than shown in Section 2 above.• Geochemical loadings and concentrations from some minesite components are expected to

be higher than predicted, sooner than predicted.• Lag-time predictions in the EIS are not understandable by government or me, and contradict

New Prosperity testwork.



4. THE PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE

Maps from the EIS of the proposed New Prosperity minesite show a “soil stockpile”. Thisautomatically makes it a geochemical source term for ML-ARD and water contamination.

Surficial runoff from this soil stockpile reports to Fish Lake and TSF at assumed “Backgroundrunoff concentrations” (Table 2.7.2.1-21). Thus, some of its drainage waters would enter Fish Lake.However, I could find no evidence in the EIS that subsurface seepage/groundwater from the soilstockpile was considered as a source term.

Testwork could not be located in the New Prosperity EIS that justifies the use of background waterquality for runoff from the soil stockpile and no predictions for the subsurface groundwater. Thereis no discussion or testing of “soil” in the geochemical and ML-ARD sections of the EIS.

However, those ML-ARD sections do discuss “overburden” which is geochemically reactive, cancontaminate water, and includes both PAG and non-PAG material. This is similar to New Prosperityrock, and in fact some overburden is rock (e.g., basalt, EIS Page 415). One humidity cell containingbasalt was acidic and ARD generating from the start.

If the ML-ARD and water-contamination sections of the EIS do not state that overburden is in thesoil stockpile, how do we know there is? Tables 2.7.2.2-1 and 2.7.2.2-3 on AtmosphericEnvironment (not ML-ARD and source terms) explain that there will be an “overburden stockpile”during construction and operation and that the handling and effects of soils and overburden arelinked. In contradiction, documents like Response to Information Request 7j indicate all 100% ofoverburden would be placed in the Non-PAG Stockpile and Main TSF Embankment. Such perfectstripping of overburden is unlikely, and thus there would be some overburden in other locations.

Are there valid geochemical concerns on overburden and the soil stockpile? Can overburden andthe soil stockpile affect water quality? Yes. Here are some quotations from the New Prosperity EIS.

“The greatest Sb [antimony] median concentrations occurred in overburden, with OVBNhaving an Sb concentration of 55 times the crustal average.” (Page 465)

“Leach extraction tests carried out on 11 overburden samples from 2007 returned uniformlyneutral leachates, with pH ranging from 7.15 to 7.94. Soluble sulphate ranged from 3 to 303mg/kg, and while soluble trace element load generally increased with soluble sulphate,correlations were poor. Complete results of overburden leach extraction testing are presentedin Appendix 3-7-P of the March 2009 EIS/Application.” (Page 474)

In spite of this capacity to affect downstream water quality, predictions for the soil stockpile are notpresented in the New Prosperity EIS. Nevertheless, the 2009 EIS Appendix 3-7-P shows that somesmall amounts of overburden can release dissolved concentrations up to 0.045 mg/L Al, 0.015 mg/LAs, 0.011 mg/L Cu, 0.09 ug/L Hg (MethylHg?), and 0.005 mg/L Se. Larger amounts of overburdencould likely release higher concentrations.



As a result, a major geochemical source term labelled the “Soil Stockpile”, which can contaminateFish Lake through surface runoff and subsurface groundwater, has not been properly assessed in theimpact assessment. Stockpiled “soil” and/or “overburden” can release toxic levels of metals andother elements to drainage waters, and a proper assessment is required at the EIS stage as presentedfor other minesite components. Therefore, the full impact of the New Prosperity Project on waterquality cannot be determined with the information the Panel currently has before it.



5. THE REQUIREMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT

5.1 Introduction

For some mining projects, treatment of contaminated water is proposed. This has a major effect ongeochemical source terms. Instead of the predicted contaminated concentrations draining intopathways and entering environmental receptors, the contaminated concentrations become inputparameters to the proposed treatment system. The effluent concentrations from the treatment systembecome the new source terms for the pathways and receptors connected to the minesite componentsreceiving treatment.

Treated-effluent concentrations do not automatically meet water-quality guidelines, becausetreatment is not 100% effective. As a result, environmental impacts can still arise from treated-watereffluent, justifying the view of treatment-plant discharge as another geochemical source term.

The New Prosperity Project has proposed treatment of contaminated water. In fact, governmentagencies consider treatment a requirement as shown below. Therefore, as part of my review ofgeochemical source terms, I have examined information in the EIS on water treatment.

5.2 Quotations on the Requirement for Treatment

For the New Prosperity Project, it is clear that water treatment would be needed, as shown by thequotations below. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the EIS around which location(s)would be treated, when treatment would have to start, how long treatment would be needed, whetherfull-scale treatment would be successful, and whether the cost of treatment would render the projecteconomically unfeasible or a burden to the TNG and taxpayers. These concerns are illustrated bythe quotations below (italics were added by me for emphasis).

“With respect to the requirement for water treatment, EC stated that if Taseko“s predictionsas outlined in the EIS/Application were realized, it was likely that water treatment would berequired. The importance of the treatment plant was further discussed by EC, as it indicatedthat the construction and operation of a treatment plant would be necessary to assure thatwater quality in the Dasiqox (Taseko River) would not be significantly affected. EChighlighted a number of uncertainties regarding the proposed water treatment plant duringits presentation to the Panel, including the high cost of reverse osmosis technology andissues with ongoing maintenance, particularly in the long-term.” (Taseko Mines Limited. 2011. New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project. Project Description. Dated August 2011)

“Natural Resources Canada questioned whether the high levels of dissolved organic carbonin Teztan Yeqox (Fish Creek) would affect the conservatism Taseko stated was built into itswater quality modeling results. Therefore, NRCan was of the opinion that an appropriatetreatment of water from the mine site would be required prior to discharge to the receivingenvironment.” (Taseko Mines Limited. 2011. New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project. ProjectDescription. Dated August 2011)



“Given the uncertainties and experience with similar mines in British Columbia, the Panelfinds that should the Project proceed, water treatment would likely be required and that theneed for this treatment may be required sooner than predicted. The length of time for whichwater treatment may be required is also uncertain, but the Panel anticipates that it may bewell beyond mine closure.” (Review Panel established by the Federal Minister of theEnvironment. 2010. Report of the Federal Review Panel. Prosperity Gold-Copper MineProject. CEAA Reference No. 09-05-44811. Dated July 2, 2010).

These quotations show that government agencies and the previous Panel believed that watertreatment will be required.

“Should supplemental flows to Fish Lake be required during operations to meet fishproduction objectives, water management options include re-circulating water from the FishLake outlet, sourcing water from aquifers, or utilizing TSF seepage water. Prior tosupplementing Fish Lake inlet flows, water from these sources will be treated as necessaryto permitted levels.” (Taseko Mines Limited. 2011. New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project. Project Description. Dated August 2011)

“Taseko commits to construct a water treatment facility if and when monitoring resultsexceed pre-determined thresholds that will be defined such that sufficient time is availablefor construction of the facility in advance of any unacceptable impacts occurring.” (TasekoMines Limited. 2013. Response to Information Request 15a.)

“Taseko remains committed to treating water unsuitable for discharge however at this pointin time it would be premature to state that a water treatment facility is needed.” (TasekoMines Limited. 2013. Response to Information Request 15c.)

These quotations from Taseko show that, although government agencies saw water treatment asrequired, Taseko proposed it for Fish Lake only as a water management option.

“The water quality predictions and effects assessment indicates that water quality wouldlikely be adversely affected by the project during the operational and post-closure phases inthe absence of mitigation such as water treatment and strategic diversions. The response toIR #lSa indicates that the proponent is committed to implementing additional mitigationincluding water treatment, if and when monitoring results exceed pre-determined thresholds.There is no supporting design information provided in the EIS or additional informationresponses on what type/where water treatment or other mitigations would be implementedand how effective these strategies would be to mitigate water quality effects, yet the assumedeffectiveness of these undefined strategies is what has been used as a rationale to concludeno significant effects for the project.” (British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines, andNatural Gas. 2013. Re: New Prosperity Project - EMNG Comments on Adequacy ofSupplemental Information. Dated March 15, 2013)

“While an adaptive management approach with monitoring and triggers is important andsupported by EMNG, additional water quality mitigation is needed and should be



considered by the Panel as an integral part of the project design. It is recommended that abase-case for managing water quality effects for the project be prepared as part of the EIS;the base case can then be adaptively managed and improved upon over time. Consistent withother management components of the New Prosperity project (such as conceptual plans forliner beneath the ore/low grade ore stockpile, water management and groundwater pumpingconcepts, etc.), conceptual level design information (such as site location, treatment type,effluent quality, water management/storage, brine/sludge management etc.) should beprovided for water treatment (or other strategies) along with supporting information todemonstrate the effectiveness of the concept. Water quality predictions should also beupdated to show the results of the application of additional mitigation to determine theeffects to water quality.” (British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas. 2013. Re: New Prosperity Project - EMNG Comments on Adequacy of SupplementalInformation. Dated March 15, 2013)

“In the assessment of response capabilities for the various failure modes, the informationresponse incorrectly states that the Provincial Ministry of Mines will maintain a reclamationand closure bond for continuing the responsibilities of monitoring and maintenance in theevent of a temporary or permanent closure. The Proponent is solely responsible forimplementing their approved plans, operating within all regulatory requirements, andmonitoring and managing all short and long-term environmental, reclamation and closureliabilities. The financial security is not used to assist the Proponent with prevention offailure modes or with the implementation of their management strategies during temporaryor permanent closure. Financial security is only utilized by the Province in the event that acompany defaults on its obligations. Additional clarification regarding responsecommitments and capabilities to deal with various failure modes should be provided for theNew Prosperity Project.” (British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas. 2013. Re: New Prosperity Project - EMNG Comments on Adequacy of SupplementalInformation. Dated March 15, 2013)

In these quotations from March of this year, the provincial government highlights (1) the currentambiguity of mitigation including water treatment which was the company’s basis for predicting nosignificant effects, (2) the importance of including mitigation in the overall prediction of waterquality around and downstream of the site, and (3) the financial security collected by the governmentwill not be used for mitigation, but to pay for mitigation should the company fail.

“As such, the new Project Description does not contain new or additional data [on acid rockdrainage / metal leaching].” (Natural Resources Canada. 2011. Comments on NewProsperity Project. Letter to CEAA, circa September 2011)

“During the panel review, in agreement with the conclusions of the provincial assessment,NRCan did not find any fatal flaws with the proponent's ARD/ML assessment and proposedmitigation measures. However, with the new mine layout, Fish Lake is directly downstreamof the TSF, thus any seepage containing potentially deleterious elements will impact FishLake first before entering the proposed Pit Lake. The capture and treatment of thiscontaminated seepage would be a mitigation measure that NRCan considers as likelyappropriate, but notes that this is not reflected in the Project Description. It would be



expected that the proponent would incorporate such potential treatment costs in evaluatingthe feasibility of the proposed new project.” (Natural Resources Canada. 2011. Commentson New Prosperity Project. Letter to CEAA, circa September 2011)

In these quotations, the federal government is pointing out that no new or additional data wereprovided. However, potential treatment costs were expected to be incorporated into an evaluationof project feasibility, because treatment costs could be around $1 billion for 100 years of treatment(as explained below).

Despite demands from government that treatment effects and costs be integrated into the NewProsperity Project Description and mine plan, they have not been. For example, the alternatives-assessment for waste disposal, including costs and “the likelihood of a positive economic outcome”was released in February of this year2. This report states, “Active water treatment is assumed as acontingency only.”

5.3 Existing Information on Water Treatment for New Prosperity

Details on the type, full-scale success, and costs of water treatment at New Prosperity are generallylacking. The details we have are mostly from one document in 2009 and another in 2013.

Taseko Mines Limited (2009)

Although this water-treatment document3 was written for the 2009 Prosperity Project, it hasapparently not been ruled out for New Prosperity. It described two treatment scenarios, usingReverse Osmosis (RO) which is more successful than membrane nano-filtration because it alsoremoves monovalent salts. These two scenarios start after closure and continue for 100 years.

Scenario 1: Treating all of the Pit Lake discharge (10.6 Million m3/year) starting in year 43with Reverse Osmosis. This represents not only the unlikely event of water treatment beingrequired at all, but that there would also be enough deleterious contribution from the pit itselfto warrant treatment. Capital cost: $US 23,000,000; plant replaced every 20 years. Operating Cost: $US 14,000,000 /year. Total cost over 100 years: US$1.5 Billion. NetPresent Value: $11,000,000.

Scenario 2: Treating the combined Main Embankment and Non-PAG Waste Rock StorageArea flows (3.2 million m3/year) starting in year 20 with Reverse Osmosis. This representsnot only the unlikely event of water treatment being required at all but with the more realistic

2 Knight Piésold Ltd. 2013. Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal. Prepared for Taseko MinesLimited. Dated February 26, 2013.

3 Taseko Mines Limited. 2009. Prosperity EA Review Taseko Mines Limited Response to the August 12, 2009Federal Review Panel Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project – Supplementary Information Request. Dated August 14,2009, Document ID#1094. Re: 4.1 Long Term Treatment of Pit Lake Water Quality – Supplementary InformationRequest - Economic Feasibility of the Project if Water Treatment is Required in the Long Term.



condition where there is no deleterious contribution from the pit. Capital cost: $US7,000,000; plant replaced every 20 years. Operating Cost: $US 4,300,000 /year. Total costover 100 years: US$465 Million. Net Present Value: $20,000,000.

Taseko estimated the Net Present Value (NPV) of these scenarios at notably low amounts of $11-20million, because treatment was delayed for decades, until after closure. If treatment had to startduring operation, the NPV would be much higher.

As the provincial government pointed out (quoted above), this cost would not be covered by itssecurity, because that is held back in case of default. So the NPV represents a cost in addition togovernment security.

BioteQ Environmental Technologies (2013)

Unlike the previous document that focussed on treatment of minesite components (geochemicalsources), the 2013 document by BioteQ4 focusses on treatment of water from Fish Lake. As aquotation above shows, Taseko considers this a “water management option”, not a requirementintegrated into the mine plan as government views it. As a result, the company did not integrate thistreatment into the mine plan and into site-wide/downgradient water-quality predictions.

The treatment system discussed in this document includes three circuits:• membrane nano-filtration (not as successful at removing monovalent salts in contrast

to the reverse osmosis proposed above in Taseko Mines Limited, 2009)• sulphide/lime precipitation• ion exchange for removal of sulphate and selenium (assisted by membrane filtration)

Although these three circuits combined are predicted to lower non-monovalent concentrations toremarkable levels (Table 3.1 in the BioteQ report), full-scale proof of their success is lacking. Tosee this, the justifications in the report have to be scrutinized in more detail.

The BioteQ (2013) report explains that membrane filtration plus sulphide precipitation wasreportedly used successfully at the Minto Mine in the Yukon, starting in 2010. However, othersources reported problems with this treatment plant, rather than success. For example, the miningcompany itself wrote to the Yukon Water Board in 2012:

“No water treatment was undertaken in 2011 due the inability of the site’s water treatmentplant to meet updated effluent discharge criteria.”5

Furthermore, according to BioteQ (2013), ion exchange for sulphate removal was reportedly

4 BioteQ Environmental Technologies. 2013. REPORT#2013-04-232-REV1: Taseko Mines Limited – NewProsperity Copper Mine FISH LAKE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PLAN. Prepared for Greg Yelland, TasekoMines Limited. Dated May 28, 2013.

5 Minto Explorations Ltd. 2012. 2011 Annual Water Licence Report Submitted to the Yukon Water Board. Dated March 2012. http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/mining/pdf/mml_minto_2011_annual_report_c.pdf



accomplished only as a demonstration plant at a confidential site in the United States. This is notfull-scale confirmation of successful sulphate removal by ion exchange.

According to this BioteQ report, ion exchange for selenium removal “has been successfully testedin the laboratory” and a pilot-scale test is planned. Thus, large-scale success for selenium has alsonot been accomplished or costed.

Also, for membrane filtration of selenium, BioteQ (2013) points out,“At Barrick’s Richmond Hill Mine (South Dakota, USA), RO has been used to polishselenium from mine water after treatment by iron reduction and precipitation.”

However, most of the selenium removal at Richmond Hill was by the iron6, which is not proposedfor New Prosperity, and not by reverse osmosis which is proposed for New Prosperity. Finally, full-scale case studies at minesites, such as in South Africa, show this circuit alone is not successful atmeeting water-quality guidelines7.

Thus, there is no full-scale confirmation these proposed treatment circuits will work successfully,individually or combined, or that they would be economical. Statements in New Prosperitydocuments as to their success were contradicted by other sources examining full-scale outcomes. Proof of the full-scale effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed treatment circuits rests withTaseko, and needs to be obtained in advance. The water quality of Fish Lake depends on the full-scale success if the Project were to proceed.

No costs for all these treatment circuits are discussed in the BioteQ (2013) report. However, costsfor nano-filtration, similar to reverse osmosis but less successful by not removing monovalent salts,can be roughly estimated for the New Prosperity Project. Taseko Mines Limited (2009) estimatedthe cost for reverse osmosis at $4-14 million/year at similar flow rates proposed for Fish Lake,totalling $0.5-1.5 Billion every 100 years. So the addition of other circuits would obviously raisethe annual cost even higher. These apparently higher, but currently unstated costs could affect theeconomic viability of the Project. This is probably one reason why governments insist that treatmentshould be integrated fully with the Project. Taseko has not done this yet.

Despite the critical importance of costs, Taseko has only recently8 provided a partial estimatedannual operating cost for all three circuits, power and reagents only. That partial cost is $1.3million/year, compared with previous estimates of $4-14 million for one circuit! Flows would besimilar to Scenario 2 above. When other annual costs, beyond power and reagents, are added on,perhaps the full annual cost would again reach $4-14 million/year. However, costs for operatingthree circuits should be much greater than for only one, so annual costs may exceed $4-14 million.

6 Microbial Technologies, Inc. Evaluation of Treatment Options to Reduce Water-Borne Selenium at CoalMines in West-Central Alberta. Report for Alberta Environment. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7766.pdf

7 Clear Coast Consulting, Inc. 2013. Sections on Water Treatment for the Raven Project EIS. Report forAMEC. Dated March 1, 2013.

8 Taseko Mines Limited. 2013. Responses to the Technical Information Requests. Technical InformationRequest: Lake Productivity, Mitigation and Adaptive Management; 9) Predicted Reagent Use. Dated July 17, 2013.



Furthermore, wastes from this BioteQ treatment system will be sent to the TSF, including soluble“gypsum cake” and filtration-membrane rejects. This will cause concentrations in the TSF to risehigher than predicted in the EIS, which in turn will raise concentrations in pore water and seepageinto the groundwater pathways.

One final issue renders consideration of the BioteQ proposal by the panel highly questionable interms of its usefulness in the EIS review. Unfortunately, the report’s Confidentiality clauseprecludes its usage for the public and for the panel,

“This document has been prepared exclusively for Taseko Mines Limited by BioteQEnvironmental Technologies Inc. The document is strictly confidential and is only for theuse of the recipient’s authorized personnel.”

Other Information

Some details of treatment are contained in other documents, specifically the company’s responsesto Information Requests (IRs).

Responses to Supplemental Information Request 15/19/25/49 discuss:• general mitigation without details and proof for Fish Lake, such as hypolimnetic oxygenation

for mitigation of total phosphorus and chlorophyll(a).• how the BioteQ treatment system can also reduce aqueous concentrations of elements like

iron and silver.• mitigation for elements in sediments, like chromium and nickel, using the BioteQ treatment

system, although the BioteQ report indicates the system is for treating water.

Conclusion

Therefore, the full impact of the New Prosperity Project on water quality, with or without watertreatment, has not been properly assessed in the New Prosperity EIS. For water treatment, thedownstream environment and Fish Lake would depend directly on the treatment plant. This plantremains unproven on a full operating scale, fraught with uncertainty, prone to periodic upsets andfailures, and very expensive to the point of being possibly economically unviable and future burdento the TNG and tax payers.



6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Water Quality and Water Contamination

It is critical to gain a realistic and reasonably accurate understanding of the New Prosperity Project’ssource terms and their potential implications for site water quality, especially in the long-term. Todo this, the Panel should have reasonably reliable predictions of aqueous concentrations within theTSF and other minesite components. These predictions, in turn, affect predicted concentrationsdownstream in TSF seepage, Trib 1, Fish Lake, and other lakes, such that proposed mitigationmeasures can be properly evaluated with respect to the economic and technical feasibility. Suchinformation is not before the Panel.

The New Prosperity EIS provides unreasonably low predictions of project effects on water quality,water contamination, and aqueous concentrations in seepage from the TSF and other minesitecomponents, Trib 1, Fish Lake, and other lakes.

As my review has explained, the major reasons for these low predictions include:• Year-after-year recirculation of the TSF pond through the mill would raise concentrations

higher than predicted in the EIS, ongoing through time.• Predictions are missing for water-quality parameters like temperature, nitrite, and in some

cases pH; these can have major effects on water quality.• Reasonable potential exists for rapid ARD development in some PAG rock and ore.• Runoff from the Soil Stockpile is unreasonably assumed to have background concentrations,

when it contains reactive overburden; source terms for groundwater seepage from the SoilStockpile are not given.

• Disposal of water-treatment wastes will lead to higher-than-predicted concentrations.

For Fish Lake in particular, the reasons for unrealistically low predictions of water quality include:• Concentrations in water escaping the TSF have been underestimated.• Runoff from the Soil Stockpile is assumed to have background concentrations, when it

contains geochemically reactive overburden that can release toxic levels of metals and otherelements.

• Source terms for groundwater seepage from the Soil Stockpile are not given.• Predictions are missing for parameters like temperature and nitrite; these can have major

effects on water quality.• Reasonable potential exists for rapid ARD development in parts of the Ore Stockpile.



6.2 Water Treatment

The full impact of water treatment on the New Prosperity Project has not been assessed in the NewProsperity EIS. The federal and provincial governments were expecting a meaningful assessment,both environmental and economic, because water treatment was seen as, and still is, a requirementif this project proceeded.

Instead, there is substantial ambiguity in the EIS around which location(s) would be treated, whentreatment would have to start, how long treatment would be needed, whether full-scale treatmentwould be successful, and whether the cost of treatment would render the project economicallyunfeasible or a burden to the TNG and taxpayers.

In terms of technical feasibility, the proposed treatment systems have not been shown to besuccessful at lowering aqueous concentrations of some contaminants to safe levels in full-scale,operating treatment plants at minesites. The Panel should have reasonable information confirmingthe proposed treatment can sufficiently reduce contaminants on a full operating scale at the statedcost. The Panel does not have this information.

The Panel should have reasonable predictions of annual and cumulative costs for water treatmentthat may have to begin soon after mining starts. This is a critical issue for project acceptability,because the cost of water treatment may cause the company to default on its environmentalcommitments. Based on existing information for New Prosperity, full-scale water treatment couldcost more than $4-$14 Million annually, and more than $0.5-$1.5 Billion for the first 100 years.

As pointed out by the Province of British Columbia, the cost for treatment must be securedindependently by the company. Government bonds and security for New Prosperity cannot be usedfor treatment unless the company defaults on its environmental responsibilities, and the Crown,TNG, and tax payers accrue the liability. In other words, this means the company would have toassume any costs of water treatment independent of any closure/treatment security held by theCrown.

Predictions of annual and cumulative costs for reverse-osmosis (RO) water treatment were made byTaseko starting Year 20 or Year 43, only for selected minesite sources which did not include FishLake.

These scenarios had annual operating costs of $4 to $14 Million. Total estimated costs provided byTaseko were $0.5 to $1.5 billion dollars for the first 100 years of operation and 20-yeartreatment-plant reconstructions. However, their Net Present Values (NPV) were estimated byTaseko at an affordable $11 to $20 million dollars.

Confirmation could not be found in the New Prosperity EIS that its proposed RO treatment systemcould lower aqueous concentrations to required levels on a full operating scale.

In 2013, another report focussed on treatment of water from Fish Lake using three treatment circuits.Taseko considers this a “water management option”, not a requirement integrated into the mine planas government insists.



This 2013 report contained no full-scale confirmation that these proposed treatment circuits willwork successfully, individually or combined, and be economically viable. In fact, statements as totheir anticipated full-scale success were contradicted by other sources.

Based on previous information from Taseko on reverse-osmosis treatment, this more elaboratesystem for water treatment could cost more than $4-$14 Million annually, and more than $0.5-$1.5Billion for the first 100 years. However, a very recent, partial estimate of treatment costs for FishLake is given as only $1.3 million/year, which is inconsistent with previous information fromTaseko.


Graphical Summary

Tailings Storage Facility

Higher-Than-PredictedConcentrations from

Recirculation


Potentially Rapid ARD Unpredicted EffectsSuch As From

Temperature, Nitrite,and pH for Some Sources

FishLake

TRIB 1Higher-Than-Predicted

Concentrations

Higher-Than-PredictedConcentrations


Soil Stockpile

Other Lakes andSurface WatersHigher-Than-Predicted

Concentrations

Unpredicted EffectsSuch As From

Nitrite and Temperature


Potentially Rapid ARDIn the Ore Stockpile

Higher-Than-Predicted Concentrations from Soil Stockpile and Other Minesite

Components

Higher-Than-PredictedConcentrations fromSoluble Treatment

Wastes

Water Treatment:Where? When? How

Long? How Much? Will It Work on a Large Scale?

Is It Affordable?

Unpredicted EffectsSuch As From

Nitrite and Temperature

KEVIN A. MORIN, Ph.D., P.Geo., L.Hydrogeo.Morwijk Enterprises Ltd. and the Minesite Drainage Assessment Group (MDAG)

Dr. Kevin Morin is the President of Morwijk Enterprises Ltd. and the Minesite DrainageAssessment Group (MDAG). The following pages provide background information on hisuniversity education, past professional positions, responsibilities on selected projects, andpublications.

EDUCATION

Ph.D., Hydrogeology, University of Waterloo, Canada. 1984.M.Sc., Geology with Minors in Mathematics and Engineering,

University of North Dakota, USA. 1979.B.Sc., Secondary Education with Certificates in Earth/Space and General Sciences,

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, USA. 1977.

EXPERIENCE

Kevin Morin has more than 35 years of experience in the fields of water contamination,contaminant migration, hydrogeology, geochemistry, environmental impact assessment, andcomputer modelling related to mining and industrial activity. He specializes in the design andimplementation of field and laboratory studies, and in the development and utilization of conceptualand mathematical models, for the environmental and geological sciences. This experienceencompasses hundreds of proposed, operating, and closed mining operations, more than twentyindustrial sites, four commercial/urban developments, four highway-related projects, two water-reservoir projects, and seven detailed computer programs. These projects have been located onevery continent of the world, except Antarctica, and in widely diverse biogeoclimatic zones.

Dr. Morin is an author or co-author of more than 100 publications, Internet case studies, andbooks on various aspects of geochemistry, contaminant migration, hydrogeology, wastemanagement, and environmental protection. He is co-author of the first textbook on drainagechemistry from various minesite components, entitled Environmental Geochemistry of MinesiteDrainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies, and author of Minesite-Drainage Chemistry: AnIntroduction. His professional positions in consulting, university, research, and regulatoryenforcement provide a wide expertise in environmental geochemistry and environmental protection.

Dr. Morin is a registered Professional Geoscientist in the Canadian Province of BritishColumbia and a Licensed Hydrogeologist in the U.S. State of Washington. He is a member of theInternational Association of Hydrogeologists and of the Scientists and Engineers Division of theNational Ground Water Association.

SmithJ

Typewritten Text


SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS

1989 Morwijk Enterprises Ltd. and MDAG, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada todate Position: President, Geochemist, and Hydrogeologist

Responsibilities include a wide range of research and field studies in various aspects ofhydrogeology, geochemistry, and environmental impact. Projects include:- assessments of drainage chemistry from open-pit and underground mine walls; - field study and project management of a contaminated site with spilled metalconcentrate;- options and costs for water treatment;- an integrated prediction of drainage chemistry from underground workings, waste-rock

dumps, and a tailings impoundment;- a field study of groundwater movement and acid generation in a large mine-rock dump;- assessment, prediction, and control of acidic drainage and metal leaching from cuts and

fills for highways and roads; - data warehouses of past water-chemistry data spanning several decades and including

thousands of water analyses;- a hydrogeochemical study of acidic, radionuclide-bearing groundwater seeping from a

uranium-tailings impoundment; - court and other legal experience on acidic drainage and mine closure; - a subsurface investigation of creosote and chlorophenol contamination at a wood-

preservation facility;- geochemical impact of an urban-water-supply-expansion project; - the conceptual design of groundwater-control measures at a PCB-contaminated site;- the creation of computer programs to predict migration of aqueous contaminants in

groundwater systems;- a review of techniques, costing, and scheduling of a U.S. EPA Superfund study

(Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study) of several copper-zinc tailings,beryllium dump, and smelter slag;

- and hydrogeological studies of a steel-production landfill and cyanide dump.

1987 NORECOL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD., Vancouver, Canada to1989 Position: Senior Hydrogeologist and Hydrogeochemist

Responsibilities involved task design/coordination and, as Manager of Research forNorecol’s subsidiary (Canect Environmental Control Technologies Ltd.), research anddevelopment of new and innovative technologies for Norecol's mining and industrial clients. Project involvement included groundwater and contaminant migration studies at mining-waste and industrial-waste sites and the prediction and control of acidic drainage frommineral-resource activity.

1985 SASKATCHEWAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, Prince Albert, Canada to1987 Position: Hydrogeologist and Environment Officer

Responsibilities entailed technical assessment and review of Environmental ImpactAssessments and of construction/operation activities at uranium, gold, potash, lignite, andmetal mines. Internal projects included detailed evaluations of historic water-quality dataat Saskatchewan mines.

1984 UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Position: Research Associate

Responsibilities involved the expansion of the ADNEUT computer program for thesimulation of long-term contaminant migration in acidic and pH-neutral seepage fromtailings, the simulation of the development of present conditions at a tailings site, and thesimulation of potential contaminant migration under a contract with Energy, Mines, andResources Canada.

1979 UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada to1983 Position: Research Assistant

Responsibilities involved field studies and environmental impact assessment of uraniumtailings impoundments and waste-rock piles, the environmental impact and geochemicalcontrols on acid generation, the development, testing, and implementation of computermodels to evaluate and simulate contaminant migration in groundwater systems, and themonitoring of a municipal landfill site.

1977 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA to1979 Position: Geologic Consultant

Responsibilities encompassed studies of hydrogeology, stratigraphy, and environmentalimpact of a proposed 25-square-mile strip lignite mine in western North Dakota, involvingdrilling, piezometer instrumentation, data collection, and evaluation.

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

RESPONSIBILITIES ON SELECTED PROJECTS

Minesite-Drainage Chemistry/Acidic Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching

˜ Assistance for creating a manual for sampling, data analysis, and interpretation for predictingminesite drainage for the Province of British Columbia

˜ Assessment and prediction of metal leaching and acid generation from existing mineworkings, pits, and waste rock, and from future workings, rock, and tailings, at a 40-year-oldpolymetallic mine in British Columbia

˜ Inorganic assessment and project management for a Contaminated Sites investigation offormer concentrate sheds

˜ Prediction of chemical concentrations from pit walls, a waste-rock dump, and a heap-leachpile at a proposed gold mine in Mexico, integrated with mine planning and closure

˜ Assessment and prediction of acidic drainage and metal leaching at quarries for industrialminerals

˜ Multi-catchment modelling of acidity concentrations and loadings for estimation oftreatment-plant requirements and costs, including wet and dry years, at a minesite withstrong ARD

˜ Participation in compilation of hundreds of thousands of historical water-chemistry analysesspanning three decades at several minesites

˜ Review and reinterpretation of data for a waste-rock dump with layers of acid-generating andacid-neutralizing rock at a closed gold mine in British Columbia

˜ Fast-track prediction of minesite-drainage chemistry based on existing information for anickel-laterite deposit

˜ Assessment, prediction, and control of drainage chemistry from highway cuts and fills inBritish Columbia

˜ Invited presenter for a week-long series of lectures at minesites and meetings in Australiaon the consequences of timely prediction and control of minesite drainage

˜ Assessment of water chemistry and evaluation of water-treatment options and controls at aminesite in the Caribbean

˜ Review and comment for a regulatory agency on the short-term and long-term consequencesof proposed heap leaching at a minesite in Canada

˜ Conceptual design and assessment of closure options for a large underground base-metalmine in Peru

˜ Integrated assessment of metal leaching and current/future acidic drainage from tailings,waste rock, and mine walls for closure of a mine in central British Columbia

˜ Review of historical data, prediction of future water chemistry, and contribution to closure-plan designs for a metal mine in Quebec

˜ Technical assessment and field inspection for acidic drainage at a coal mine in BritishColumbia on behalf of a regulatory agency for public hearings and monitoring.

˜ Review and advice to First Nations on proposed mines within claimed territory

˜ Assessment and prediction of acid-drainage potential and water-quality impacts for closureplans at two metal mines in Ontario

˜ Compilation of long-term drainage-chemistry data at several international mines for anintegrated database

˜ Case study of the construction, drainage chemistry, and dismantling of an acid-generatingwaste-rock dump for the Canadian Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Program

˜ Interpretation of static and kinetic testwork for predicting aqueous metal concentrations atan diamond project in Canada

˜ Design and interpretation of 2000-sample ABA and kinetic databases for selection andrefinement of acidic-drainage control at a gold-copper mine in Venezuela

˜ Coordination and interpretation of acid-drainage testwork for a proposed stratabound base-metal mine in northeastern British Columbia

˜ Detailed statistical evaluation and interpretation of a database containing nearly 60,000analyses of metal-bearing water at eight stations collected as often as every four hours forthree years

˜ Assessment of potential for future acidic drainage in a tailings impoundment closed for tenyears in central British Columbia

˜ Investigation of acid-drainage potential and water-chemistry impacts at a closed mine incentral British Columbia

˜ Coordination and review of static and kinetic testwork for a proposed mine in Chile

˜ Interpretation of static and kinetic testwork for assessing various closure options for a base-metal mine in Quebec

˜ Participation in a formal Risk Assessment on a proposed mine in northern British Columbia,focussing on water chemistry and acidic drainage

˜ Review of acid-drainage studies at a proposed minesite for the State of Oregon

˜ Voluntary Technical Advisor to the Canadian MEND Program, Prediction Committee

˜ Assessment of acid-drainage potential in coal tailings in Nova Scotia

˜ Supervision of an acid-drainage study at a temporarily closed gold mine in northwesternBritish Columbia.

˜ Assessment of the potential for acidic drainage to appear at a large pH-neutral base-metalmine in eastern British Columbia.

˜ Presentations and workshops on various topics related to water chemistry and environmentalimpacts, including aqueous speciation/mineral solubility, waste-rock dumps, and walls ofopen pits and underground workings

˜ Detailed summary of 15 years of on-site monitoring and predictive testwork at a copper minein British Columbia

˜ Long-term, research-level monitoring and interpretation of water levels, temperatures, andpore-gas composition in an acid-generating waste-rock dump, British Columbia

˜ Design and coding of a custom database for acid-drainage data to be distributedinternationally by the Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program

˜ Evaluation of predictive testwork for acidic drainage at a copper mine in the Philippines

˜ Design and interpretation of several types of laboratory-based and in-field acid-drainagetests for several rock types at a proposed large gold mine in the Queen Charlotte Islands,British Columbia. Environment Canada stated that “... this work [on acid mine drainage] isstate-of-the-art and is the most advanced conducted for a mine in British Columbia and, quitelikely, in the world”

˜ Field study, data interpretation, computer-model creation, and literature review on acidicdrainage and metal leaching from mine walls, focussing on an open pit in central BritishColumbia

˜ Evaluation of acid generation, metal leaching, and groundwater movement in acid-generating waste rock, underground workings, and pit walls in central Vancouver Island

˜ Participation in the creation of a technical guide for the prediction and control of acidicdrainage, sponsored by the British Columbia Acid Mine Drainage Task Force and the federalMine Environment Neutral Drainage Program

˜ Literature review of acidic drainage in northern permafrost environments

˜ Predictive program for a proposed massive-sulphide minesite in northern permafrostenvironments

˜ Review and recommendations for further work on a 80-year-old minesite in southeasternBritish Columbia

˜ Design and testing of practical environmental controls on acidic drainage for a proposedlarge gold mine on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia

˜ Senior reviewer for an assessment of potential acidic drainage from sulfide-bearing rockpiles undergoing acidic leaching for copper recovery in British Columbia

Baseline Hydrogeology, Water Chemistry, and Geology

˜ Creation and application of a full-scale computer program to simulate water flow and qualityin an integrated system comprised of a large lake, various surface flows, and groundwaterflows at a proposed metal mine in northern British Columbia

˜ Design, installation, and sampling of a groundwater monitoring network with piezometersand underground stations at an existing precious/base-metal mine in central British Columbia

˜ Design, installation, and sampling of a groundwater monitoring network at a cranberry farmwith flotation problems in southern British Columbia

˜ Creation of a three-dimensional model for flow and stratigraphy in and below a reclaimedmill-tailings impoundment in northern Ontario.

˜ Delineation of baseline hydrogeology for a major base-metal mine in British Columbia

˜ Design of a drilling and groundwater-monitoring program around an environmentallysensitive lake in an arid mining area of South America

˜ Drilling to define the stratigraphy for use in environmental protection at a proposed chemicalmanufacturing plant in central British Columbia

˜ Review of hydrogeologic data for baseline conditions at a proposed golf course in BritishColumbia

˜ Definition of geologic and mineralogic associations of rock types in a gold-enriched faultzone at a proposed gold mine on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia

˜ Interpretation of existing data and supervision of drilling in a bog for proposed urbandevelopment

˜ Delineation of the stratigraphy and its influence on contaminant migration in a groundwaterplume from a uranium-tailings impoundment in northern Ontario

˜ Design and execution of a drilling program to define the stratigraphy and baselinehydrogeology of a proposed 25-square-mile lignite mine in western North Dakota

˜ Compilation and interpretation of historical hydrogeological data for a proposed deep-seaport and urban center in southern British Columbia

Contaminant Hydrogeology, Hydrogeochemistry, and Water Quality

˜ Supervision, in-field sampling, and interpretation of hydrogeologic and geochemical dataat a contaminated site with inorganic and organic contaminants

˜ Design and execution of a subsurface investigation at burned-down sawmill with anti-sapstain chemicals on Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Assessment of arsenic and lead contamination in water and soil in and around a small townin central British Columbia caused by historical mineral processing

˜ Compilation, interpretation, and predictive modelling of a 25-year water-quality databaseconsisting of nearly 60,000 values with samples collected as often as every four hours

˜ Field assessment, modelling, and design of a pump-and-treat containment system for acontaminated site with pure-phase PAH compounds in groundwater near a marine harbor

˜ Supervision, quality-assurance review, and detailed interpretation of contaminant migrationat a chemical and metal-refining facility in Alberta including contaminant-plume trackingand pump tests

˜ Investigation of the physical and chemical hydrogeology of contaminated sites with elevatedconcentrations of metals in soil and groundwater

˜ Field investigations, report review, and participation in legal prosecution for the federaldepartments of Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans

˜ Hydrogeologic investigation for contamination under a court warrant in a national park insoutheastern British Columbia

˜ Expert testimony on groundwater movement and subsurface contaminant transport for acriminal prosecution under the federal Fisheries Act and British Columbia WasteManagement Act

˜ Drilling, monitor-well installation, sampling, data interpretation, and computer modellingfor remedial design at a former coal gasification facility and PCB waste depository onVancouver Island

˜ Water-quality assessment and predictions for a base-metal mine in northwestern Ontario

˜ Design and supervision of installation of groundwater monitoring networks at sawmills withchlorophenol and dioxin contamination, Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Review of existing data and design of subsurface investigation for an industrial park ineastern Washington

˜ Design, execution, and interpretation of a seepage-meter investigation of groundwater-

surface water interaction in a fish-bearing creek near a wood-preservation facility in BritishColumbia

˜ Reviews and comments on numerous investigations of subsurface organic and inorganiccontamination under contract to Environment Canada

˜ Field study, data interpretation, computer-model creation, and literature review for waterquality from mines, funded by the Federal/British Columbia Mineral DevelopmentAgreement and the Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Program

˜ Initial assessments and recommendations for two wood-waste leachate sites in southwesternBritish Columbia

˜ Evaluation of the hydrogeology of, and acid generation within, underground workings, aninactive pit, and a large acid-generating waste-rock dump in central Vancouver Island

˜ Delineation of the contaminant hydrogeology of an wood-preservation site using creosoteand pentachlorophenol in southeastern British Columbia

˜ Water-quality predictions at a base-metal mine in central British Columbia

˜ Drilling, monitor-well installation, and assessment of contaminant migration at a former coalgasification facility in Vancouver, British Columbia

˜ Project Manager and Senior Scientist for the creation of an extensive manual guiding thecollection of solid, liquid, and pore-gas samples in and around mine tailings area, sponsoredby the MEND Program

˜ Sampling and interpretation on a yearly basis of a contaminant groundwater plume with highaqueous levels of radionuclides emanating from a uranium-tailings impoundment in northernOntario, sponsored by the federal Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources

˜ Installation and sampling of a monitoring network in a leachate plume emanating from amunicipal landfill in northern Ontario

˜ Collection and interpretation of hydrogeological data at a industrial landfill in Ontario

˜ Drilling and groundwater monitoring of buried fly-ash at lignite mines in western NorthDakota, in association with the North Dakota Geological Survey

˜ Invited member of the technical review panel for a field study and associated computersimulation of contaminated, radionuclide-laden groundwater in northern Ontario, sponsoredby the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada

˜ Evaluation of groundwater and contaminant migration at a site contaminated by dense non-aqueous hydrocarbons in western British Columbia

˜ Supervision and advice on drilling and sampling at an industrial site contaminated withpesticides and benzene-based compounds in southern British Columbia

˜ Interpretation of physical and chemical hydrogeologic data at a potash mine with subsurfacebrine contamination in southeastern Saskatchewan

Impact Assessment, Waste/Water Management for Control of Contamination, and Reclamation Planning

˜ Expert testimony and hydrogeological advice for a legal criminal prosecution under federaland provincial laws over improper placement of wood waste in southwestern BritishColumbia

˜ Design and execution of field and lab evaluations of metal contamination as part of a closureplan for a base-metal mine in central British Columbia

˜ Negotiations with regulatory agencies for acceptable remediation of a coal-tar site inVancouver, British Columbia

˜ Assessment of water chemistry, catchment-specific modelling of water- and chemical-mass-balance loadings, and evaluation of water-treatment options and controls at a minesite in theCaribbean

˜ Evaluation of water-quality control options and their costs for a section of highway in BritishColumbia

˜ Field visits, inspections, sampling, and data interpretation at unreclaimed mineral-exploration site, leading to reclamation recommendations from the team

˜ Review and re-interpretation of hydrogeologic data to determine potential impacts of awellfield on a nearby pond containing endangered species in Chile

˜ Estimation of groundwater impacts and resulting nearshore impacts from a refugee campduring the Gulf War

˜ Participation in formal Risk Assessments of active and proposed minesites in BritishColumbia, focussing on environmental chemistry

˜ Prediction and control of drainage chemistry from highway cuts and fills in British Columbia

˜ Geochemical effects of raising water-retaining dams with rock for an urban water supply

˜ Definition of environmentally acceptable waste management plans and simulations of waterflow and quality in an integrated system comprised of a large lake, various surface flows andgroundwater flow at a proposed metal mine in northern British Columbia

˜ Detailed literature review and recommendations on the environmental implications ofretrieving surface-impounded mine tailings and placing them in underground mines for theAtomic Energy Control Board of Canada

˜ Technical assistance in a federal investigation on wood-waste leachate entering a fish-bearing stream in southwestern British Columbia

˜ Development of a phased remediation project for an industrial site contaminated by coal taron Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Design of a regulatory monitoring program and remedial plan at a PCB-contaminated site,Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Development of intensive waste-management and reclamation criteria for stockpiles, atailings impoundment, and a backfilled pit for acid-generating rock at a proposed large goldmine on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia

˜ Participation in a federal investigation of aquatic impacts near a pole-preservation facilityin central British Columbia, leading to federal charges

˜ Review of physical and chemical hydrogeologic databases to define backgroundconcentrations and delineate contaminant migration at a potash mine in Saskatchewan

˜ Assessment of controls needed to meet provincial cyanide criteria in a lake system receivingtailings in northern Manitoba

˜ Design of preliminary water-management plans for control of groundwater and surface waterduring harvesting at a cranberry farm with flotation problems in southern British Columbia

˜ Design of remedial plans to interface with an integrated provincial, municipal, and privatecontamination problem in shallow groundwater, British Columbia

˜ Design of groundwater remediation procedures at a site contaminated by dense hydrocarboncompounds in British Columbia

˜ Review and comment on impact assessments and reclamation plans for mines and selectedindustrial projects in Saskatchewan to ensure acceptable environmental protection, as amember of the Saskatchewan Department of Environment

˜ Drilling and groundwater monitoring of reclaimed pits at lignite mines in western NorthDakota, in association with the North Dakota Geological Survey

Industrial/Hazardous Waste Projects

˜ Coordinating hydrogeologist for remediation of an historical PCB disposal area, VancouverIsland, British Columbia

˜ Senior hydrogeologist for subsurface investigations of chlorophenol and dioxincontamination at two sawmills, Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Control of drainage chemistry from highway cuts and fills in British Columbia

˜ Technical review of various proposed and existing industrial and residential projects inBritish Columbia and the Yukon on behalf of Environment Protection, Environment Canada

˜ Project manager and hydrogeologist for a regulation-based assessment of a contaminated sitewith inorganic and organic contaminants

˜ Hydrogeologist responsible for designing investigations of two wood-waste sites insouthwestern British Columbia

˜ Coordinating hydrogeologist for the investigation and remediation of an urban coal-tar siteon Vancouver Island, British Columbia

˜ Drilling supervision, sample logging and collection, data interpretation, and regulatoryliaison for a wood-preservation operation in southwestern British Columbia

˜ Hydrogeologic review of a multi-phase subsurface investigation at a chemical/fertilizer plantin central Alberta

˜ Senior hydrogeologist for a detailed hydrogeologic investigation of a former coalgasification facility near False Creek, Vancouver, British Columbia

˜ Technical review of several environmental assessments of industrial sites on behalf of afederal regulatory agency

˜ Installation and sampling of a monitoring network in a leachate plume emanating from amunicipal landfill in northern Ontario

˜ Technical review of techniques, costing, and scheduling of a U.S. EPA Superfund study ofseveral copper-zinc tailings areas, a beryllium dump, and smelter slag in western Montana

˜ Collection and interpretation of hydrogeological data at a industrial landfill in southernOntario

˜ Site reconnaissance and geochemical sampling at a cyanide dump in southern Ontario

Legal Investigations, Prosecutions, and Litigation

˜ Formal technical investigation of groundwater-borne organic contaminants to a fish-bearingstream, involving federal charges

˜ Expert Witness in criminal court proceedings on subsurface transport of metals in acidicgroundwater under the federal Fisheries Act and provincial Waste Management Act

˜ Acid-Mine-Drainage and Mine-Closure Expert for a civil application and mediation oncontested ownership of an abandoned mine with major closure liabilities

˜ Project Manager and Hydrogeologist for assessment of a site listed under the ContaminatedSites Regulations

˜ Collection of subsurface evidence under a search warrant for groundwater-borne organic andinorganic contaminants to a fish-bearing river in a national park, to support federal charges

˜ Testimony and cross-examination under oath before a territorial regulatory water board onbehalf of Environment Canada, with cross-examination of other witnesses

˜ Expert testimony on minesite-drainage chemistry and remedial mined-rock covers duringan appeal of a government permit

Computer Programming

˜ Creation of an object-oriented computer program to simulate acid generation, metal leaching,and water movement in open-pit and underground mines during operation and afterdecommissioning, including graphical output, through the Mine Environment NeutralDrainage Program

˜ Creation of an object-oriented computer program to simulate acid generation, metal leaching,and water movement through open-system and closed-system mine-rock dumps

˜ Design and coding of a flexible database with custom input screens and data managementfor international acid-drainage data, funded by the Federal/British Columbia MineralDevelopment Agreement

˜ Creation of a family of computer programs to simulate the migration of acidic drainage in

groundwater systems, with support from the Canadian federal government

˜ Creation of a computer program to simulate cyanide complexation, volatilization, anddegradation in the natural environment

˜ Review and presentation of comments on a major program for simulating acidic drainage intailings

˜ Creation of a stand-alone speciation program to evaluate mercury complexation andprecipitation-dissolution in acid-leach mill circuits and tailings impoundments

˜ Creation of a computer program to define the equilibrium speciation of radium, actinium,thorium, and uranium and to evaluate their potential for solid-liquid interaction

Highway Drainage

˜ Geochemical assistance on prediction and control of acid rock drainage, with follow-upmonitoring, on the Inland Island Highway portion of the Vancouver Island Highway Project;summary published and presented at the 6th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainagein Australia, July 2003

˜ Field sampling, data interpretation, and preliminary costing of control strategies for acid rockdrainage and metal leaching in a creek system, on behalf of the British Columbia Ministryof Transportation

˜ Sample analysis, interpretation, and predictions of acid rock drainage and metal leaching forproposed highway-related quarries

˜ Detailed review and comments on ambiguities in initial ARD characterization to preventdelays in ongoing highway construction

Water Reservoirs

˜ Field sampling, data interpretation, and recommendations for the major expansion of a citywater reservoir in Canada

˜ Data review and interpretation of geochemical impacts of dam rock and historical miningwithin a proposed municipal water reservoir in Canada

PUBLICATIONS AND THESES

Books

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1997. Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: PracticalTheory and Case Studies. MDAG Publishing, Canada. ISBN 0-9682039-0-6.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. Environmental Geochemistry of Minesite Drainage: PracticalTheory and Case Studies - Digital Edition. MDAG Publishing, Canada. ISBN 0-9682039-1-4.

Morin, K.A. 2011. Minesite Drainage Chemistry: An Introduction. MDAG Publishing, Canada. www.mdag.com/publishing.html

Internet Case Studies at MDAG.com

Morin, K.A. 2013. Scaling Factors of Humidity-Cell Kinetic Rates for Larger-Scale Predictions.MDAG Internet Case Study #38, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs38.html

Morin, K.A. 2010. The Science and Non-Science of Minesite-Drainage Chemistry. MDAG InternetCase Study #37, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs37.html

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2010. Microbial Effects on Minesite-Drainage Chemistry. MDAGInternet Case Study #36, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs36.html

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and M.L. Aziz. 2010. Twenty-Three Years of MonitoringMinesite-Drainage Chemistry, During Operation and After Closure: The Equity SilverMinesite, British Columbia, Canada. MDAG Internet Case Study #35,www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs35.html

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2010. Twenty-Nine Years of Monitoring Minesite-DrainageChemistry, During Operation and After Closure: The Granisle Minesite, British Columbia,Canada. MDAG Internet Case Study #34, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs34.html

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2010. Thirty-One Years of Monitoring Minesite-Drainage Chemistry,During Operation and After Closure: The Bell Minesite, British Columbia, Canada. MDAGInternet Case Study #33, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs33.html

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2009. On the Nonsense of Arguing the Superiority of an AnalyticalMethod for Neutralization Potential. MDAG Internet Case Study #32,www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs32.html.

Morin, K.A. 2009. Supplement 1: Additional Discussions on the Non-Intrinsic Nature ofNeutralization Potential (NP). www.mdag.com/case_studies/Additional Discussions on theNon-Intrinsic Nature of Neutralization Potential (NP).html

Morin, K.A. 2009. Supplement 2: Arguments on the General Superiority of Neutralization Potential( N P ) M e t h o d o l o g y T r a n s l a t e d i n t o V a r i e t i e s o f O r a n g e s . www.mdag.com/case_studies/Arguments on the General Superiority of NeutralizationPotential (NP) Methodology Translated into Varieties of Oranges.html

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2008. Field Study of Unavailable Neutralization Potential in AcidicRock. MDAG Internet Case Study #31, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs31.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2008. Case Studies of Unavailable Neutralization Potential inAcid-Base-Accounting Datasets. MDAG Internet Case Study #30,www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs30.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2008. Leaching of Nitrogen Species during Underground Mining.MDAG Internet Case Study #29, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs29.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2008. Bimodal Distribution of pH at Minesites with Acid RockDrainage. MDAG Internet Case Study #28, www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs28.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2007. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 27. Highway 97C Road-CutEnvironmental Prosecution Near Pennask Creek. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs27.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2007. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 26. Scaling and EquilibriumConcentrations in Minesite-Drainage Chemistry. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs26.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2007. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 25. A Case Study ofImportant Aluminosilicate Neutralization. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs25.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2007. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 24. Errors from SamplingHumidity Cells Every Second Cycle. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs24.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 23. Rock Grain Size and ItsImplications for Minesite-Drainage Chemistry. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs23.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 22. Should a Humidity-CellSample Be Gently Agitated During Testing? www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs22.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 21. Is There a Solid-PhaseSulphide Level Below Which No ARD Is Possible? www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs21.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 20. Conversion of Mineralsinto Neutralization Potentials with Units of CaCO3 Equivalent. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs20.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2004. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 19. Why Include Ore Samplesin the Prediction of Minesite-Drainage Chemistry, When Ore is Not Waste? www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs8-04.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 18. The Tulsequah ChiefCourt Decision. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs5-01.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 17. The Gaia Theorem, or theZen of Earth. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs9-00.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 16. Sulphide Oxidation andMetal Leaching in Permafrost Areas of Greenland and Canada. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs5-00.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 15. Prediction ofM i n e s i t e - D r a i n a g e C h e m i s t r y U s i n g t h e " W h e e l " A p p r o a c h . www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs11-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 14. Mine Closure andLong-Term Control of Acidic Drainage at Island Copper Mine, British Columbia, Canada. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs9-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 13. The Cheviot Court Case:Implications and Precedents for Environmental Effects of Mining in Canada. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs7-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 12. Dam Failure and TailingsRelease at Aznalcóllar (Los Frailes), Spain - One Year Later. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs5-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 11. Onset of Acidic Drainagefrom a Mine-Rock Pile. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs3-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 10. Comparison of NAGResults to ABA Results for the Prediction of Acidic Drainage. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs1-99.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 9. Contribution of Bacteriato Su lph ide -Minera l Reac t ion Ra tes in Na tura l Env i ronments . www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs11-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 8. Remnant EnvironmentalEffects from Gold Mining in Aruba After a Century. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs9-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 7. Motherhood, Apple Pie,and Contaminant Source Reduction. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs7-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 6. Upside-Down OxidationProfile in Sulphide-Bearing Tailings. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs5-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 5. Minesites Are Made ofDistinct Components. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs3-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 4. Control ofMinesite-Drainage Chemistry: Why and How Much Does It Cost? www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs2-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 3. Minesite-DrainageChemistry is Like Rain. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs1-98.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1997. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 2. Rum Jungle Minesite,Northern Territory, Australia. www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs12-97.html.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1997. MDAG.com Internet Case Study 1. Neutralization Potential:What Is It and Why Is It Important for Drainage Chemistry? www.mdag.com/case_studies/cs11-97.html.

Peer-reviewed Publications

Betrie, G.D., S. Tesfamariama, K. Morin, and R. Sadiq. 2013. Predicting copper concentrations inacid mine drainage: a comparative analysis of five machine learning techniques.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, p. 4171-4182.

Betrie, G.D., S. Rehan, K.A. Morin, S, Tesfamariam. 2012. Uncertainty analysis of an aquivalence-based fate and transport model using a hybrid fuzzy-probabilistic approach. IN: Proceedingsof the 12th International Environmental Specialty Conference, Canadian Society for CivilEngineering, Edmonton, Alberta, June 6-9, 2012.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and M. Aziz. 2012. Case studies of thousands of water analyses throughdecades of monitoring: selected observations from three minesites in British Columbia,Canada. IN: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,Ottawa, Canada, May 22-24.

Betrie, G.D., S. Tesfamariama, K. Morin, and R. Sadiq. 2012. Predicting copper concentrations inacid mine drainage: A comparative analysis of five machine learning techniques. IN:Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Ottawa, Canada,May 22-24.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2009. Mine-water leaching of nitrogen species from explosiveresidues. IN: Proceedings of GeoHalifax 2009, the 62nd Canadian Geotechnical Conferenceand 10th Joint CGS/IAH-CNC Groundwater Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada,September 20-24, p. 1549-1553.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. Case studies of costs and longevities of alkali-basedwater-treatment plants for ARD and minesite-drainage chemistry, and their implications on

net-present-value estimates. IN: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on AcidRock Drainage, St. Louis, MO, USA, March 26-30, 2006.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and M.L. Aziz. 2003. Variations in ARD from the Equity Silver Waste-Rock Dumps. IN: Proceedings of the 10th Annual British Columbia ML/ARD Workshop,December 2-3, Vancouver, Canada. Canadian MEND Program.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, T.S. Coulter, and W.M. Tekano. 2003. Case study of non-miningprediction and control of acid rock drainage - the Vancouver Island Highway Project. IN:T. Farrell and G. Taylor, eds., Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on AcidRock Drainage, July 14-17, Cairns, Australia, p. 495-501. The Australian Institute ofMining and Metallurgy.

Morin, K.A. 2003. Problems with acid rock drainage predictions at the Ekati Diamond Mine,Northwest Territories, Canada. IN: T. Farrell and G. Taylor, eds., Proceedings from theSixth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, July 14-17, Cairns, Australia, p.663-670. The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. Relocation of net-acid-generating waste to improvepost-mining water chemistry. Waste Management, Vol. 21, p. 185-190.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. Prediction of water chemistry in mine lakes: The minewalltechnique. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 17, p. 125 - 132.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. Prediction of minesite-drainage chemistry through closureusing operational monitoring data. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 73, p. 123-130.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and S. Hutt. 2001. A compilation of empirical drainage-chemistry models(EDCMs). IN: Proceedings of Securing the Future, International Conference on Mining andthe Environment, Skellefteå, Sweden, June 25-July 1, Volume 2, p. 556-565. The SwedishMining Association.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, W.A. Price, and V. Coffin. 2001. Violation of common ABA predictionrules by molybdenum-related minesites in British Columbia. IN: Proceedings of Securingthe Future, International Conference on Mining and the Environment, Skellefteå, Sweden,June 25-July 1, Volume 2, p. 566-575. The Swedish Mining Association.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. A comparison of past predictions to current conditions at BellMine, British Columbia, Canada. IN: Proceedings of Securing the Future, InternationalConference on Mining and the Environment, Skellefteå, Sweden, June 25-July 1, Volume2, p. 576-585. The Swedish Mining Association.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2001. The Gaia Theorem and minesite-drainage chemistry:implications and observations. IN: Proceedings of Securing the Future, InternationalConference on Mining and the Environment, Skellefteå, Sweden, June 25-July 1, Volume2, p. 586-593. The Swedish Mining Association.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. Lessons learned from long-term and large-batch humidity cells. IN: Proceedings from the Fifth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, May 20-26, Denver, USA, Volume I, p. 661-671. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,Inc., Littleton, CO, USA.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. Discrete-zone mixing of net-acid-neutralizing and net-acid-generating rock: Avoiding the argument over appropriate ratios. IN: Proceedings from theFifth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, May 20-26, Denver, USA, VolumeII, p. 797-803. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, USA.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. Relocation and submergence of net-acid-generating waste rockfor control of acidic drainage: A case study. IN: Proceedings from the Fifth InternationalConference on Acid Rock Drainage, May 20-26, Denver, USA, Volume II, p. 819-825. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, USA.

Hutt, N.M., and K.A. Morin. 2000. Observations and lessons from the International Static Database(ISD) on neutralizing capacity. IN: Proceedings from the Fifth International Conference onAcid Rock Drainage, May 20-26, Denver, USA, Volume I, p. 603-611. Society for Mining,Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, USA.

Price, W.A., K.A. Morin, and N.M. Hutt. 1997. Guidelines for the prediction of acid rock drainageand metal leaching for mines in British Columbia: Part II. Recommended procedures forstatic and kinetic testing. IN: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AcidRock Drainage, May 31-June 6, Vancouver, Canada, Volume I., p. 15-30.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and K.D. Ferguson. 1996. The International Kinetic Database: Rates ofacid generation, neutralization, and metal leaching from mines around the world. IN:Proceedings of the 3rd International and 21st Annual Minerals Council of AustraliaEnvironmental Workshop, October 14-18, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, Volume1, p.132-148.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1994. An empirical technique for predicting the chemistry of waterseeping from mine-rock piles. IN: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on theAbatement of Acidic Drainage, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, April 24-29, Volume 1,p.12-19.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1994. Observed preferential depletion of neutralization potential oversulfide minerals in kinetic tests: Site-specific criteria for safe NP/AP ratios. IN: Proceedingsof the Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, USA, April 24-29, Volume 1, p.148-156.

Morin, K.A., I.A. Horne, and D. Riehm. 1994. High-frequency geochemical monitoring of toeseepage from mine-rock dumps, BHP Minerals' Island Copper Mine, British Columbia. IN:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, April 24-29, Volume 1, p.346-354.

Morin, K.A., C.E. Jones, and R.P. van Dyk. 1994. Internal hydrogeologic monitoring of an acidic

waste-rock dump at Westmin Resources' Myra Falls Operations, British Columbia. IN:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, April 24-29, Volume 1, p.355-364.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and R. McArthur. 1994. Prediction of minewater chemistry from availablemonitoring data, Noranda Minerals' Bell Mine, British Columbia. IN: Proceedings of theThird International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, USA, April 24-29, Volume 2, p.422.

Morin, K.A., J.A. Cherry, N.K. Davé, T.P. Lim, and A.J. Vivyurka. 1988. Migration of acidicgroundwater seepage from uranium-tailings impoundments, 1. Field study and conceptualhydrogeochemical model. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2, p.271-303.

Morin, K.A., J.A. Cherry, N.K. Davé, T.P. Lim, and A.J. Vivyurka. 1988. Migration of acidicgroundwater seepage from uranium-tailings impoundments, 2. Geochemical behavior ofradionuclides in groundwater. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2, p.305-322.

Morin, K.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1988. Migration of acidic groundwater seepage from uranium-tailings impoundments, 3. Simulation of the conceptual model with application to SeepageArea A. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2, p.323-342.

Morin, K.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1988. Field investigation of a small-diameter, cylindrical,contaminated groundwater plume emanating from a pyritic uranium-tailings impoundment. ASTM Special Publication STP 963, Ground-Water Contamination, p.416-429.

Morin, K.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1986. Trace amounts of siderite near a uranium-tailingsimpoundment, Elliot Lake, Ontario, and its implication in controlling contaminant migrationin a sand aquifer. Chemical Geology, 56, p.117-134.

Morin, K.A. 1985. Simplified explanations and examples of common computerized methods forcalculating chemical equilibrium in water. Computers & Geosciences, 11, p.409-416.

Dubrovsky, N.M., K.A. Morin, J.A. Cherry, and D.J.A. Smyth. 1984. Uranium tailingsacidification and subsurface contaminant migration in a sand aquifer. Water PollutionResearch Journal of Canada, 19, p.55-89.

Morin, K.A., J.A. Cherry, T.P. Lim, and A.J. Vivyurka. 1982. Contaminant migration in a sandaquifer near an inactive tailings impoundment, Elliot Lake, Ontario. Canadian GeotechnicalJournal, 19, p.49-62. (Awarded the 1983 Canadian Geotechnical Society Prize for bestpaper.)

Rehm, B.W., G.H. Groenewold, and K.A. Morin. 1980. Hydraulic properties of coal and relatedmaterials, Northern Great Plains. Ground Water, 18, p.551-561.

Non-peer-reviewed Publications

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2006. The MEND Minewall Technique: Overview and Details. IN:Proceedings of the 13th Annual British Columbia MEND ML/ARD Workshop, Vancouver,Canada, November 29-30, 2006.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2005. Case studies and guidelines for drainage-chemistry prediction. IN: Proceedings of the 12th Annual British Columbia MEND ML/ARD Workshop,Vancouver, Canada, November 30 and December 1, 2005.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2004. The Minewall Approach for estimating the geochemical effectsof mine walls on pit lakes. Presented at Pit Lakes 2004; United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency; Reno, Nevada; November 16-18, 2004.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 2000. Case studies in metal solubility at minesites. Presented at the7th Annual British Columbia Metal Leaching/ARD Workshop, Vancouver, November 29-30.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. Geochemical characterization of molybdenum leaching fromrock and tailings at the Brenda Minesite, British Columbia. IN: W.A. Price, B. Hart, and C.Howell, eds., Proceedings of the 1999 Workshop on Molybdenum Issues in Reclamation,September 24, Kamloops, British Columbia, p.76-85.

Hutt, N.M. and K.A. Morin. 1999. The International Static Database. Proceedings of Sudbury ‘99,Mining and the Environment II, Volume 1, p. 363-370, Sudbury, Canada, September 13-15.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. Humidity Cells: How Long? How Many? Proceedings ofSudbury ‘99, Mining and the Environment II, Volume 1, p.109-117, Sudbury, Canada,September 13-15.

Morin, K.A., and B. Rosendale. 1999. Bell Mine - Drainage Collection and Discharge. Presentedat the 6th Annual British Columbia Metal Leaching/ARD Workshop, Vancouver, December1-2.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. Relocation of net-acid-generating waste rock to improve post-mining water chemistry. Ecology of Post-Mining Landscapes, BrandenburgischeTechnische Universität Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany, March 15-19.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. Prediction of drainage chemistry in post-mining landscapesusing operational monitoring data. Ecology of Post-Mining Landscapes, BrandenburgischeTechnische Universität Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany, March 15-19.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1999. Prediction of water chemistry in acid mine lakes: the Minewallapproach. Ecology of Post-Mining Landscapes, Brandenburgische Technische UniversitätCottbus, Cottbus, Germany, March 15-19.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1998. Kinetic tests and risk assessment for ARD. The 5th AnnualBritish Columbia Metal Leaching and ARD Workshop, December 9-10, Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada, B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines and MEND 2000.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1997. Comparisons of acid mine drainage predictions with historicalrecords. IN: R.W. McLean and L.C. Bell., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Acid MineDrainage, 15-18 July, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia, Australian Centre for MinesiteRehabilitation Research, p. 33-44.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and K.D. Ferguson. 1995. Measured rates of copper and zinc leaching inthe International Kinetic Database. IN: Proceedings of the 19th Annual British ColumbiaMine Reclamation Symposium, Dawson Creek, B.C., June 19-23, p.255-263.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and I.A. Horne. 1995. Prediction of future water chemistry from IslandCopper Mine's On-Land Dumps. IN: Proceedings of the 19th Annual British ColumbiaMine Reclamation Symposium, Dawson Creek, B.C., June 19-23, p. 224-233.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and K.D. Ferguson. 1995. Measured rates of sulfide oxidation and acidneutralization in humidity cells: Statistical lessons from the database. IN: Proceedings ofthe Conference on Mining and the Environment, Sudbury, Ontario, May 28 - June 1, Volume2, p.525-536.

Morin, K.A., N.M. Hutt, and R. McArthur. 1995. Statistical assessment of past water chemistry topredict future chemistry at Noranda Minerals' Bell Mine. IN: Proceedings of the Conferenceon Mining and the Environment, Sudbury, Ontario, May 28 - June 1, Volume 3, p.925-934.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1995. MINEWALL 2.0: A technique for predicting water chemistryin open-pit and underground mines. IN: Proceedings of the Conference on Mining and theEnvironment, Sudbury, Ontario, May 28 - June 1, Volume 3, p.1007-1016.

Morin, K.A. 1994. Prediction of water chemistry in open pits during operation and after closure. IN: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium,Vernon, British Columbia, April 11-14, p. 72-86.

Morin, K.A., and N.M. Hutt. 1993. The use of routine monitoring data for assessment andprediction of water chemistry. IN: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Mine ReclamationSymposium, Port Hardy, British Columbia, May 4-7, p.191-201. Mining Association ofBritish Columbia.

Morin, K.A., I.A. Horne, and D. Flather. 1993. The appropriate geochemical monitoring of toeseepage from a mine-rock dump. IN: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Mine ReclamationSymposium, Port Hardy, British Columbia, May 4-7, p.119-129. Mining Association ofBritish Columbia.

Morin, K.A. 1993. Rates of sulfide oxidation in submerged environments: Implications forsubaqueous disposal. IN: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Mine Reclamation Symposium,Port Hardy, British Columbia, May 4-7, p.235-247. Mining Association of BritishColumbia.

Morin, K.A., E. Gerencher, C.E. Jones, and R. van Dyk. 1991. Hydrogeological investigation ofseveral acid generating mine components at the Westmin Myra Falls Minesite. IN:

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage,Montreal, Quebec, September 16-18.

Ferguson, K.D., and K.A. Morin. 1991. The prediction of acid rock drainage - Lessons from the

database. IN: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Abatement ofAcidic Drainage, Montreal, Quebec, September 16-18, Volume 3, p.85-106.

Konasewich, D.E., E. Gerencher, and K.A. Morin. 1990. Hydrogeological assessments anddevelopment of ARD control technology for Myra Falls waste rock. IN: Proceedings of theFourteenth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium, Cranbrook, BritishColumbia, June 20-21.

Morin, K.A. 1990. A case study of data quality in routine chemical analyses of acid mine drainage. IN: Acid Mine Drainage - Designing for Closure, Geological Association ofCanada/Mineralogical Association of Canada Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,May 16-18, p.415-425.

Morin, K.A. 1990. Problems and proposed solutions in predicting acid drainage with acid-baseaccounting. IN: Acid Mine Drainage - Designing for Closure, Geological Association ofCanada/Mineralogical Association of Canada Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,May 16-18, p.93-107, p.93-107.

Konasewich, D.E., C.E. Jones, E. Gerencher, and K.A. Morin. 1990. Hydrogeological investigationof coal tar contamination at a former coal gasification facility. IN: Conference onSubsurface Contamination by Immiscible Fluids, International Association ofHydrogeologists, Calgary, Alberta, April 18-20.

Morin, K.A., C.L. Ott, S.J. Day, and R.A. Hawes. 1989. A practical approach to testing for acidmine drainage in the mine planning and approval process. IN: Proceedings of the ThirteenthAnnual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium.

Flather, D., and K.A. Morin. 1989. Storage of hazardous substances including PCBs: SpecialConsiderations. Presented at: Western Canadian Storage Tank Management andEnvironmental Liability, The Canadian Institute, December 1 and 4.

Morin, K.A. 1988. A critical examination of the condition of electroneutrality in groundwater. IN:Proceedings of the International Groundwater Symposium of the International Associationof Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 1-4, 1988, p.157-164.

Morin, K.A. 1988. Groundwater contamination from precious-metal, base metal, uranium, andpotash mining operations. IN: Proceedings of the International Groundwater Symposiumof the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 1-4, 1988,p.165-174.

Morin, K.A. 1988. Physical and chemical hydrogeology of uranium tailings in Canada and theUnited States of America. IN: Proceedings of the International Groundwater Symposiumof the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 1-4, 1988,

p.175-187.

Morin, K.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1988. Variations in natural-decay-series disequilibrium alonggroundwater flowpaths. IN: Proceedings of the International Groundwater Symposium ofthe International Association of Hydrogeologists, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 1-4, 1988,p.189-200.

Morin, K.A. 1987. Common computerized methods for calculating aqueous speciation. IN:Proceedings of the U.S. EPA Stormwater and Water Quality Model Users Group Meeting,Victoria, British Columbia, October 15-16, 1987, edited by H. C. Torno.

Morin, K.A. 1986. Validity of redox measurements in hydrogeologic studies. IN: Third CanadianHydrogeologic Conference, International Association of Hydrogeologists, April 21-23,Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, compiled by G. Van der Kamp and M. Madunicky.

Cherry, J.A., T.A. Shepherd, and K.A. Morin. 1982. Chemical composition and geochemicalbehavior of contaminant groundwater at uranium tailings impoundments. SME-AIMEAnnual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, February, 1982. Preprint 82-114.

Davé, N.K., T.P. Lim, A.J. Vivyurka, N.M. Dubrovsky, K.A. Morin, D.J.A. Smyth, R.W. Gillham,and J.A. Cherry. 1982. Hydrogeochemical evolution of an inactive pyritic uranium tailingsbasin and retardation of contaminant migration in a surrounding aquifer. InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, Conference on Uranium Waste Management, Albuquerque, NewMexico, May, 1982, IAEA-SM-262/14.

Theses

Morin, K.A. 1983. Prediction Of Subsurface Contaminant Transport In Acidic Seepage FromUranium Tailings Impoundments. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, Universityof Waterloo, Ontario. Supervisor: Dr. John A. Cherry.

Morin, K.A. 1979. The Geohydrology And Hydrogeochemistry Of The Proposed Garrison LigniteMine, North Dakota. M.S. Thesis, University of North Dakota. Supervisor: Dr. LeeClayton.

Date post:	09-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

New Prosperity Project · New Prosperity Project - Geochemical Source Terms, Water Quality, Metal...

Documents