Tailings Management Multi Criteria Analysis Option Review for

Tailings Storage Facilities

Farzad Daliri
GHD Pty Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Cosmin Ghebosu
GHD Pty Ltd, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
David Brett, Rob Longey
GHD Pty Ltd, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper demonstrates how Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) can be effectively
used to select tailings technologies and TSF locations for the new LOM plan for a mine located
in Australia, where conventionally thickened tailings have been discharged to a combination of
surface storage and underground paste backfill for a number of years. In 2022, the mining oper-
ator requested a review of the life of mine (LOM) tailings management plan based on a project-
ed tailings total of around 2 Mtpa. The methodology for the LOM study considered tailings
technology changes that could positively affect tailings management and provided conceptual
designs for long-term and short-term tailings management options. The MCA of tailings tech-
nologies focuses on dewatering technologies including thickened tailings, paste and filtered tail-
ings to evaluate the balance of the mechanical cost of dewatering technologies with benefits in-
cluding the greater recovery of water and reduced tailings storage volume requirement. The
original long term deposition plan proposed by the operators was to deposit in an open pit mine,
due to its perceived large capacity, potential benefits for remediating historical seepage and mit-
igating further disturbance, some of which were found not to be the case. This paper describes
the alternative long-term options for tailings storage which includes continuing depositing in the
open-pit building a new TSF site near the pit and building a new TSF site several kilometers
away. The MCA evaluates the options based on CAPEX and OPEX costs, timing and availabil-
ity, safety and technical risks, geotechnical considerations, water management and environmen-
tal considerations and is a good example of how MCA can be used to assess tailings manage-
ment options as suggested by the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM).

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper shows how Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) can be effectively used to select tailings
technologies and TSF locations for TSF LOM reviews. An Australian mine has a current
planned Life of Mine (LOM) of 11 years but with intention to provide for further development.
The strategies for future tailings deposition plans for the mine are provided as below:

• Maximizing discharge to the existing TSF in the short-term,

• Fast-tracking resumption of discharge to an existing open pit
• Expansion of the use of the existing pit
• Development of a new TSF in future if necessary
2 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW MCA

Prior to determining options for tailings storage, it is considered appropriate practice to review
the tailings technologies being used. This would include dewatering methods and potential pro-
cessing options (GISTM, 2021).
Dewatering tailings prior to deposition, initially proposed by Robinsky in the 1970s, has some
potential advantages, including increased water recovery, and improving stability of the deposit-
ed tailings. There is a spectrum of dewatering that may be employed before deposition. The
choice of the appropriate amount of tailings dewatering is related to the tailings technology and
dewatering the tailings from initial slurry-like state to a potentially soil-like state in filtered tail-
ings. The degree of dewatering increases from thickened tailings, to paste, to filtered tailings.
The cost of mechanical dewatering of tailings increases exponentially, which is balanced by
benefits including the greater recovery of water and process chemicals and reduced tailings stor-
age volume. Slurry and thickened tailings may readily be pumped using robust, inexpensive cen-
trifugal pumps. Paste tailings require positive displacement or diaphragm pumps, which are an
order of magnitude more expensive than centrifugal pumps and are more sensitive to variations
in the input tailings particle size distribution and chemistry. Figure 1 presents the tailings de-
watering continuum provided by Williams (2021).

Figure 1. The tailings dewatering continuum (Williams, 2021)

2.1 Tailings Dewatering Technologies

This section briefly describes the tailings dewatering technologies.

2.1.1 Conventional thickened tailings (CTT)

Conventional Thickened Tailings (CTT) are typically transported from the mill in the turbulent
flow regime and above the critical flow velocity that defines onset of sedimentation in the pipe-
line. CTT tailings generally undergo grain size segregation during deposition, coarse particles
settling closer to the deposition point (Bussiere, 2004). In most climates, slurried tailings form a
pond that covers a fraction of the impoundment, with some beach of tailings forming near the
deposition points or spigots. The mine currently utilize CTT but have recently improved the
thickener performance so that tailings are delivered to the TSF at typically 55 percent solids.
Water recovery from the TSF is via a decant pond and pump system.
 A common disadvantage of CTT disposal methods is the potential for build-up of water on
the TSF which can lead to an increased risk of dam failure and a more extensive runout of water
and tailings produced by a failure.
However, the current is designed to prevent water build up on the surface by design of the
spillway to divert excess water to the open pit. Another disadvantage of CTT is the entrapment
of excess water in the tailings which is released during consolidation and often reports to surface
water or groundwater as seepage. This is an issue at the mine which has led to the current im-
plementation of improved seepage interception systems. Due to the history of TSF performance
at the mine and the tailings being geochemically characterized as Potentially Acid Forming
(PAF), it is likely that future long-term TSFs will need to specifically address seepage risk.

2.1.2 High Density Thickened Tailings (HDTT)

An alternative to conventional deposition that minimizes or avoids the consequences of dam
failures is thickened tailings technology (TTT). This technology improves the geotechnical per-
formance of the tailings through dewatering, such that they exhibit minimal grain-size segrega-
tion and may be deposited with a gentle slope (Simms, 2013; Daliri et al., 2016; Bussiere, 2004).
HDTT are dewatered sufficiently to eliminate grain-size segregation upon deposition, or in other
words, to form a homogenous slurry. Homogeneous slurries require dewatering to at least a vol-
umetric solids content of 40 percent, which is equivalent to about 65 percent solids content by
mass (Cs). Thickened tailings need to be transported as a turbulent flow in the pipeline, at a cer-
tain minimum velocity to avoid or minimize sedimentation in the pipeline. This increases the
density immediately upon deposition, provides a homogeneous deposit, and eliminates ponded
water at the surface. Thickened tailings technology not only reduces the risk of dam failure but
can also potentially reduce the cost of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) for some projects by
reducing dam construction costs and increasing water recycling.
Implementing this technology at the mine would involve construction of a new HD thickener
and pumps. Potentially this thickener could be located adjacent to the long-term TSF to reduce
pumping costs, but this would require an additional return water pipeline. Using HDTT is un-
likely to significantly change options location for long-term tailings storage but could reduce
water trapped in tailings and reduce the subsequent consolidation seepage pressure. This could
eliminate the need for lining.

2.1.3 Paste Tailings

Paste tailings are further dewatered to the point where they may be pumped in the laminar range
and do not have a terminal settling velocity, which usually requires a solids content in excess of
70 percent and a yield stress greater than 50 Pa. Paste thickeners can raise the percentage of sol-
ids by mass to between 45 percent (for red mud) and 75 percent for metalliferous tailings. Paste
tailings can readily be delivered under gravity as underground backfill (usually with cement
added), or in-pit if the dewatering facility is located close to the discharge point, possibly on a
mobile skid (Simms, 2014).
To implement this technology at the mine would involve construction of a new paste thicken-
er and positive displacement pumps. Using paste is unlikely to significantly change options lo-
cation for long-term tailings storage but could reduce water trapped in tailings and reduce the
subsequent consolidation seepage pressure. This will likely remove the need for lining.

2.1.4 Filtered Tailings

Filtered tailings with more than 70% solids content which is potentially produced by centrifug-
ing or cycloning to reach, is not pumpable, and needs to be conveyed or trucked, typically flows
on deposition. Filtered tailings cake with more than 80% solids content, which is potentially
produced by a belt-press or filter plate can be conveyed, trucked, and potentially mixed with
coarse-grained wastes and could not flow on deposition. Tailings filtration is best achieved un-
der high pressure (1600 to 2100 kPa), with a cycle time of up to about 20 min. Although termed
“dry”, filtered tailings retain moisture and are more correctly described as “unsaturated”. Fil-
tered tailings cake may be deposited in a stack, although compaction may be required for ge-
otechnical stability, to prevent potential liquefaction, and to limit oxygen ingress and rainfall in-
filtration into potentially contaminating tailings. The wet tailings filter cake is near-saturated and
has the potential to flow on disposal, while dry tailings filter cake has a stress-induced “struc-
ture” and tends to remain intact on disposal. The high cost of filtration has, to date, limited its
application to tailings production rates of less than 20,000 dry tpd, although this limit is rising
(Davies, 2011).
In addition to the 20 percent saving in storage volume, the filtered tailings would also recover
about twice as much water by mass, plus metals and process chemicals; reduce seepage dramati-
cally; be stable under seismic loading; be readily rehabilitated progressively and to a higher lev-
el of future land use.
To implement filtered tailings at the mine tailings would be a costly exercise but would allow
significant scope for additional disposal options. A filter plant would need to be constructed,
ideally at a long-term disposal facility. Transport would be by conveyors or truck, which would
add to the OPEX. Due to the PAF geochemistry of the tailings, compaction would be required.
This would involve the placing, spreading and rolling of tailings, likely to achieve density levels
close to standard maximum dry density. This would eliminate seepage and oxidation, allowing
placement of tailings virtually anywhere on the mine lease without lining and without the need
for retaining embankments. There would need to be some provision for wet weather placement
and allowance for filter downtime which normally means that a small wet storage would be re-
quired.

2.1.5 Low Sulphur Tailings (LST) Disposal / Co-disposal

If the sulphide content of the tailings can be sufficiently reduced or removed entirely by addi-
tional flotation or other processes such that, a proportion of the tailings can be classified as Non-
Acid Forming and low environmental risk, there would be significant advantages in storage re-
quirements. A LST stream enables the tailings to be used for existing landform (TSF/WRD)
capping and or co-disposed (mixed with waste rock). This has previously been raised by GHD
in capping design options. Metallurgical testing and feasibility work would be required to assess
the potential for this option. Sulphide oxidation in reactive tailings affects other geochemical
processes, such as acidification, and the subsequent dissolution of other tailings constituents, in-
cluding metals.

2.1.6 Mud-Farming
Mud-farming is the mechanical working of tailings in-situ, aimed at increasing density. This is
primarily achieved by improving drying. At the extreme end, mud-farming uses purpose de-
signed amphibious tractors known as scrollers or amphirols. However, smaller equipment such
as swamp dozers could be used if the tailings beach can be trafficable within the cycle time of
tailings layer placement. Mud-farming could increase the tailings density from 1.5 t/m3 to at
least 1.7 t/m3. Trials at a similar Australian mine showed that compaction could increase density
to 1.9 to 2 t/m3 for their tailings. The cost of mud-farming is estimated to be around $1/t. If den-
sity was increased by 20 percent, this would add additional volume in the planned storage op-
tions at an equivalent cost of $5/t, which is competitive with embankment construction.
Mud-farming could also reduce seepage and potentially eliminate the potential for liquefaction
of the tailings. Trials would be needed to properly assess the density potential and cost. Mud-
farming has not been included in the MCA as it is not really a storage option, but rather an add-
ed process which could convert CTT towards a dry-stack outcome without the CAPEX involved
with the water removal processes.

2.2 Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) Considerations

The following criteria were considered in the tailings technology MCA:

• CAPEX Costs
• OPEX Costs
• Timing and Availability
• Safety and Technical Risks
• Water Recovery
• Geotechnical Considerations
 • Construction and Operational Complexity
• Environmental Considerations
• Reclamation and closure

2.2.1 CAPEX/OPEX Costs

With increasing the mechanical dewatering of tailings, costs increase dramatically. Based on
tailings projects cost data provided by Williams (2021), CTT is about 1.5 times more costly than
conventional slurry tailings, whilst HDTT is about two times more costly than CTT (Williams,
2021)). Paste tailings is about five times more costly than CTT and filtration is about 18 times
more costly than CTT. However, this cost comparison ignores cost reductions related to in-
creased process water recovery, the reduced storage volume required with increasing tailings
dewatering, the consequently reduced containment required, and the reduced cost of rehabilita-
tion and lining and enhanced potential post-closure land use. The main cost of CCT tailings
deposition behind a dam is the cost of dam raising, exacerbated by the low settled density and
hence the high storage volume, potential for requiring a pond liner and larger area for closure
cover required.
Considering that water shortage and water recovery percentage is not the main concern for the
Mine, the CAPEX/OPEX costs have 35 percent weighting score of the MCA.

2.2.2 Timing and availability

The mine has a current planned Life of Mine (LOM) of 11 years but with intention for further
development. Therefore, the timeline is very critical to select the tailings technology option to
achieve the greatest long-term benefits.

2.2.3 Safety and technical risks

While the CTT and HDTT have higher risk of tailings dam failure and groundwater pollution,
these risks are being addressed at the mine. Paste and filtered options reduces the risk of dam
failure due to minimal need to build an embankment for high solids content tailings. However,
the risk of tailings oxidation and Acid and Metalliferous Draining (AMD) increases with utilis-
ing paste and filtered tailings. Paste could have a high risk of pipeline blockage. Using paste is
unlikely to change to optional locations for the TSF but could further reduce water trapped in
tailings and virtually eliminate consolidation seepage. This should eliminate the need for lining.
Filtered tailings deposition could have the risk of filtered tailings stack instability due to im-
proper compaction of the structural zone of the filtered tailings in wet seasons.

2.2.4 Water Recovery

Water recovery from tailings is a major economic driver for dewatering the tailings prior to dep-
osition, especially in arid climates where the cost of water is high. Since there is no shortage of
water required for mining at the mine, water recovery has a lower MCA weighing score com-
pared to cost and timing.

2.2.5 Geotechnical Considerations

The main geotechnical issue for CTT and HDTT options is geotechnical stability of the em-
bankment and potential static/dynamic liquefaction of deposited tailings in upstream/centerline
methods (Daliri et al., 2016). These risks are being addressed at the mine. One motivation for
dewatering tailings before deposition is to eliminate or limit the consequences of dam failure
that have plagued conventional slurry deposition and HDTT. Paste and filtered tailings options
have lower risk of dam failure; however, there is risk of remobilization of unbounded filtered
tailings in the dry stack in wet conditions if the compaction performance of structural zone is not
satisfactory.

2.2.6 Construction and Operational Complexity

Embankment construction in CTT and HDTT options should be progressively constructed in a
timely manner to achieve the LOM requirements. The complexity of the paste option could be
positive displacement pump operation. Operation and maintenance of filtration equipment, fil-
tered tailings transport by conveyor belt or trucks and compaction of the structural zone of the
filtered tailings are significant complexities of the filtered tailings option. The first and second
highest scored options in terms of construction and operational complexity are CTT and HDTT
respectively.

2.2.7 Environmental considerations

CTT and HDTT have larger impoundment footprints and rehabilitation area. Paste and filtered
options reduce the impoundment footprint and reduce environmental concerns related to under-
drainage water and lining design. However, risk of oxidation of paste and filtered tailings and
AMD could be a considerable environmental risk. If the sulphide content of the tailings can be
sufficiently reduced or removed entirely by additional flotation or other processes such that a
proportion of the tailings can be classified as Non-Acid Forming and low environmental risk,
there would be significant advantages in storage requirements. Therefore, LST is the highest
scored option in terms of environmental considerations.

2.2.8 Reclamation and Closure

CTT and HDTT have larger impoundment footprints and rehabilitation area and therefore higher
closure costs.

2.3 Resulting Tailings Technology MCA

The resulting MCA matrix for the tailings technology is presented in Fig 2. Considering that wa-
ter shortage and the percentage of water recovery is not the main concern for the mine and since
there are time limitations to commence and operate the new TSF, the MCA considered lower
weighting scores for water recovery and higher weighting scores for CAPEX/OPEX costs and
timing. Therefore, the highest scoring option of the MCA is CTT.
Paste and filtered tailings options score poorly on CAPEX and OPEX criteria and also envi-
ronmental criteria due to the higher risk of dust and oxidation of the exposed dry surfaces. The
benefits of increasing density using HDTT were not seen to be justified due to costs, provided
the environmental issues identified in current and past operations with CTT were addressed as
currently in progress.
Accordingly, the current technology with conventional thickened tailings is supported by the
MCA. Maximizing density by appropriate tailings discharge management and potentially using
mud-farming will benefit reduced seepage and improved tailings strength. The further pro-
cessing of tailings to reduce sulphide content is supported by the MCA and further work on this
option is recommended particularly regarding future closure options, where major cost savings
may be possible in reduced need for closure liner specification.
 Weighted Multi-criteria As-
sessment MCA for Reviewing Tailings Treatment Technologies
Conventional High Density
Option Low Sulfur
Thickened Tail- Thickened Tail- Paste Tailings Filtered Tailings
Name Tailings (LST)
ings ings (HDTT)
Criteria Weighting
CAPEX 4 3 2 1 2
High Denisty Thickener
Filteration Equipment With increasing the Flotation
Embankment construction mechanical de- HDTT is about 3 Paste is about 8 Filtration is about 27 equipment cost
20.00
Tailings delivery watering of tailings, times more cost- times more cost- times more costly to generate
costs increase ly than Slurry ly than Slurry than Non-Acid Form-
dramatically. ing
OPEX 4 3 2 1 2
Pumping costs, tailings and
return water Progressive em- High density Filtration equipment
Progressive em-
Thickener Operation 15.00 bankment con- paste thickener maintanance, com-
bankment construc- Flotation cost
Filteration Operation struction & high & positive dis- paction, progressive
tion Costs
Cost of raises - maintenance density thickener placement pump reclamation
Reclamation
TIMING AND AVAILABILITY 5 3 2 1 2
Availability of Tailings Treat- No timing for
ment Technology equipment pur- Paste Thickener, Flotation
HDTT Thickener Filtration equipment
Construction schedule 15.00 chase / process, pipeline and PD equipment pur-
purchase / prep- purchase / prepara-
can use current pumps purchase chase / prepa-
aration tion
conventional thick- / preparation ration
eners
SAFETY AND TECHNICAL 3 3 4 3 3
RISK Risk of Dam
Risk of Dam Failure
Design requirements / com- Failure related to
related to geotech-
plexity 10.00 geotechnical ARD, pipeline ARD, Wet climate Flotation pro-
nical stability, lique-
Consequence category (AN- stability, lique- blockage compaction cess
faction and seep-
COLD) faction and
age
seepage
GEOTECHNICAL CONSID- 2 2 4 3 4
ERATIONS Wet climate deposi-
TSF Stability,
TSF Geotechnicl Stability TSF Stability, Liq- tion & FT compac-
10.00 Liquefaction, No major ge- No major ge-
Liquefaction uefaction, Seepage tion, rempubaliza-
Seepage Con- otechnical risk otechnical risk
Seepage Concerns tion of unbounded
cerns
tailings
CONSTRUCTION AND OP- 4 3 1 1 3
ERATIONAL COMPLEXITY High Density Filtered Tailings
Delivery pipelines and pumps 5.00 Embankment Con- Thickener & Paste Thickener Stack Construction Flotation pro-
Deposition requirements struction Embankment & PD pumps Compaction re- cess
Construction quirements
WATER MANAGEMENT 1 2 4 5 3
AND RECOVERY Lowest Water Re-
Impact on Water Recovery covery
Low Water Re- Good Water Re- Best Water Recov-
Tailings Transport Requires decant
5.00 covery covery ery Requires de-
Return water infrastructure pond and water re-
Requires decant No major decant No major decant cant pond
cycling pipelines
pond pond pond
Spillway for flood
risk
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSID- 3 3 2 2 5
ERATIONS Larger footprint Low ARD risk
Requires cover Requires cover of
Impact of TSF on groundwater 10.00 Low ARD risk Required liners
of ARD preven- ARD prevention
(ARD) Required liners for for underground
tion Dust Management
Dust management underground water water
RECLAMATION AND CLO- 2 3 4 5 3
SURE Lower footprint
Lowest footprint
Complexity of closure Large footprint Might require
10.00 Larger footprint and Might require Capil-
Availability of construction ma- and closure Capillary Barrier
higher closure cost lary Barrier Cover to
terials costs Cover to prevent
prevent ARD
ARD
Weighted Score 113.3 95.0 88.3 70.0 93.3
Relative Ranking
Sum of
weighting
100.00

5 Excellent
4 Good
3 Acceptable
2 Poor
1 Very poor
Figure 2. The MCA results of tailings technology
3 TAILINGS STORAGE LONG-TERM OPTION MCA

Long-term options for tailings storages were developed to allow containment of tailings for the
current LOM. These include:

• Continued filling of the open pit

• A new containment close to the existing TSF, hydraulically upstream of the existing pit
• Two alternative sites at a desirable geotechnical setting

The options are described in the upcoming sections, and the storage volume are evaluated. High
level cost comparisons are made based on estimated quantities and likely rates allowing for
some differences between the sites. The rates are indicative only and to be used for comparison.

3.1 In-pit TSF

The pit storage was originally proposed as the preferred long-term tailings storage due its per-
ceived large capacity and potential benefits for remediating historical seepage from a legacy
waste rock dump. A concept was proposed to enable a dam wall construction to convert the pit
to a storage approximately 70m deep as a maximum due to the landform available to allow stor-
age. Even at this level, the pit storage was estimated to be insufficient for the LOM volume.
The desirability of utilization of the open pit needed to consider closure options. Currently.
the pit receives contaminated water seepage from legacy waste rock dumps and the pit sur-
rounds via gravity. The water level sits below the groundwater table. At closure, assuming di-
version of rehabilitated areas, the residual inflow should be less than annual evaporation, allow-
ing the pit to remain as a permanent pond sitting below groundwater table levels. If the tailings
and water cover were to rise, the risk of seepage escape increases. There would also be a risk of
the pond drying and exposing tailings to further oxidation. If a dry cover is provided then exist-
ing contaminated water inflows would need to be diverted to an alternative storage. An addi-
tional risk for pit is the long-term stability of the pit slope and the potential for displacement of
stored tailings in the event of wall movement.

An overall storage cost of approximately $8/t was estimated for the pit use as a TSF.

3.2 TSF A
The full LOM capacity could be contained in a TSF developed in the gravity catchment of the
legacy waste rock dump and the open pit. This would require some perimeter embankments typ-
ical sections allowing centreline construction but potentially provided a closure benefit in diver-
sion of clean water from the waste rock dump system, creating an environmental benefit.
The plan of developing TSF requires access roads, a decant structure, pipeline extensions and
probably pump upgrades. It could be feasible to leave the storage unlined as it is anticipated that
seepage would continue to report through to the open pit. If lining is required then there would
need to be significant valley reshaping, possibly using waste rock, followed by placement of a
heavy geotextile and liner. An internal drainage system over the liner would be required for de-
watering during consolidation for CTT. Construction of embankments for the nearby TSF would
be largely delayed until the tailings level rose significantly, however some fill would need to be
placed to prepare for future raising. There is scope for a significant proportion of fill material to
be waste rock.
The estimated cost of the start-up of the nearby TSF is approximately $6.3/t, increasing to an
overall cost of approximately $6/t including closure following mine completion.

3.3 TSF B
The TSF B is a new site selected in a relatively flat area approximately 6 km from the process
plant, selected due to the expectation that the geology is basaltic with clay soil available for con-
struction. A concept for the TSF has been provided to give sufficient scope for drying and densi-
fying of CTT. The TSF would have perimeter embankments constructed using centreline meth-
ods with a central decant pond.

The TSF B would be constructed to just over 20m high to cater for the full LOM and would
have scope for significant further raising. Alternatively, the site has significant scope for dupli-
cation to cater for many years ongoing operation. The initial development of the greenfield TSF
is estimated at $10/t, reducing to approximately $7/t average over the LOM operation.

3.4 TSF C
The second greenfield TSF option was selected in a steep valley approximately 8km from the
process plant and was selected due to the topography of the site requiring minimal earthworks.
Site inspection of the site showed that a significant creek passed through the site with ponds
containing fish. Whilst the site would require minimal embankments to contain tailings, the pe-
rimeter steep cliff areas would make lining very difficult if this was required.
The initial development of Diamond TSF is estimated at approximately $11/t. Overall life-
time cost including closure is approximately equivalent to $6/t.

3.5 Resulting long-term option MCA

The following criteria were considered in the long-term tailings storage MCA:

– Objective in meeting LOM

• Capacity to contain expected LOM tailings volume.

– CAPEX Costs
• Ongoing construction costs required for start up and lifts.
• Installation and upgrading of tailings delivery infrastructure.
• Staging of lifts and constructability.
• Cost of lift compared to available storage.

– OPEX Costs
• Ongoing maintenance costs.

– Timing and Availability

• Dependency on other projects being completed beforehand.
• Impact on existing mining activities.
• Availability of resources and materials for project.

– Safety and Technical Risks

• Stability of benches and adjacent ground.
• Flooding potential of mine infrastructure during construction or operation.

– Geotechnical Considerations
• Challenging or unstable ground conditions.
• Requirement for ground improvement.
• Potential seepage pathways that may require grout curtains.

– Construction and Operational Complexity

• Availability of material adjacent to work area.
• Accessibility for construction activities.
• Distance and maintenance requirements for operational infrastructure.

– Water management
• Potential seepage concerns.
• Removal of surface water.
 • Impacts on current site water management plan.

– Environmental Considerations
• Potential seepage pathways.
• Risk of environmental harm during construction and operation.
• Dust management during construction.
• Clearing and disturbance of ground during construction and operation.

– Regulatory Approvals
• Complexity of additional studies required.
• Anticipated approvals timeframes.

– Reclamation and closure

• Complexity of closure scenario and implementation timeline.
• Longer implication to environmental harm and water management as part of closure plan.

– Scope for Extension past LOM.

• Ability to expand beyond current LOM requirements.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The MCA for tailings technology has determined that the current CTT technology is appropri-
ate, with the design taking environmental targets into account. It was determined that tailings
dewatering technologies like HDTT and Paste are not a cost beneficial options for the LOM TSF
considering limited necessity to recycle water. However, the benefit of sulphide reduction tech-
nology has once again been raised as a benefit to environmental performance and closure in the
longer term if this could be found feasible.
The MCA for long-term storage clearly identified the TSF A as the preferred option, with
moderate OPEX increases, reduced technical risk from seepage impacts and geotechnical stabil-
ity, significant benefits in meeting positive water management and environmental objectives at
closure. A drawback of nearby TSF was its capacity for extension beyond LOM being limited.
Importantly the nearby TSF was considered to have a potentially quicker approval process due
being on lease, having a partially disturbed footprint and history of being identified as a site for
tailings storage.
The TSF B was marginally less favoured but was perceived to have excellent scope for virtu-
ally unlimited expansion for conceivable LOM extensions. The second greenfield site was not
favoured due to environmental impacts, perceived approval delays and opex costs and did not
score highly due to limited capacity and perceived construction, geotechnical, environmental,
approval and closure issues.
 Multi-Criteria Assessment LONG TERM OPTIONS
(MCA)
Option
Name TSF A TSF B TSF C TSF D
Criteria Weighting
OBJECTIVES 3 5 4 1
Meets LOM storage requirement Just meets current LOM Yes Yes, however current No, currently on capable
15
but becomes expensive and unlimited scope for ex- survey available does of achieving around 50%
towards end pansion not allow for a of required
and no scope for expan- model to be developed volume
sion
CAPEX 3 2 5 4
Minimise initial costs
15
Embankment construc-
tion
Tailings delivery and return water infrastruc-
ture
4 2 2 5
CAPEX and OPEX Close to thickener. Ac- Long distance from thick- Long distance from thick- Tailings deposition infra-
Pumping costs, tailings and return cess tracks currently ener to TSF. Terrain will ener to TSF. Terrain will structure already available
water Cost of raises - mainte- 5 available to enable in- require access tracks to require access tracks to from previous works.
nance stallation of decant and enable spigots to be in- enable spigots to be in- Close distance to thickener
spigots stalled. High cost of in- stalled. High cost of instal- on site minimise mainte-
stallation lation nance and
of deposition and return of deposition and return pipe installation cost
lines lines
TIMING AND AVAILABILITY 4 1 1 1
Dependency on other development / mining Can be undertaken inde-
activities Construction schedule pendent to other mining Off lease. Additional ap- Off lease. Additional ap-
Construction dependent on
5. activities on site. Current- provals required. Not provals required. Not
lowering Epit water
ly on mine lease and immediately available. immediately available.
level
UEDD wall in place to en-
able
construction
SAFETY AND TECHNICAL RISK 5 5 3 2
Pit and embankment Unknown foundation and
stability Risk of flooding 15
Fairly stable. Advantage Unstable slope require ground water seepage
Design requirements / complexity Fairly stable pathway at higher eleva-
of drainage to the trimming of loose material
Consequence category (AN- tions.
north.
COLD)

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4 5 3 1
Foun- Potentially unstable
dations 5.
No clay Flat topography, clay base slopes/benches. Further
Potential fault
Seep- foundation investigation to
age be completed
TSF
raises
Pit stability for in-pit deposition
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL 3 5 2 1
COMPLEXITY Minimal borrow sources Potential nearby borrow Potential nearby borrow Very constrainted area. Dif-
Availability of waste rock / clay / within footprint and may sources within footprint. sources within footprint. ficult to access due to to-
general fill Delivery pipelines and required sourcing from an- Limited access tracks No current access tracks, pography and exisitng in-
pumps other area on site. available will require extensive de- frastructure.
5
Deposition requirements (number of spigots velopment for access.
etc) Ongoing operational requirements
Accessibility
WATER MANAGEMENT 4 4 4 2
Impact on water re- Water will need to be Water will need to be Water will need to be
sources Diversion pumped back to site for pumped back to site for pumped back to site for
5
requirements Return use or evaporated. use or evaporated. use or evaporated.
water infrastructure
Stormwater man-
agement
Spill risk / impact on Mill Creek dam
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5 3 2 1
Impact of TSF on
groundwater Poten- Unknown seepage paths at
.
tial seepage issues higher elevations. Further
Dust management assessments required to
10
Area of disturbance to natural habitat be undertaken..
REGULATORY APPROVALS 3 2 2 1
Currently approved
Approvals required / areas of dis-
turbance Length of approval pro-
Long lead time to approv- Likely positive response Likely positive response Likely DES resistance
cess 10
als from regulator from regulator due to seepage con-
Approval for ore sterili-
cerns
sation Closure concept
CLOSURE 5 5 5 1
Complexity of closure Clean water diversion will
Availability of construction materi- 5 Progressive closure Easy closure, no compli- Easy closure, no compli- be captured on site
als Implementation timeline possible. cations with other cations with other
areas. areas.

Figure 3. The MCA results of long-term TSF

REFERENCES

ANCOLD. 2012. Guidelines on the Consequence Categories for Dams

ANCOLD. August 1998. Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earthquake
ANCOLD. July 2019. GUIDELINES ON TAILINGS DAMS (Addendum)
Australian Government - Geoscience Australia. 2018. The 2018 National Seismic Hazard.
Assessment for Australia.
Bussiere, B. 2007. “Colloquium 2004: Hydrogeotechnical properties of hard rock tailings from metal
mines and emerging geoenvironmental disposal approaches”
Daliri F., Simms P. and Sivathayalan S., 2016. “Shear and dewatering behaviour of densified gold tailings
in a laboratory simulation of multi-layer deposition”, 53(8).
Davies, M. 2011. “Filtered Dry Stacked Tailings – The Fundamentals”, Proceedings of Tailings and Mine
Waste Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Global Tailings Review. 2020. “Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management.
Robinsky, E.I. 1975. Thickened discharge - a new approach to tailings disposal. Canadian Mining and
Metallurgical Bulletin, 68: 47–53.
Simms, P., 2014. “Colloquium of the Canadian Geotechnical Society: Geotechnical and geo environmen-
tal behavior of high-density tailings”, 54(9).
Williams, D., 2021. “Lessons from Tailings Dam Failures—Where to Go from Here?”, Minerals 2021,
11(8): 853.