Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water Management Facility Preliminary Engineering Design

REPORT
Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water

Management Facility Preliminary Engineering Design
James Bay Lithium Mine Project, Quebec
Submitted to:
Galaxy Lithium
Submitted by:
Golder Associates Ltd.
6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2, Canada
+1 905 567 4444
19135464-11000
March 22, 2021

March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Distribution List
1 e-copy to Golder
1 e-copy to Galaxy Lithium
i
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Executive Summary
Galaxy Lithium Canada Inc. (Galaxy) engaged Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to complete Preliminary Engineering
design of tailings, waste rock, overburden and associated surface water management facilities for the James Bay
Lithium Mine Project, Quebec. The following studies and analyses were completed to support the preliminary
engineering design:
 Establishment of design criteria for mine waste and water management facilities.
 Preliminary engineering design of mine waste and water management facilities.
 Site wide water balance considering average, wet and dry climate conditions and conceptual water
management plan.
 Construction quantities for the mine waste and water management facilities over the life of mine.
The James Bay Lithium Mine Project will produce approximately 31.4 Mt (~18.5 Mm3) of tailings over the 18.5 year
mine life at a production rate of 5,500 tpd. Filtered tailings was selected as the preferred level of dewatering. Filtered
tailings will be co-disposed with waste rock in four Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facilities (WRTSFs). The overall
design objective of the WRTSFs is to provide stable rockfill structures that will store tailings solids during both
operations and long term (post-closure). Mine waste rock from open pit development will be the primary
embankment construction material. The WRTSF embankments will have a 2.3H:1V slope with a maximum height
of 83 m. The WRTSF embankments will be raised continuously during mine operation to provide the necessary
tailings storage during the life of mine. Closure of the WRTSFs will involve placing a vegetated cover over the
tailings and waste rock embankment slopes. Limited geotechnical investigations have been completed to date at
the site. A review of available geotechnical investigation data was carried out to develop the preliminary design.
Runoff from the WRTSFs will be captured by perimeter collection ditches which drain to one of two Water
Management Ponds (WMPs). Water will be transferred from the East Water Management Pond (EWMP) to the
North Water Management Pond (NWMP) where it will be either recycled to the process plant or treated (if a
treatment is required) and discharged to the environment at the final effluent point. Emergency discharge spillways
will be provided from the WMPs. Groundwater from the open pit dewatering will be pumped to the NWMP. The
EWMP will have a storage capacity of 0.18 Mm3 and the North WMP will have a storage capacity of 1.36 Mm³,
which is required to contain the design flood (“crue de projet”) defined in Directive 019 without spillage to the
environment.
The following activities are recommended to support the design of the WRTSF as it advances to Pre-Feasibility
Study (PFS) and Feasibility Study (FS) level designs:
 Supplemental geotechnical site investigation of the WRTSF, WMP and OPSF areas to characterize the
foundation conditions.
 Geotechnical investigations to identify potential granular borrow sources.
 In-situ permeability tests of the overburden soils and bedrock beneath the WRTSFs to confirm compliance
with Quebec Directive 19 and water management plan assumptions.
 Develop a groundwater model to evaluate potential impacts of the WRTSFs on the local environment.
ii
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
 Tailings laboratory testing to determine the filterability (dewatering) and geotechnical characteristics.
 Additional tailings and waste rock geochemical characterization to determine acid generation potential and
metal leaching in accordance with Quebec Directive 19.
 Optimization of the proposed WRTSF design and construction staging based on additional geotechnical site
investigation data including consideration of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM)
on WRTSF design.
 Further refinement of the site wide water balance.
 Optimize the locations and designs of the WMPs.
 Hazard assessment to determine the Consequence Classification of the WRTSF slopes and WMP dykes in
accordance with CDA guidelines.
 A dam breach and inundation study to support the WMP dam classification.
 Fish sampling in the proposed WRTSF and WMP areas should be conducted to confirm fish
presence/absence in the waterbodies of interest that may be impacted by the proposed development.
 Advancement of the mine closure plan.
 Confirmation of mine plan and material balance to confirm availability of construction materials for
development of the WRTSFs over the life of mine including pre-production and closure periods.
 Condemnation drilling for the WRTSF sites to verify the absence of mineralization.
 Water treatment requirements for effluent discharge from the NWMP.
iii
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 6
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 WRTSF Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 7
4.0 MINE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN............................................................................................... 8
4.1 Design Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Water Management .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.2.1 Water Balance................................................................................................................................. 8
4.2.2 Water Management Ponds ............................................................................................................. 9
4.2.2.1 Water Management Pond (WMP) Dyke Design ........................................................................ 10
4.2.3 Perimeter Water Collection Ditches .............................................................................................. 10
4.3 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility Development .......................................................................... 10
4.4 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF) Design .................................................................... 12
4.5 Overburden Peat Storage Facility (OPSF) Design ............................................................................ 14
4.6 Subsurface Conditions and Slope Stability ........................................................................................ 14
4.7 Conceptual WRTSF Closure .............................................................................................................. 16
5.0 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL QUANTITY ESTIMATES ............................................................................. 16
6.0 PATH FORWARD ......................................................................................................................................... 17
7.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
iv
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
TABLES
Table 1: Waste Rock and Tailings Volumes by Year ............................................................................................. 11
Table 2: WRTSF Geometry .................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 1: General Arrangement Plan – Ultimate LOM..................................................................................... 20
Figure 2: General Arrangement Plan – Phase 1 .............................................................................................. 21
Figure 3: Site Investigation Location Plan ........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4: Typical WRTSF, WMP and Ditch Cross-Sections ............................................................................. 23
Figure 5: Typical OPSF Slope-Sections ........................................................................................................... 24
FIGURES
Figure 1: General Arrangement Plan – Ultimate LOM..................................................................................... 20
Figure 2: General Arrangement Plan – Phase 1 .............................................................................................. 21
Figure 3: Site Investigation Location Plan ........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4: Typical WRTSF, WMP and Ditch Cross-Sections ............................................................................. 23
Figure 5: Typical OPSF Slope-Sections ........................................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Design Criteria
APPENDIX B
Water Balance
APPENDIX C
Slope Stability Analyses
APPENDIX D
Quantity Estimates
v
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Galaxy Lithium Canada Inc. (Galaxy) engaged Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to complete Preliminary Engineering
design of the mine waste and associated surface water management facilities for the proposed James Bay Lithium
Mine Project located approximately 380 km north of the town of Matagami, in the province of Quebec, Canada.
G-Mining Services Inc. (G-Mining) was responsible for mine planning, design of the process plant and mine site
infrastructure.
In 2020, Golder carried out a Value Engineering (VE) exercise, reviewing the previously completed Feasibility Study
conducted by Stantec in 2019 to identify opportunities to refine the engineering of the mine waste and water
management facilities to reduce initial and sustaining capital expenditures for development. Subsequent to the
completion of VE studies, Galaxy revised the project schedule to re-evaluate engineering at the Preliminary
Economic Assessment (PEA) level and incorporate the results of VE studies.
The following studies and analyses were completed during Preliminary Engineering design of the mine waste and
water management facilities to support the PEA:
 Establishment of design criteria for mine waste and water management facilities
 Preliminary engineering design of mine waste and associated surface water management facilities
 Updated site-wide water balance considering average, wet and dry climate conditions and conceptual water
management plan
 Construction quantity estimates for the mine waste and water management facilities over the life of mine
Initial and sustaining capital cost estimates over the life of mine (LOM) for the PEA were the responsibility of G-
Mining.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

The James Bay Lithium Mine Project is located approximately 10 km south of the Eastmain River, and 100 km east
of James Bay. There are two mine waste streams; waste rock and filtered “dry” tailings. The mine will produce
approximately 31.4 Mt (~18.5 Mm3) of tailings over the 18.5 year mine life at a production rate of 5,500 tonnes per
day (tpd). Filtered tailings was selected by Galaxy as the preferred level of tailings dewatering. Filtered tailings will
be co-disposed with waste rock in four Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facilities (WRTSFs). The overall design
objective of the WRTSFs is to provide stable waste rockfill structures that will store tailings solids during both
operations and long term (post-closure). Peat and organic materials along with mineral soil overburden waste will
be contained in a separate storage area referred to herein as the Overburden and Peat Storage Facility (OPSF).
The project components and activities at the site will include the construction, operation and eventual
decommissioning and closure of the following key elements:
 Open pit
 Run-of-Mine (ROM) pad and stockpile
 Mineral processing infrastructure and site buildings
 Spodumene concentrate warehouse
 Truck shop and fuel station
6
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
 Overburden and Peat Storage Facility (OPSF)
 Four Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facilities (WRTSFs)
 North Water Management Pond (NWMP), East Water Management Pond (EWMP), Process Plant Raw
Water Pond (RWP) and water collection ditches
 Propane and explosives storage facilities
 Access roads
 69kV substation and power transmission lines
 Other ancillary infrastructure and equipment
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed site plan configuration at the ultimate stage of the life of mine. The mine site will
be accessible from the existing James Bay Road, which runs along the east perimeter of the site. The Run-of-Mine
(ROM) stockpile and spodumene concentrate warehouse will be located adjacent to the process plant. A total of
four WRTSFs will be constructed around the open pit. The WRTSF locations were selected to minimize haul
distance from the open pit. The currently proposed WRTSF locations will have to be confirmed to minimize their
environmental impact during future studies. All runoff water generated by precipitation which falls on areas
impacted by mining activities is considered “contact water”. A surface water drainage network will be built to collect
and convey contact water from the ROM, WRTSFs, OPSF and process plant area to one of two WMPs. The same
strategy will be used to manage the contact water for all disturbed land. After settling of sediment in the North WMP,
excess water will be discharged to the CE2 Creek. Most on-site work and the locations of the various infrastructure
and buildings will comply with the required minimal setback distance of 60 m from the high-water mark of any lake
or watercourse. The exception are the two haul roads required to cross the CE3 Creek, and the East WRTSF, which
overlaps a segment of the intermittent CE4 Creek.
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

3.1 WRTSF Design Criteria
WRTSF design criteria are summarized in Appendix A. Measured infiltration rates beneath the West and Northeast
WRTSFs were identified to be lower than 3.3. L/m2/day (WSP, 2020), which will meet the requirements of a low
permeability soil in accordance with Québec Directive 019 (MDDELCC, 2012). The infiltration rate beneath the other
proposed WRTSFs is assumed to be similar for the current PEA.
The key WRTSF operating data are listed below:
 Life of mine is 18.5 years
 Total tonnage of tailings produced is ~31.4 million tonnes (Mt)
 Nominal mill production rate is 5,500 tonnes per day (tpd) or 2,000,000 tonnes per annum (tpa)
 Deposited dry density of filtered tailings in the WRTSF is 1.7 t/m3
 Total volume of tailings is ~18.5 million cubic metres (Mm3)
 Annual required storage volume of tailings solids is ~1 Mm3
7
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
 Total tonnage of waste rock produced is 129.9 Mt
 Waste rock dry density is 2.2 t/m3
 Total volume of waste rock is ~59.0 Mm3
It is anticipated that the tailings will be fairly coarse grained with a maximum particle size of 15 mm and a grain size
distribution of 51.5% gravel sized particles, 44% sand sized particles and 4.5% fines (i.e., silt and clay sized
particles). The waste rock is expected to consist of particles ranging from 30 mm to a maximum of 900 mm in
diameter with a D50 of about 200 mm (average size).
4.0 MINE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN

4.1 Design Assumptions
The following additional general assumptions were made for the preliminary WRTSF and OPSF design:
 Limited geotechnical information is available for the site. Based on available investigation information, the
foundation of the WRTSFs has been assumed to be primarily granular till over bedrock. Additional
geotechnical investigation will be required (during future studies) to confirm this assumption.
 The WRTSF embankment slopes will be constructed primarily with waste rock from open pit development.
 The tailings and waste rock are considered non-PAG, “Low Risk” under Directive 019, but leachable for
various metals species over the short-term only.
 Tailings storage will be distributed amongst all four of the WRSTFs.
 The East WRTSF will extend into the southeast end of the open pit after it is mined out for in-pit disposal of
waste rock only. Low permeable waste overburden sourced from WMP excavation can be used as fill to
construct the WMP perimeter dykes.
 Excess tailings process water, seepage and runoff contact water from the WRTSFs and OPSF will be
collected in perimeter ditches that drain to the WMPs or to the open pit. Collected contact water will be
transferred from the EWMP and open pit to the NWMP by pumping.
 The site water management will be developed in a staged approach. Phase 1 (constructed in Year -1 pre-
production) would be required to manage the run-off associated with mine infrastructure footprint up to the
end of Year 3. The Phase 2 expansion would then manage run-off up to the end of mining (LOM).
 Water in the NWMP will be reclaimed back to the mill for process use on a year-round basis. Excess water
that is not required by the process plant will be treated (if required) and discharged to the environment from
the NWMP.
4.2 Water Management

4.2.1 Water Balance
A deterministic site wide water balance was developed with a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to simulate operational
conditions (Appendix B). The monthly accumulation of water in the WMPs, for a range of climate conditions
8
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
(average, 1:25 year dry, 1:25 year wet and projected-climate change average), is the basis for developing the water
management plan for the facility. The water balance model includes the following:
 Flows associated with processing the ore, including loss of water retained in the deposited tailings
 Flows associated with runoff from precipitation
 Flows associated with dewatering of the open pit
 Evapotranspiration from WRTSFs and OPSF
 Evaporation from pond surfaces
 Seepage from WRTSF and OPSF
 Infiltration losses and other water uses/losses (e.g., dust control)
Run-off from WRTSFs and OPSF will be captured by perimeter collection ditches that drain to either the East or
North WMP or open pit. Water from open pit dewatering will be pumped to the NWMP. The water balance assumes
that the excess water (not required for mineral processing) is treated and discharged to the CE2 Creek from the
NWMP. The water balance has assumed the following:
 Effluent can be discharged to the environment all year long.
 An average effluent discharge capacity (i.e., water treatment capacity) of about 150,000 m³/month assuming
that effluent discharge is not allowed during winter months (i.e., December to April).
 Spring freshet is fixed in May (month when average temperature is positive).
 Freeboard of 1.0 m between Directive 019 flood level and WMP dam crest.
 2.0 m of ice thickness.
 Minimum water reserve for Mill Supply in case of a late spring freshet equal to 52 days of water demand.
The results from the water balance model determined that the NWMP can provide all the mill’s make-up water
requirements. The annual water balance is positive even under the 1:25 year dry scenario, and the process plant
demand could be supplied by the site runoff and pit dewatering flows. Effluent is expected to be discharged to the
environment even under 1:25 year dry scenario.
4.2.2 Water Management Ponds

The two WMPs will collect seepage and runoff from WRTSFs as well as from the OPSF. Figure 2 illustrates WMP
construction required to support for the first 3 years of operation (Phase 1). Construction of the EWMP is required
during pre-production. Figure 1 illustrates the ultimate expansion of the NWMP that is required after Year 3 (Phase
2). During the mine’s operational phase, water will be pumped from the NWMP via a reclaim pump system for the
operation of the processing plant. The water balance assumes that water will be recycled from the NWMP to the
mill at an assumed rate of 13,870 m3/month. Under mean annual precipitation conditions, annual inflows to the
WMPs exceed the annual process plant water requirements. Excess water will be pumped from the NWMP, treated
with a Water Treatment Plant if required, and discharged to the environment.
Under normal conditions, the WMPs are sized to collect and contain runoff and contact water. The NWMP, with a
maximum storage capacity of 1.36 Mm3, has been sized to contain the design flood (“crue de projet”) defined in
Directive 019 without spillage to the environment and meet process water requirements year-round. The EWMP
9
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
will have a maximum storage capacity of 0.18 Mm3 sufficient to contain the design flood. Both WMPs will have an
emergency spillway to prevent embankment overtopping under extreme climate conditions. The emergency
spillways shall be designed to pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).
4.2.2.1 Water Management Pond (WMP) Dyke Design

The WMPs will be constructed in cut, with perimeter dykes constructed of low permeable fill material sourced from
cutting excavation. The perimeter dykes will be constructed primarily of clayey material sourced from the waste
overburden from open pit stripping and/or WMP excavation. The internal slopes of the WMPs will be protected with
erosion protection. A crest width of 6 m has been assumed for the WMP dykes to allow for vehicle and equipment
movement. The slopes for the WMP dykes will be 3H:1V upstream and downstream for stability. The upstream
slope will have a 0.3 m thick layer of rip-rap underlain by non-woven geotextile. The downstream slope will be
vegetated with a thin layer of topsoil to reduce erosion. A typical cross-section of the WMP dykes is shown in
Figure 4.
4.2.3 Perimeter Water Collection Ditches

Water collection ditches will be constructed along the toe of the WRTSFs and OPSF areas. The perimeter water
collection ditches will collect run-off and seepage contact water from the WRTSFs and OPSF. The ditches will direct
flow to the WMPs or the open pit, where water will be pumped to the NWMP. Figure 2 and Figure 1 illustrate the
proposed perimeter collection ditching alignments in plan over the first 3 years of operation (Phase 1) and remaining
years of operation (Phase 2), respectively. The typical cross-section for the perimeter collection ditches considered
for material construction quantities at this stage of the project is trapezoidal with a minimum base width of 1.0 m,
minimum depth of 1.5 m, 2.3H:1V side slopes and 0.3 m thick erosion protection over non-woven geotextile.
Figure 4 illustrates the typical perimeter collection ditch in cross-section. The design of perimeter water collection
ditches will be refined during future phases of the project’s development.
4.3 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility Development

Tailings and the waste rock will be co-disposed of within the WRTSF areas, with filtered tailings placed and
compacted into cells contained within a waste rock embankment. The combined waste rock and filtered tailings
storage will be divided into four (4) distinct management areas designated as the “West”, “Northeast”, “Southwest”
and “East” WRTSFs as indicated on Figure 1. Progressive development (staged construction) of the mine waste
and water management facilities has been considered in the preliminary design. Table 1 presents the cumulative
production volumes of waste rock and tailings over the life of the project, using dry density parameters outlined in
Section 3.1. Table 1 also designates which WRTSF will receive tailings during each year of mine operation and
the WMP that will collect contact water. Figure 2 illustrates the WRTSF and WMP development over the first 3
years of operation (Phase 1). Figure 1 illustrates the ultimate WRTSF development at the end of the LOM.
Construction of the fully expanded NWMP (as shown in Figure 1) will be required after the end of Year 3 to
accommodate increased runoff from the larger WRTSF and OPSF catchment areas.
10
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Table 1: Waste Rock and Tailings Volumes by Year
Waste Rock Tailings Active WRTSF WMP Receiving Runoff Completed WMP
Year
Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Receiving Tailings from Active WRTSF Construction
EWMP and NWMP
-1 835,313 0 - - (Phase 1)
1 2,284,233 1,000,000 East EWMP -
2 2,748,020 1,000,000 East EWMP -
3 2,339,979 1,000,000 East EWMP -
4 2,402,750 1,000,000 East EWMP North NWMP (Phase 2)
5 2,720,712 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
6 2,401,705 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
7 2,433,218 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
8 3,545,455 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
9 3,838,761 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
10 4,103,404 1,000,000 West NWMP (Phase 1) -
11 4,023,522 1,000,000 Southwest (JB1) Open Pit -
14 4,122,835 1,000,000 Northeast NWMP (Phase 2) -
19 591,191 450,860 Northeast NWMP (Phase 2) -
Total 59,047,447 18,450,860 - - -
The following is a summary of development and operation of the WRTSFs and WMPs:
Pre-Production (Year -1): Under the proposed development plan, the EWMP and Phase 1 of the NWMP will need
to be constructed in the pre-production period (i.e., Year -1). All waste rock mined during the pre-production period
will be used to construct the base drainage layer and perimeter containment berms for the East WRTSFs.
Overburden from pit stripping and site development will be placed in the OPSF with runoff being collected in the
NWMP (Phase 1).
Start-up (Years 1 through 4): In Years 1 through 4 of mine operation, waste rock placement will occur at both the
East WRTSF and West WRTSF. Tailings will be placed within waste rock cells at the East WRTSF only during the
first 4 years of mine operation. During this period, waste rock placement at the West WRTSF will be used to
construct the base drainage layer and perimeter containment berms. Contact water from the East WRTSF
(containing both waste rock and tailings) will be collected in the EWMP where it will be pumped to the NWMP.
11
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Runoff from the OPSF and West WRTSF (containing waste rock only) will be collected in Phase 1 of the NWMP
during this initial operating period.
Years 5 through 10: During Years 5 through 10 of mine operation, tailings will be placed within waste rock cells
at the West WRTSF. During this period, waste rock placement will continue in the West WRTSF (during placement
of filtered tailings) and begin in the Northeast WRTSF (to construct the base drainage layer). There may be some
final waste rock placement in the East WRTSF to cover any exposed tailings and achieve the required external
waste rock embankment slopes. Phase 2 of the NWMP will need to be constructed prior to Year 5 to collect runoff
from both the OPSF, West WRTSF (containing both waste rock and tailings) and North WRTSF (containing waste
rock only) during this period. The EWMP will continue to collect contact water from the East WRTSF.
Years 11 through 13: During Years 11 through 13 of mine operation, tailings will be placed within waste rock cells
at the Southwest (JB1) WRTSF. During this period, waste rock placement will continue in the West WRTSF (to
cover any exposed tailings and achieve the required external waste rock embankment slopes) and Northeast
WRTSF (to construct the base drainage layer and perimeter containment berms prior to tailings deposition). Runoff
from the Southwest (JB1) WRTSF will drain to the open pit where it will be pumped to the NWMP. The NWMP
(Phase 2) will continue to collect runoff from the West WRTSF and Northeast WRTSF. The EWMP will continue to
collect contact water from the East WRTSF.
Years 14 through 18.5: During the final years of mine operation, tailings will be placed within waste rock cells at
the Northeast WRTSF. Waste rock placement during this period will be primarily in the mined out open pit (i.e.,
East WRTSF extension). There will also be some waste rock placement in the WRTSFs to cover any exposed
tailings and achieve the required external waste rock embankment slopes. Runoff from the OPSF, West WRTSF
and Northeast WRTSF will drain to the NWMP (Phase 2). The EWMP will continue to collect contact water from
the East WRTSF. Runoff from the Southwest (JB1) WRTSF will continue to drain to the open pit and be pumped to
the NWMP.
After the planned footprint of each WRTSF has been developed to the full extent (i.e., completion of the base waste
rock drainage layer) and initial perimeter containment berm, waste rock will then be used to construct internal
tailings disposal cells in successive lifts across the entire WRTSF plateau surface to the maximum design
elevations. WRTSF development and raising will have to be carried out carefully to prevent localized failure of any
underlying clayey soil foundation, if present. Stability analyses indicate that a 2.3H:1V overall slope will provide
stable external WRTSF slopes (Section 4.5). The benching design and inter-bench slopes for progressive
development of the WRTSFs should be optimized during the next phase of study, following completion of additional
site characterization work (e.g., field and laboratory investigations). The ultimate WRTSF development plan is
illustrated on Figure 1.
4.4 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF) Design

The overall design objective of the WRTSFs is to protect the regional groundwater and surface water resources
during both operations and long term (post-closure), and to achieve effective reclamation upon mine closure.
Co-disposal of filtered tailings and waste rock offers the following advantages:
 Free draining waste rock embankment that does not impound water
 Waste rock embankment zones that improve the physical slope stability of the WRTSF
 Accelerated consolidation and improved shear strength of tailings
12
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
 Reduced risk of embankment failure and loss of tailings containment
 Reduced potential for metal leaching from the waste rock (if tailings and waste rock are mixed)
 Reduced total footprint area for mine waste disposal facilities
 Reduced freeze-drying, dusting and erosion of tailings (due to encapsulation in waste rock)
 Improved opportunities for progressive closure

The WRTSFs are located within the project site limits positioned around the open pit to reduce waste rock haul
distance. The WRTSFs occupy a combined footprint of approximately 172.5 ha. Table 2 summarizes the proposed
geometry of the WRTSFs.
Table 2: WRTSF Geometry
Ultimate Footprint Ultimate Crest Maximum Final Slope Overall

WRTSF
Area (ha) Elevation (masl) Height (m) Grade (X H:1V)
West 29.0 260 53 2.3
Northeast 54.4 290 83 2.3
Southwest (JB1) 31.0 270 62 2.3
East 58.1 280 68 2.3
Preliminary design of the four WRTSFs considered applicable regulations and current government
recommendations, including Directive 019 sur l’Industrie Minière (MDDEFP, 2012) and the Guidelines for preparing
mine closure plans in Québec (MERN, 2017). One of the criteria is that mine waste management facilities must be
located 60 m from the high water mark of natural water courses and water bodies. The exception is the East
WRTSF, which overlaps a segment of an intermittent creek that drains from Kapisikama Lake. However, it is
understood that Kapisikama Lake will become dry during operation of the open pit (i.e., so this creek will already be
impacted by pit development). The suitability of proposed mine infrastructure locations and compliance with
applicable environmental requirements (e.g., 60 m distance from high-water mark) will need to be confirmed during
future studies.
The WRTSF preliminary design assumes that the foundation soil has sufficiently low permeability to meet the
maximum infiltration requirements of Québec Directive 019 without the need for a geomembrane liner. Measured
infiltration rates beneath the West and North WRTSFs were identified to be lower than 3.3. L/m2/day (WSP, 2020),
indicating that a geomembrane liner will not be required. Additional site investigations are being carried out to further
evaluate this assumption, including investigations at the Southwest and East WRTSFs.
The WRTSF embankment slopes will be constructed using mine waste rock materials. The WRTSFs will receive
waste rock trucked from the open pit and filtered tailings trucked from the process plant. A typical cross-section of
the WRTSFs is shown on Figure 4. The embankment design concept consists primarily of pit run rockfill to create
tailings cells that will retain the filtered tailings solids. The WRTSF external embankment slopes will be 2.3H:1V
overall for stability with 8.75 m wide benches every 5 m vertical. Peat will be excavated from a 25 m wide strip
along the perimeter of the WRTSFs to improve slope stability. There will be a minimum 3 m thick layer of waste
rock placed across the bottom of the WRTSF areas to provide drainage to the perimeter water collection ditching.
13
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
Tailings containment cells should be a maximum of 5 m deep and 50 m wide at the base with 10 m wide internal
waste rock separator berms that will provide haul truck access to the tailings cells. It is envisioned that the tailings
placement in each cell will be carried out by dozers spreading in thin lifts followed by compaction with smooth drum
vibratory compaction. Each tailings containment cell should be covered with a 5 m thick lift of waste rock to ensure
the WRTSF maintains an overall free-draining property and global slope stability. For the purposes of the preliminary
engineering, it is assumed that the tailings leaving the process plant will be filtered to a 75% solids content (by
mass). For the tailings to achieve long term strength parameters and not be susceptible to liquefaction, it is critical
that the tailings be sufficiently filtered to permit adequate compaction during placement in the WRTSFs.
4.5 Overburden Peat Storage Facility (OPSF) Design

The overall design objective of the OPSF is to safely store overburden and peat excavated from open pit
development while protecting surface water from sediment and allowing for reclamation upon mine closure.
Site preparation work, pre-stripping for the open pit, and excavation of the WMP’s will generate overburden soil
materials to be managed and stockpiled. All overburden will be stored in the OPSF located immediately North of
the West WRTSF.
Organic soils (primarily peat) and non-organic mineral soil waste are to be stored separately in distinct zones within
the OPSF to achieve stable slopes and to support potential reuse at closure. The OPSF will be located immediately
upstream of the North WMP, with the overall surface drainage directed to the latter.
For preliminary engineering, Golder carried out an update to the waste material soil balance over the life of mine
and it is estimated that the OPSF will need to store a total of approximately 2.9 Mm3 of waste (5.8 Mt at 2.0 t/m3).
Based on the footprint area, the OPSF will reach a final elevation at 220.0 masl or a maximum height of 16 m with
a total capacity of approximately 1.4 million m3 at Phase 1 (End of Year 3) and 3.4 million m3 at Phase 2 (LOM).
The total storage capacity accounts for an assumed credit of 750,000 m3 of waste material that is utilized for
progressive reclamation of the WRTSFs instead of being stored at the OPSF.
Typical cross-sections of the OPSF slopes are shown on Figure 5.The OPSF will have a 16 m wide perimeter waste
rock haul road toe berm. Peat will be excavated from a 15 m wide strip around the perimeter of the OPSF. A
perimeter haul road will be constructed at the toe of the OPSF for access prior to waste deposition. The haul road
will also act as a toe berm for slope stability purposes. The haul road / toe berm is proposed to be constructed of
waste rock with dimensions of 16 m width and 4 m height. The slope of the OPSF has been designed at 5H:1V.
The slope will be protected with a layer of waste rock erosion protection material. The OPSF will be zoned with fine
grained clay / silt waste material being stored internally and granular waste peripherally. The finer clay / silt waste
is to be stored a minimum 15 m offset from the slope crest to maintain stability. The peat waste will be stored in its
own designated area, separate from the mineral soil overburden waste (clay / silt and granular material).
4.6 Subsurface Conditions and Slope Stability

Two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were performed using the commercially available program
SLOPE/W 2019 R2, developed by GEOSLOPE International Ltd., employing the Morgenstern Price method of
analysis. Slope stability was analysed for a representative critical section of the ultimate WRTSF slopes, OPSF
slopes and WMP dykes. Slope stability analysis results and geotechnical parameters used in the analyses are
summarized in Figures C-1 to C-10 and Table C-1 in Appendix C. The foundation stratigraphy for the
representative design sections modelled in the slope stability analyses were developed based on findings from
14
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
geotechnical investigations undertaken at the site by WSP Inc. in 2018, Stantec in 2019 (Stantec, 2019) 1 and SNC
Lavalin (SNC) in 2020 (SNC, 2020) 2. The 2018 investigation included fifty-three boreholes. The 2019 investigation
by Stantec advanced a total of four boreholes and eight Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs). The 2020 investigation by
SNC advanced a total of 4 boreholes and 31 test pits. The existing site investigation locations are shown on
Figure 3.
The general stratigraphy of the site consists of, in descending stratigraphic order: peat/organic soil, clay, granular
till, and bedrock. The organic soil/peat layer consists of fibrous peat to silty peat and is typically greater in thickness
in areas that are relative topographic lows. The clay and silt layer has liquid limit ranging from 28% to 61% and
plasticity index ranging from 7% to 35% (Stantec, 2019 and SNC, 2020). In-situ vane shear testing conducted on
the clay layer measured undrained shear strength values ranging from approximately 31 kPa to 128 kPa indicating
a firm to very stiff consistency (Stantec, 2019). The clay was only encountered in the northwestern area of the site,
in the foundations of the proposed NWMP and OPSF. The native granular till is typically composed of silty sand to
sandy silt with some gravel and contains boulders and cobbles. The bedrock typically ranges from fair to excellent
quality.
The stratigraphic layers for the analyses have been simplified for the purposes of the preliminary engineering
assessment. The existing ground surface and foundation layers are assumed to be horizontal. Table C-1
summarizes the simplified soil stratigraphic foundation layers overlying bedrock used for each model. The
piezometric groundwater level used in the analyses was assumed to be at the existing ground surface. For the
OPSF slope stability (i.e., peat, clay foundation and waste clay overburden fill), total stress parameters were
employed in the analyses of the undrained conditions. The undrained shear strengths for the foundation units were
represented using the Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering Properties (SHANSEP) model with an
undrained shear strength ratio (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆/𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣). Construction induced excess porewater pressure generation and
dissipation within the clay foundation was modelled using a b-bar coefficient. For long-term conditions, effective
stress shear strength parameters were employed for the cohesive soil and peat. The OPSF will require a 16 m wide
rockfill toe berm for stability purposes (as illustrated in Figure 5). The NWMP undrained clay foundation was
modelled with an undrained strength (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) for the end of construction loading condition. Non-cohesive soil including
waste rock and native granular till was modelled using effective stress parameters (i.e., the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria).
Based on available geotechnical investigations, this analysis assumed that no continuous layers of clay are present
in the foundation material at the EWMP or WRTSFs. Some lenses of silt and clay material were observed within
the footprint of the Northeast WRTSF during the 2020 investigation. For the preliminary engineering level stability
analysis, the clay and silt lenses were not included in the simplified model. Consideration for the lenses should be
taken during the next design stage following completion of additional site investigations.
Based on review of available geotechnical investigation data the surface organic layer for the WRTSF locations
ranges in thickness from 0 to 2.6 m, with an average thickness of 0.7 m. The glacial till layer for the WRTSF locations
ranges in thickness from 0.8 to 16.7 m, with an average thickness of 3.9 m. The preliminary slope stability analyses
assumed a 5 m, 4 m, and 3 m thick layer of glacial till over bedrock for the West, Northeast and East WRTSF,
1 Stantec (2019). “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Waste Rock and Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF), James
Bay Lithium Project”. Project No. 121622255. August 9, 2019.
2 SNC Lavalin (2020). “James Bay Lithium Mine Project Detailed Geotechnical Investigation - Phase 2”. Report
No. 673356-EG-L01-00. October 21, 2020
15
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
respectively. The preliminary slope stability analyses assumed a 1 m thick layer of surficial organics / peat for the
West and Northeast. The East WRTSF slope stability analysis assumed a 0.5 m thick surficial layer of organics. No
geotechnical soil investigations have been carried out in the Southwest WRTSF area therefore it was assumed to
have similar foundation conditions as the West WRTSF (to be confirmed during future investigations). Additional
geotechnical investigation of foundation conditions at the proposed Southwest and East WRTSFs and East WMP
is recommended for the next stage of study to validate the preliminary stability analyses. The stability analysis
assumes that the WRTSF’s will be constructed on peat foundations material except for stripping of peat over a 25
m width along the toe. The undrained shear strength for the peat was represented using the SHANSEP model. For
the WRTSF, construction induced excess porewater pressure generation and dissipation within the peat was
modelled using a b-bar coefficient of 0.1 for the long-term condition and 0.4 for the shot-term end of construction
condition.
Pseudo-static slope stability analyses of the WRTSF, OPSF and WMP dykes were carried out using the 1/2,475
return earthquake with a PGA = 0.038g corresponding to a “high” consequence classification in the event of slope
failure (CDA, 2019) 3 and a horizontal seismic coefficient equal to ½ the PGA (Hynes-Griffin, 1984) 4. Preliminary
slope stability analyses indicate that the minimum target factors of safety (FoS) can be met (i.e., 1.3, 1.5 and 1.0
for end of construction, long-term and pseudo-static conditions respectively).
4.7 Conceptual WRTSF Closure

The major closure and reclamation activities planned for the WRTSF are expected to occur during the first two
years of closure. The WRTSFs will be designed for long-term stability. Thus, no additional re-grading of the side
slopes will be required at closure. A vegetation cover will be placed over the WRTSF crest surface and slope
benches at closure. Placement of topsoil and revegetation of the lower WRTSF benches may occur as progressive
reclamation closure during operations. The proposed closure vegetative cover is a 0.5 m thickness of overburden
soil that will be hydroseeded. The WRTSF closure cover design will be finalized during detailed design and field
trials during mine operation.
Initially after closure, runoff from the WRTSFs will continue to be collected in the WMPs. Water will continue to be
treated before discharge, if required, until water quality monitoring demonstrates that water collected in the pond is
acceptable for direct release to the environment. At that time, the WMP dykes will be breached and regrading will
be carried out to restore natural drainage and encourage natural revegetation.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL QUANTITY ESTIMATES

Construction material quantities were estimated by Golder for the development of the WRTSFs and related water
management infrastructure over the life of mine (Appendix D). G-Mining was responsible for estimating unit rate
costs (for consistency throughout the PEA) and compiling the PEA cost estimate (both initial and sustaining CAPEX
and OPEX).
Golder did not design or estimate quantities/costs for the following items (i.e., designed and costed by others):
3 Canadian Dam Association (CDA, 2019) “Technical Bulletin: Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining
Dams”, update of the original 2014 version.
4 Hynes-Griffin ME, Franklin AG. (1984) “Rationalizing the seismic coefficient method.” U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1984, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, 21 pp.
16
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
 Tailings dewatering/filtration systems at the process plant
 Water reclaim pipelines and pumping system from the WMP to the process plant
 Water management transfer pipelines/pumps
 Effluent water treatment
 Access and haul roads
 Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM)
 Post-closure monitoring, maintenance and water treatment
6.0 PATH FORWARD

The following activities are recommended to support the design of mine waste and water management facilities as
the project advances to Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) and Feasibility Study (FS) level:
 Supplemental geotechnical site investigation of the WRTSF, WMP and OPSF areas to characterize the
foundation conditions.
 Geotechnical investigations to identify potential granular borrow sources.
 In-situ permeability tests of the overburden soils and bedrock beneath the WRTSFs to confirm compliance
with Quebec Directive 19 and water management plan assumptions.
 Develop a groundwater model to evaluate potential impacts of the WRTSFs on the local environment.
 Tailings laboratory testing to determine the filterability (dewatering) and geotechnical characteristics.
 Additional tailings and waste rock geochemical characterization to determine acid generation potential and
metal leaching in accordance with Quebec Directive 19.
 Optimization and further evaluation of the proposed WRTSFs and construction staging based on the findings
of the geotechnical site investigations.
 Further refinement of the site wide water balance.
 Optimize the locations and designs of the WMPs.
 Hazard assessment to determine the Consequence Classification of the WRTSF slopes and WMP dykes in
accordance with CDA guidelines.
 A dam breach and inundation study to support the WMP dam classification.
 Fish sampling in the proposed WRTSF and WMP areas should be conducted to confirm fish
presence/absence in the waterbodies of interest that may be impacted by the proposed development.
 Advancement of the mine closure plan.
 Confirmation of mine plan and material balance to confirm availability of construction materials for
development of the WRTSFs over the life of mine including pre-production and closure periods.
 Condemnation drilling for the WRTSF sites to verify the absence of mineralization.
 Water treatment requirements for effluent discharge from the NWMP.
17
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
7.0 CLOSURE
We trust that this report meets your project requirements. If you have any questions or require further information,
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Orignal Signed By
Joao Paulo Lutti, Ing (QC)
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Orignal Signed By Orignal Signed By Darrin

Matt Soderman, PEng (ON) Johnson, PEng (ON)
Geotechnical Engineer Associate
DCJ/JPL/GK/MAS
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/119892/project files/6 deliverables/6. preliminary engineering design report/final/19135464 galaxy mw and wmf prelim design
report_final_22mar2021.docx
18
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
FIGURES
HY
7
DR
19
LIG
O
199
QU
NE
E 354 000
E 355 000
E 356 000
E 357 000
E 358 000
E 359 000
E 360 000
8 5
EB
20
D'
19
EC
HY
200 MINE EFFLUENT
DR
45
199
0k
O
EFFLUENT MINIER 1
20
QU
V
DC
0
ÉB
20
EC
LIN
201
-4
E
WATER TREATMENT PLANT (WTP)
(E
201
50
XI S
USINE DE TRAITMENT DES EAUX (UTE)
kV
TIN
DC
202
G)
(E
N 5 791 00020 N 5 791 000
2
XI S
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
TA
NT
LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ 3 NOTRH EAST WRTSF Mine de Lithium
20
E)
HALDE À STÉRILES ET RÉSIDUS de la Baie-James
RTH WMP) MINIERS NORD EST
AGEMENT POND ( NO
SERVICE ROAD NORTH WATER MAN 204
DES EAUX
BASSIN DE GESTIOIN
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ
ROUTE DE SERVICE
EMULSION MIXING BUILDING 205
OVERBURDEN AND PEAT STORAGE FACILITY PROCESS PLANT
BÂTIMENT DE MÉLANGE 6
20 USINE DE PROCÉDÉ
HALDE À MATIÈRE ORGANIQUE ET DÉPÔT MEUBLES
207 EL: 290
Path: \\golder.gds\GAL\Mississauga\SIM\Clients\Galaxy_Lithium\James_Bay\99_PROJ\19135464_GeotechInv\40_PROD\0002_WaterManagement\ | File Name: 19135464-0002-CM-0002_GKEdits.dwg | Last Edited By: gkarner Date: 2021-03-22 Time:2:02:09 PM | Printed By: GKarner Date: 2021-03-22 Time:2:03:23 PM
DETONATOR MAGAZINE
ENTREPÔT DE DÉTONNATEUR KEY PLAN / PLAN CLÉ
EL: 260 CAMP / CAMPEMENT
HAUL ROAD 210
3 ROM PAD POND / BASSIN
21 ROUTE DE POND / BASSIN
214 212 HALAGE
EXPLOSIVES MAGAZINE HAUL ROAD DRAINAGE DITCH TO ALSO SERVICES BUILDING
1
PROVIDE RUN-OFF COLLECTION FOR
21
ENTREPÔT D'EXPLOSIF BÂTIMENT DE SERVICES
THE ULTIMATE OPSF AND DIRECT
0
9
21
N 5 790 000 WATER TO THE NORTH WMP 20 208 N 5 790 000
212 20
8 REFERENCES:
9
WEST WASTE ROCK TAILINGS 20 210 6 RY
20NDA 1. BASE FILES AND LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY G-MINING.
TENEMENT BOU
STORAGE FACILITY (WRTSF)
KASACHIPET LAKE LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ
LAC KASACHIPET HALDE À STÉRILE ET RÉSIDUS
MINIERS OUEST
BASSIN DE GESTION DE LA
DECHARGE EST / EAST
214 WATER MANAGEMENT POND
PIT / FOSSE
EL: 270 215
EL: 280
0 ROM PAD (EXPANSION)
2 13 22 HALDE TEMP. DE STOCKAGE
0
21 DU MINERAI
211
(AGRANDISSEMENT)
212
213
SOUTH WEST WASTE ROCK
214 EXP ROM PAD
L
TAILINGS PÉR OSIV HALDE TEMP. DE STOCKAGE
215 (WRTSF)
STORAGE FACILITY IMÈ E LIM DU MINERAI
TR
E D IT 25
21
HALDE À STÉRILE ET RÉSIDUS EP 0

21165 RO m
5
2 MINIERS SUD OUEST JEC 22
22
TIO 5
EXP
3
214 NA 22
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
N 5 789 000 LOS 0 N 5 789 000

PÉR IVE 250

213 IMÈ LIM m EAST WRTSF
TRE IT 5
DE
PR 0m
0 210 AGGREGATE +BATCH PLANT HALDE À STÉRILES ET RÉSIDUS
212 OJE (TEMPORARY LOCATION) MINIERS EST
CTI
ON 213
1 A 5 USINE DE BÉTON+AGGREGAT
21 00m
(EMPLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)
0
21
CONSTRUCTION BORROW PIT/
0
21
209 ZONE D'EMPRUNT STERILES
7
20
20
9
210
5
20
211
21
212
3
21
4
IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
N 5 788 000 21 LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ N 5 788 000
5
216
205
NTE
217 AD TA
RO
EXIS 208
AY S
ES
B ME 0
AM -JA 21
218 G
J BAIE
E 354 000
E 355 000
E 356 000
IS TIN EL
A
EX ED
TENEMENT BOUNDARY UT
LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ RO
E 357 000
E 358 000
E 359 000
E 360 000
N 5 787 000 N 5 787 000
CLIENT PROJECT
PLAN VIEW
1 1:10 000
VUE EN PLAN GALAXY LITHIUM CANADA INC. JAMES BAY LITHIUM PROJECT
CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2021-03-22 TITLE
DESIGNED -
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN - ULTIMATE LOM
25 mm
0 500 1,000
PREPARED FZG
1:10,000 METRES
REVIEWED MS
PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE
APPROVED DCJ 19135464 11000 A 1
0
7
19 199
354 000 E
355 000 E
356 000 E
357 000 E
358 000 E
359 000 E
360 000 E
HY
8 5
19 20
DR
LIG
O
200 MINE EFFLUENT
QU
NE
199 1
EB
EFFLUENT MINIER 20
D'
EC
HY
0
20
DR
45
201
0k
O
WATER TREATMENT PLANT (WTP)
QU
V
201
DC
ÉB
USINE DE TRAITMENT DES EAUX (UTE)
EC
LIN
202
-4
E
(E
50
5 791 000 N20 5 791 000 N
XIS
2
kV
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
TIN
DC
G)
LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ 3
(E
20 Mine de Lithium
XI S
de la Baie-James
TA
ENT POND
H WATER MANAGEM OVERBURDEN AND PEAT STORAGE FACILITY
NT
NORT
E)
SERVICE ROAD ( NORTH WMP) 204 HALDE À MATIÈRE ORGANIQUE ET DÉPÔT MEUBLES
DES EAUX
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
BASSIN DE GESTIOIN
ROUTE DE SERVICE
EMULSION MIXING BUILDING 205
PROCESS PLANT
BÂTIMENT DE MÉLANGE 6
20 USINE DE PROCÉDÉ
207
Path: \\golder.gds\GAL\Mississauga\SIM\Clients\Galaxy_Lithium\James_Bay\99_PROJ\19135464_GeotechInv\40_PROD\0002_WaterManagement\ | File Name: 19135464-0002-CM-0001_GKedits.dwg | Last Edited By: gkarner Date: 2021-03-22 Time:1:54:46 PM | Printed By: GKarner Date: 2021-03-22 Time:1:56:24 PM
DETONATOR MAGAZINE
ENTREPÔT DE DÉTONNATEUR KEY PLAN / PLAN CLÉ
EL: 260 CAMP / CAMPEMENT
210
3 HAUL ROAD ROM PAD POND / BASSIN
21 POND / BASSIN
214 212 ROUTE DE
EXPLOSIVES MAGAZINE SERVICES BUILDING
HALAGE
1
21
ENTREPÔT D'EXPLOSIF BÂTIMENT DE SERVICES
0
WEST WASTE ROCK TAILINGS 9
21
5 790 000 N 20 208 5 790 000 N
212 STORAGE FACILITY (WRTSF) 20
8
9
HALDE À STÉRILE ET RÉSIDUS 20 210 6 RY
20NDA REFERENCES:
TENEMENT BOU 1. BASE FILES AND LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY G-MINING.
KASACHIPET LAKE MINIERS OUEST LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ
LAC KASACHIPET
BASSIN DE GESTION DE LA
DECHARGE EST / EAST
214 WATER MANAGEMENT POND
PIT / FOSSE 215 EL: 280

0 ROM PAD (EXPANSION)
2 13 22 HALDE TEMP. DE STOCKAGE
0
21 DU MINERAI
211
(AGRANDISSEMENT)
212
213
214 EXP ROM PAD
L
PÉR OSIV HALDE TEMP. DE STOCKAGE
215 IMÈ E LIM DU MINERAI
TR
E D IT 25
21
EP 0
21165 RO m
5
2 JEC 22
22
TIO 5
EXP
3
214 NA 22
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
5 789 000 N LOS 0 5 789 000 N

PÉR IVE 250

213 IMÈ LIM m EAST WRTSF
TRE IT 5
DE
PR 0m
0 210 AGGREGATE +BATCH PLANT HALDE À STÉRILES ET RÉSIDUS
212 OJE (TEMPORARY LOCATION) MINIERS EST
CTI
ON 213
1 A 5 USINE DE BÉTON+AGGREGAT
21 00m
(EMPLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)
0
21
CONSTRUCTION BORROW PIT/
0
21
209 ZONE D'EMPRUNT STERILES
7
20
20
9
210
5
20
211
21
212
3
21
4
TENEMENT BOUNDARY
5 788 000 N 21 LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ 5 788 000 N
5
216
205
NTE
217 AD TA
RO
EXIS 208
AY S
ES
B ME 0
AM -JA 21
218 G
J BAIE
IS TIN EL
A
EX ED
TENEMENT BOUNDARY UT
360 000 E
LIMITE DE PROPRIÉTÉ RO
354 000 E
355 000 E
356 000 E
357 000 E
358 000 E
359 000 E
5 787 000 N 5 787 000 N
PLAN VIEW
1 1:10 000
CLIENT PROJECT
VUE EN PLAN
GALAXY LITHIUM CANADA INC. JAMES BAY LITHIUM PROJECT
DESIGNED -
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 1
25 mm
0 500 1,000
PREPARED FZG
1:10,000 METRES
REVIEWED MS
APPROVED DCJ 19135464 11000 A 2
0
354 000 E
355 000 E
356 000 E
357 000 E
358 000 E
359 000 E
BH-F-2019-43
CPT-F-2019-43
CPT-F-2019-42
BH-F-2019-47
5 791 000 N CPT-F-2019-47 WSP-MW1R 5 791 000 N
BH-F-2019-1000
BH-10
BH-F-2019-40 TP20-P-24
CPT-F-2019-40
BH-13 TP20-P-27 BH-29 TP20-P-01
BH-16 WSP-MW8S
TP20-P-30BH-27 BH-28 BH-40
WSP-MW8R
TP20-P-02
TP20-P-09
CPT-F-2019-67 BH-34 BH-36
BH-9 TP20-P-29 TP20-P-25
TP20-P-28 TP20-P-26 BH-24
CPT-F-2019-33 BH-44
BH-33 BH-35 BH-30
BH-6 TP20-P-08
TP20-P-05
BH-19 TP20-P-04 BH-45
BH-25
Path: \\golder.gds\GAL\Mississauga\SIM\Clients\Galaxy_Lithium\James_Bay\99_PROJ\19135464_GeotechInv\40_PROD\0001_GeotechInv\ | File Name: 19135464-0001-CM-0001 - GKEdits2.dwg | Last Edited By: gkarner Date: 2021-03-23 Time:1:30:24 PM | Printed By: GKarner Date: 2021-03-23 Time:1:31:25 PM
BH-42
TP20-W-01 TP20-P-07 WSP-MW3S
BH-22 WSP-MW3R
BH-15 BH-32
CPT-F-2019-70 TP20-P-23
BH-12 BH-18 TP20-P-06
CPT-F-2019-72 BH-43
TP20-P-22 BH-31 BH-39

BH-4
BH-5 BH-26
BH-23 TP20-P-15
TP20-P-20
BH-41
BH-37 TP20-P-16
BH-8
BH20-P-09
BH-50
BH-38 TP20-P-31
MW-F-2019-06 BH20-P-06
TP20-P-36
BH-21 TP20-P-17
BH-3 BH-14 TP20-P-18

BH-7 BH-17 TP20-P-19 BH20-P-07
BH-11 WSP-MW2R
WSP-MW2S
5 790 000 N BH20-P-08 TP20-P-21 TP20-P-32 5 790 000 N
TP20-P-35 TP20-P-34
TP20-P-33
BH-46
BH-47
BH-48
BH-51
PW03
MW04R PW02
MW04S BH-52
BH-53
PW01
WSP-MW5R
WSP-MW5S PO1
5 789 000 N MW06R 5 789 000 N
BH-1 PO3
PO2
BH-2
WSP-MW7R
BH-49
WSP-MW9R
WSP-MW9S
354 000 E
355 000 E
356 000 E
357 000 E
358 000 E
359 000 E
BH-20
CLIENT PROJECT
NOTE(S)
GALAXY LITHIUM CANADA INC. JAMES BAY PROJECT
1. INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES:
Stantec (2019). “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Waste Rock and Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF)
James Bay Lithium Project”. Project No. 121622255. August 9, 2019
SNC Lavalin (2020). “James Bay Lithium Mine Project Detailed Geotechnical Investigation - Phase 2”.
DESIGNED -
EXISTING SITE INVESTIGATION LOCATION PLAN
Report No. 673356-EG-L01-00. October 21, 2020 0 250 500
25 mm
PREPARED FZG
1:7,500 METRES
REVIEWED MS
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A 3
0
25 m
5m
TAILINGS CELL WASTE ROCK
0.75H
1V
8.75 m
2.5H
1V
5m
WASTE ROCK
0.75H
10 m 1V
INTERNAL WASTE ROCK BERM 8.75 m
25 m
5m
2H TAILINGS CELL 2H WASTE ROCK
1V 1V 0.75H 1
50 m 1V
8.75 m
Path: \\golder.gds\GAL\Mississauga\SIM\Clients\Galaxy_Lithium\James_Bay\99_PROJ\20391077\40_PROD\0001_Sections\ | File Name: 20391077-0001-CM-0001.dwg | Last Edited By: fgong Date: 2021-01-29 Time:9:50:56 AM | Printed By: FGong Date: 2021-01-29 Time:9:51:11 AM
3m
WASTE ROCK 0.75H
1V ORIGINAL GROUND
25 m PEAT STRIPPING ALONG PERIMETER TOE 15 m MIN

PEAT PEAT
NATIVE
PERIMETER CONTACT WATER
COLLECTION DITCH
TYPICAL WTRSF SECTION

SCALE 1:150 m
6m
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
FILL HEIGHT VARIES
VEGETATED SLOPE
0.3 m EROSION PROTECTION (WASTE ROCK)
TOP SOIL 1V COMPACTED CLAY / TILL FILL ORIGINAL GROUND

3H
3H
PREPARED FOUNDATION 1V
NATIVE
POND BASE
TYPICAL WMP SECTION
SCALE 1:100 m
0 2 4
1:50 METRES
0 5 10
ORIGINAL GROUND
1:100 METRES
PEAT 0.3 m RIPRAP PEAT 0 5 10

1.5 m
1:150 METRES
1V 1V NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
2.5H 2.5H CLIENT PROJECT
NATIVE 1 m MIN JAMES BAY LITHIUM PROJECT
GALAXY LITHIUM CANADA INC. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN
DESIGNED MS
TYPICAL WRTSF, WMP AND DITCH CROSS-SECTIONS
25 mm
PREPARED FZG
SCALE 1:50 m 1 TYPICAL PERIMETER COLLECTION DITCH
1 REVIEWED MS
APPROVED DJ 20391077 11000 A 4
0
15 m
ELEV. 220 m
0.5 m EROSION PROTECTION
5H
1V
16 m
CLAY / SILT WASTE GRANULAR WASTE
16 m
WASTE ROCK HAUL ROAD / TOE BERM
4m
Path: \\golder.gds\GAL\Mississauga\SIM\Clients\Galaxy_Lithium\James_Bay\99_PROJ\20391077\40_PROD\0001_Sections\ | File Name: 20391077-0001-CM-0002.dwg | Last Edited By: fgong Date: 2021-01-26 Time:2:14:27 PM | Printed By: FGong Date: 2021-01-26 Time:2:14:58 PM
ORIGINAL GROUND
15 m STRIPPING WIDTH
PEAT PEAT
NATIVE CLAY
TYPICAL OPSF SLOPE SECTION - OVERBURDEN SOIL ZONE

SCALE 1:150 m
ELEV. 220 m
0.5 m EROSION PROTECTION
5H
1V
16 m
PEAT WASTE
16 m
WASTEWASTE
ROCK HAUL
ROCKROAD
/ HAUL
/ TOE
ROAD
BERM
4m
ORIGINAL GROUND
15 m STRIPPING WIDTH
PEAT PEAT
NATIVE CLAY
TYPICAL OPSF SLOPE SECTION - PEAT ZONE

SCALE 1:150 m
CLIENT PROJECT
GALAXY LITHIUM CANADA INC. JAMES BAY LITHIUM PROJECT
DESIGNED MS
TYPICAL OPSF SLOPE SECTIONS
25 mm
0 5 10
PREPARED FZG
1:150 METRES
REVIEWED MS
APPROVED DJ 20391077 11000 A 5
0
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
APPENDIX A
Design Criteria
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE December 16, 2020 Project No. 19135464-9000-Rev0
TO Patrick Gince
Galaxy Lithium
FROM Darrin Johnson EMAIL [email protected]
WASTE ROCK TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA

JAMES BAY LITHIUM MINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by Galaxy Lithium (Canada) Inc. (GLCI) to complete Preliminary
Engineering Design of the Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF) and related water management systems
for the proposed James Bay Lithium Mine Project in Québec. This memorandum outlines design criteria based on
applicable regulatory standards and guidelines, project information provided by Galaxy, and assumptions based on
Golder’s experience with similar projects, which will serve as the basis for the Preliminary Engineering Design.
Golder is also providing input into the stockpile geotechnical slope stability (stockpiles to be designed by G-Mining).
2.0 MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

G-mining is responsible for developing the mine plan for the project. Proposed production rates and mine waste
produced by year are summarized in Table 1. The information is sourced from G-mining’s updated mine schedule
for the project which has been provided to Golder (MS Excel file titled “Galaxy Schedule_2020-12-03_Shared”).
Table 1: Proposed Mine Production Rates (GMS, 2020e)
Year Ore Milled (t) Tailings Generated (t) Waste Rock (t) Overburden (t)
-1 0 0 1,837,688 478,724
1 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,025,313 967,923
2 2,000,000 1,700,000 6,045,645 0
3 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,147,954 830,390
4 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,286,049 656,616
5 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,985,567 14,433
6 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,283,752 252,004

6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2, Canada T: +1 905 567 4444 F: +1 905 567 6561
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com
Patrick Gince Project No. 19135464-9000-Rev0
Galaxy Lithium December 16, 2020
Year Ore Milled (t) Tailings Generated (t) Waste Rock (t) Overburden (t)
7 2,000,000 1,700,000 5,353,079 646,590
8 2,000,000 1,700,000 7,800,002 1,048,884
9 2,000,000 1,700,000 8,445,275 190,565
10 2,000,000 1,700,000 9,027,489 1,842
11 2,000,000 1,700,000 8,851,748 148,252
12 2,000,000 1,700,000 9,409,258 0
13 2,000,000 1,700,000 9,225,094 0
14 2,000,000 1,700,000 9,070,236 0
15 2,000,000 1,700,000 6,753,935 246,065
16 2,000,000 1,700,000 6,963,663 319,143
17 2,000,000 1,700,000 6,000,000 0
18 2,000,000 1,700,000 7,092,017 0
19 901,720 766,462 1,300,620 0
Total 36,901,720 31,366,462 129,904,382 5,801,431

Note: 1. Tailings produced at a rate of 85% of ore milled.
3.0 PROPOSED MINE WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES

3.1 Mine Waste Storage Facilities
The general arrangement (GA) drawing for the Preliminary Economic Assessment has been developed by G-Mining
(GMS, 2020d). Waste rock and tailings will be co-disposed in the WRTSF. The WRTSF will receive waste rock
trucked from the open pits and filtered tailings trucked from the production plant. The tailings will be filtered to an
approximate solids content of 75% (by mass). In addition, overburden and peat excavated from open pit
development will be stockpiled adjacent to the West WRTSF in the Overburden and Peat Storage Facility (OPSF).
Mine operating data and calculated tailings design parameters are summarized in Table 2 (attached).
It is currently envisioned that mine waste will be placed in the following storage facilities:
1. OPSF (overburden and peat from open pit stripping)

2. West WRTSF (co-disposed waste rock and tailings with OPSF to the north)
3. North East WRTSF (co-disposed waste rock and tailings)
4. South West WRTSF (co-disposed waste rock and tailings)
2
5. East WRTSF (co-disposed waste rock and tailings)

6. In-pit waste rock disposal
3.2 Mine Waste Volumes

Table 3 summarizes the total tailings, overburden and waste rock in tonnes (provided by G-Mining) and estimated
volumes over the life of the mine.
Table 3: Mine Waste Material Quantities
Mine Waste Material Tonnes Density (t/m3) Volume (m3)
Tailings 31,366,462 1.7 18,450,860
Total Overburden 5,801,431 2.0 2,900,716
Waste Rock 129,904,382 2.0 64,952,191
4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING

4.1 Monthly Precipitation and Evaporation
Table 4 summarizes average monthly and annual total precipitation and lake evaporation for the project site.
Table 4: Monthly Total Precipitation and Evaporation
Month Average Total 25-year-wet 25-year-dry Average Total Evaporation1 (mm)

Precipitation1 (mm) Total Total Precipitation –
Precipitation1 Precipitation1 Climate
(mm) (mm) Change2 (mm)
January 33 41.1 25.4 39.6 2
February 24 29.9 18.5 28.9 3
March 32 39.6 24.5 33.8 6
April 34 41.7 25.8 35.6 15
May 40 49.2 30.4 42.1 48
June 65 80.7 49.9 67.5 77
July 79 97.1 60.0 81.2 88
August 91 112.7 69.7 94.3 68
September 111 137.2 84.8 121.3 36
October 89 109.6 67.8 96.9 18
3
Month Average Total 25-year-wet 25-year-dry Average Total Evaporation1 (mm)

Precipitation1 (mm) Total Total Precipitation –
Precipitation1 Precipitation1 Climate
(mm) (mm) Change2 (mm)
November 72 89.0 55.0 78.7 7
December 46 57.0 35.3 55.0 3
Total 715.2 885.0 547.0 774.9 370

Annual
1
Stantec, 2019.
2
Golder, 2020b.
4.2 Extreme Climate Variables

Table 5 summarizes extreme climate variables to be considered during the design of water management
structures.
Table 5: Extreme climate variables to be considered during design of water management infrastructure
Parameter Unit Value Source
1:100 year snow cover water equivalent mm 388.5 WSP, 2018b
24-hr 1:100 year rainfall mm 80.8 Stantec, 2019
24-hr 1:1000 year rainfall mm 101.6 WSP, 2018b
24-hr Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) mm 330.0 Golder, 2020b
Ice thickness during winter operations m 2.0 Stantec, 2019
4.3 Runoff Coefficients

For water balance purposes, the monthly runoff coefficients for each catchment based on Thornthwaite equation
as presented by Stantec (Stantec, 2019) will be assumed.
Volumetric runoff coefficients considered for the design of water management ponds are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: Volumetric Runoff Coefficients Considered for the Design of Water Management Ponds
Type of surface Volumetric runoff coefficient
WRTSF 0.44
OPSF 0.65
4
Type of surface Volumetric runoff coefficient
Haul roads 0.65
Open Pit 0.65
Industrial (plant) area 0.65
Pond surface 1.00
4.4 Seismic Hazard

Peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for the James Bay Lithium Mine Project site obtained from the National
Building Code of Canada seismic hazard database (NRCC, 2015) are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7: Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (NRCC, 2015)
Return Period (years) 100 475 1000 2475
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (g) 0.004 0.014 0.022 0.038
Note: If required (i.e., depending on the dam hazard classification), the PGA of a 1:10,000 year earthquake will be estimated
based on a linear extrapolation of available NRCC data in the absence of a site-specific seismic hazard assessment.
5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

5.1 Guidelines
Recommendations from five different guidelines will be taken into account in the design of the mine waste storage
facilities for the project. Table 8 summarizes the applicable references.
Table 8: Guidelines for Mine Waste Storage Facility Preliminary Design
Guideline Comments
MDDELCC “Directive 019” (MDDELCC, 2012) 2012 version
Ministère de l’Énergie et de Ressources Naturelles “Guide de

préparation du plan de réaménagement et restauration des 2017 version
sites miniers au Québec” (MERN, 2017)
CDA “Dam Safety Guidelines” (CDA Guidelines) 2013 version
Technical bulletin of the CDA on the “Application of Dam 2014 version

Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams”
Environment Canada Environmental code of practice 2009 version

for metal mines
5
5.2 Water Management

The WRTSF and stockpiles will have perimeter water collection ditches draining to water management ponds
(WMPs). The WMP dams will be designed as a water retaining structure. Table 9 lists proposed design criteria for
the water management infrastructure.
Table 9: Water Management Pond Design Criteria
Component Design Criteria Design Comments Source
Water Storage Normal operating water level (NOWL) NOWL considered from the Standard
Volume based on water balance results for maximum water storage for practice
average climate conditions an average climate year
Environmental Design Flood (EDF): EDF contained (no spillway Directive 019
24-hr precipitation with a return period discharge)
of 2,000 years and the snowmelt from
a snow accumulation with a return
period of 100-yr over 30 days.
Emergency Spillway Inflow Design Flood (IDF): Probable IDF/PMF discharged through Directive 019
Maximum Flood (PMF) spillway
Freeboard Freeboard (measured between the Minimum freeboard Directive 019

EDF water level and the dike crest): assuming that downstream
1.0 m environment is not sensitive.
Freeboard (measured from IDF water Propose for current PEA level Standard
level and the dike crest): 0.5 m design to account for wave practice
height.
5.3 Dam Classification

The WRTSF slopes and WMP dams will be classified using the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) “Dam Safety
Guidelines” (2013) and “Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams” (2014). Dam classification will be
used to determine the design criteria for slope stability, design floods and design earthquake levels.
The WMP dams will likely be classified as having a “Significant” consequence of failure because there is no
downstream population at risk (i.e., temporary workers only), failure would not result in significant loss of important
fish or wildlife habitat and that restoration or compensation of fish or wildlife habitat would be possible. The Quebec
Directive 019 design storm requirements outlined above (in Section 5.2) exceed the CDA requirements for a
“Significant” dam hazard classification
5.4 Slope Stability

Table 10 presents the factors of safety for slope stability from the CDA guidelines and/or Québec Directive 019,
where applicable.
6
Table 10: Factors of Safety for Slope Stability
Loading Condition Minimum Factor

of Safety
Short-term 1.3
Long-term 1.5
Pseudo-static 1.1
Post earthquake (if required) 1.3
5.5 Design Earthquake Levels

Table 11 presents design earthquake levels based on CDA guidelines. Per Quebec Directive 019, the recurrence
of the design earthquake must not be less than the annual exceedance probability of 1/2,475 years, which exceeds
the CDA requirement for a “Significant” dam hazard classification.
Table 11: CDA (2013) Design Earthquake Levels for Dams
Dam Consequence Classification Earthquake Design Ground Motion (EDGM)

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)
Low 1/100
Significant Between 1/100 and 1/1000
High 1/24751
Very High ½ between 1/2475 and 1/10000 or MCE2
Extreme 1/10000 or MCE

1
This level has been selected for consistency with seismic design levels given in the National Building Code of Canada
2
MCE is the Maximum Credible Earthquake and has no associated AEP
5.6 Geochemistry
5.6.1 Waste Rock
Waste rock was previously geochemically characterized (WSP, 2018a) to determine how it should be managed
according to Québec Directive 019 (MELCC). The classification serves to define design parameters of the WRTSF
and waste rock stockpile to ensure aquifer protection prescribed by D019.
The waste rock appears to be non-PAG but metal leaching over the short-term only, therefore Level A groundwater
protection measures will have to be applied. Based on the available geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation
information the preliminary design will assume that the in-situ overburden will meet Québec Directive 019
(MDDELCC, 2012) requirements (i.e., no geomembrane liner will be required).
7
5.6.2 Tailings
James Bay Lithium Project tailings samples were geochemically characterized (WSP, 2018a) and are non-PAG but
metal leaching. Based on the results of the geochemical testing completed to date, the WRTSFs will require a low
permeability liner in accordance with Québec Directive 019 (MDDELCC, 2012). For the purposes of the preliminary
design, we will assume that the in-situ overburden will meet the requirements of Québec Directive 019 (MDDELCC,
2012) and no geomembrane liner will be required beneath the WRTSFs. Furthermore, the infiltration rate beneath
the West and North WRTSFs was identified to be lower than 3.3. L/m2/day (WSP, 2020), indicating that a
geomembrane liner will not be required in accordance with Québec Directive 019. Additional field investigation and
hydrogeological analyses is required to confirm this assumption for the next phase of study.
5.7 Buffer Distances

The following constraints and buffer distances will be applied to the WRTSF and stockpile footprints:
 No destruction of Schedule 2 fish habitat areas.
 60 m from natural water courses and identified fish habitat areas.
 Additional 30 m allowance for perimeter access roads and water collection ditches.
5.8 Additional Design Assumptions

The following additional general assumptions will be adopted for the James Bay Lithium Mine Project mine waste
storage facility preliminary design:
 The mine waste infrastructure will be developed in a staged approach with respect to the water management
strategy, with “Phase 1” being constructed to manage water up to End of Year 3, and “Phase 2” being the
remaining balance of the Life of Mine (LOM).
 Phase 1 and Phase 2 mine infrastructure footprints will be provided by G-Mining.
 Limited geotechnical information is available for the site. Additional geotechnical investigation will be
required during future studies to confirm foundation conditions.
 The WRTSF slopes will be constructed with waste rock from pit development.
 It is assumed that waste overburden will be used to construct the low permeability WMP dams. Geotechnical
investigation will be required (during future studies) to confirm this assumption.
 Excess tailings process water and runoff will be collected in a WMP equipped with a pump to reclaim
process water back to the mill (reclaim pump and pipeline designed/costed by G-Mining). Reclaim water
from the WMP to the process plant will occur year-round.
 All seepage and runoff from the WRTSFs and OPSF will be collected in perimeter ditches and/or trenches
and directed to the WMP (i.e., no net seepage loss).
8
6.0 REFERENCES
Canadian Dam Association (CDA, 2013). Dam Safety Guidelines.
Canadian Dam Association (CDA, 2014). Technical Bulletin on “Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining
Dams”.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder, 2020a). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study - Trend
Note 1000-B1-001: OPFS Construction Borrow Materials. 22 April 2020.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder, 2020b). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study - Trend
Note 2000-B2-002: Water Management Pond (WMP) – Climate Analysis (Item B2). 22 April 2020
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder, 2020c). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study - Trend
Note 3000-B3-003: WMP Phased Construction (Item B3). 22 April 2020.
G Mining Services (GMS, 2020a). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study – Site Layout
Plans. Reference numbers: 001-GE-DWG-0001-C3; 001-GE-DWG-0002-C3 and 001-GE-DWG-0003-C3.
23 April 2020.
G Mining Services (GMS, 2020b). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study - Waste material
balance spreadsheet: GMSI Waste Dump Schedule_2020-03-05.xlsx. 23 March 2020.
G Mining Services (GMS, 2020c). James Bay Lithium Pegmatite Project Value Engineering Study - Trend Note 048:
B4 Water Management. 14 April 2020.
G Mining Services (GMS, 2020d). Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) – All Site General Key Plan – Plan
View. Reference number: 001-GE-DWG-0001-A. 4 December 2020.
G Mining Services (GMS, 2020e). Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) – Galaxy Lithium James Bay Project
Life of Mine Production Schedule. MS Excel file received 08 December 2020.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC, 2009). Environmental code of practice for metal mines.
Ministère du Développement Durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP, 2012). Directive 019 sur
l’industrie minière.
National Research Council Canada (NRCC, 2015). National Building Code of Canada- Seismic Hazard
Calculation.
Ouranos (2020). Consortium sur la climatologie régionale et l'adaptation aux changements climatiques.
https://www.ouranos.ca/portraits-climatiques. Date of last access: May 20, 2020.
Stantec (2019). Report: Galaxy Lithium - Mine Wide Water Balance, In support of the Feasibility study for the James
Bay Project., N°121622255.
WSP (2018a). Mine de lithium Baie-James – Etude specialisee sur la geochimie. July 2018.
WSP (2018b). James Bay Lithium Mine, Environmental Impact Assessment, Volumes 1 to 3 and Appendices,
Project N°171-02562-00.
9
WSP (2020). Note Technique No 2, Modelisation des futures haldes a steriles et residus miniers Project Galaxy –
Scenario design 2, Project N° 191-01753-00.
DCJ/MS/JPL
https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/119892/project files/5 technical work/9000 design criteria_dec2020/final design criteria memo/19135464_final_galaxy lithium wrtsf design
criteria_16dec2020.docx
10
December 2020 19135464
TABLE 2
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY DESIGN PARAMETERS
GALAXY LITHIUM JAMES BAY PROJECT
Source or
Design Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Calculation
Mineral extracted Lithium
PRODUCTION
Resources and Production
Resources(Note 1)
Included in PEA A Galaxy 36,901,720 t (metric)
Potential Future (not included in PEA) B Galaxy 3,898,280 t (metric)
Mill design rate (Note 2)
annually C D * 365 2,100,000 t/year
daily D Galaxy 5,753 t/day
hourly E D / 24 240 t/hour
Process plant availability F G/C 95.2% %
Nominal (average) ore processing rate (Note 3)
annually G H * 365 2,000,000 t/year
daily H Galaxy 5,479 t/day
hourly I H / 24 228 t/hour
Mine life J A/G 18.5 years
Tailings
Tailings : Ore ratio K Galaxy 85% % by weight
Nominal (average) tailings production
annually N G*K 1,700,000 t/year
daily O N / 365 4,658 t/day
hourly P O / 24 194 t/hour
Total tailings production Q N*J 31,366,462 t
DEPOSITED TAILINGS DENSITY & REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME
Specific Gravity of tailings solids Gs Galaxy 2.70 -
Deposited void ratio (volume voids / volume solids) e Assumed 0.59 -
Deposited dry density ρd Gs/ (1 + e) 1.70 t/m3
% solids of deposited tailings R Gs / (Gs+e) 82.1% % solids by weight
Required storage volume of tailing solids
annually S N / ρd 1,001,111 m3/year
daily T S / 365 2,743 m3/day
hourly U T / 24 114 m3/hour
Total required storage volume of tailing solids V N / ρd x J 18,471,361 m3
PROCESS WATER
Discharged tailings solids content W Galaxy 75% % solids by weight
Volume of water in tailings from mill (nominal)

annually X (N/W)-N 566,667 m3/year
daily Y X / 365 1,553 m3/day
Saturated water content of deposited tailings w e / Gs 21.9% % by weight
Volume of water retained in deposited tailings
annually Z Nxw 371,481 m3/year
daily AA Z / 365 1,018 m3/day
Volume of water released from deposited tailings
annually BB X-Z 195,185 m3/year
daily CC Y - AA 535 m3/day
NOTES:
1 Based on reported resource by Galaxy and mine plan by G-Mining.
2 The design rate is used for design of the mill equipment, pumps, and pipelines. It considers the mill to be at full operational availability and is always
larger than the nominal rate.
3 The nominal (average) rate is used to size the tailings storage facility. It accounts for planned shutdowns and the operational availability of the mill.
Golder
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
APPENDIX B
Site Wide Water Balance

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE March 19, 2021 N° de projet 19135464-11000
TO
Galaxy Lithium (Canada) Inc.
C.C
FROM Joao Paulo Lutti and Vlad Rojanschi EMAIL ADDRESS

[email protected]
APPENDIX B - JAMES BAY LITHIUM MINE PROJECT – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN – WATER
MANAGEMENT PONDS DESIGN AND SITE-WIDE WATER BALANCE UPDATE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Galaxy Lithium (Canada) Inc. (GLCI) undertook preliminary engineering design studies for the James Bay Lithium
Mine Project (JBLMP) in support to the project Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). The project is presently
an undeveloped lithium mine property located in northwestern Quebec, approximately 380 km north of the town of
Matagami.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was commissioned to complete preliminary engineering design of the water
management ponds (WMPs) associated to the mine waste rock and tailings storage facilities (WRTSF), and to
update an initial site-wide water balance model, which was developed in support of the JBLMP previous feasibility
study, to account for the new site arrangement and water management plan.
This appendix details the design of the two WMPs, and the results of the updated site-wide water balance model
as part of the JBLMP preliminary engineering design study.
2.0 SITE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The proposed surface water management strategy for the site has been developed in conjunction with the WRTSF
and overburden and peat storage facilities (OPSF) design and considering the preliminary site layout for the JBLMP.
All runoff water generated by precipitation, which falls on areas impacted by mining activities, is considered “contact
water.” Contact water will be collected and retained prior to being treated (if required) and released to the
environment.
The surface water management strategy for the JBLMP includes the following:
 Divert natural runoff (i.e., non-contact water) around areas impacted by mining activities to limit mixing of
natural runoff with contact water (i.e., reduce the volume of contact water requiring management).
 Limit the risk of discharging contact water to the environment.

6925, Century Avenue, suite 100, Mississauga (Ontario) L5N 7K2, Canada T: +1 905 567 4444 F: +1 905 567 6561
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Galaxy Lithium (Canada) Inc. March 19, 2021
 Collect all runoff and seepage from the WRTSFs and OPSF. Contact water from the WRTSFs and OPSF will
be collected in perimeter ditches that drain to either the North WMP (NWMP), East WMP (EWMP) or the open
pit. Water collected in the EWMP and in the open pit mine will be pumped to the NWMP, which is the main
water management pond for the site.
 Prioritize reuse (i.e., reclaim) of contact water from the NWMP to the process plan to minimize fresh water
requirements (i.e., fresh water taking).
 Have one single effluent point (CE2 Creek).
3.0 WATER MANAGEMENT PONDS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

This section presents the design of the two water management ponds; the EWMP and NWMP.
East Water Management Pond

The EWMP will collect seepage and runoff from the East-WRTSF only. Water collected in this pond will be pumped
towards the NWMP. This pond is designed to operate at a low water level (or empty) most time, except during the
spring freshet. In spring, snowmelt and rainfall seepage and runoff will be stored until the complete melt of the snow
cover. Once the snowmelt ends, water will be pumped to the NWMP.
North Water Management Pond

The NWMP is designed to function as the main WMP of the site and will ultimately collect seepage and runoff from
the entire mine site. At the beginning of winter, the pond will store enough water to supply the mill with process
water during the winter. At the beginning of spring, the water level will be maintained at a low water level to preserve
storage capacity to contain the spring freshet volume. Once the spring freshet ends, the excess of water will be
treated (if required) and released to the environment.
3.1 Design Criteria

As recommended by the Directive 019 (MDDEP, 2012), both WMPs are designed to contain a design flood (“crue
de projet”) without spillage of non-treated water to the environment, ensuring a minimal freeboard of 1.0 m
(measured between the design flood water level and the dyke crest). The design flood is a combination of a 24-hour
precipitation with a return period of 1,000 years and the snowmelt over 30 days from a snow accumulation with a
return period of 100 years.
Table 1 lists the proposed design criteria selected for the design of the WMPs.
Table 1: Water Management Pond – Hydrological and Hydrotechnical Design Criteria
Description Unit Value Comments
Minimum pond water storage m³ 48 700 Includes a 30% contingency. Accounts for a 30 m3/h
for plant water supply. plant water demand for 52 days, based on the historical
Applied at the beginning of variation of the snowmelt date (Stantec, 2009).
the freshet for the NWMP
only. (note 1)
2
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Description Unit Value Comments
Ice thickness during winter m 2.0 The ice thickness has an impact on the overall pond
operations (note 1) volume and, especially, for the required plant water
supply winter reserve.
Volumetric runoff coefficient 0.44 Assumes a very permeable surface, even during flood
for WRTSF events, including spring flood events (e.g. no increased
runoff on a frozen surface)
Volumetric runoff coefficient 0.65 The 0.65 coefficient considers that the ground surface
for OPSF maintains a reasonable infiltration capacity even under
extreme spring freshet conditions; for the open pit area, it
Volumetric runoff coefficient 0.65 considers that a small amount of accumulation is
for the open pit acceptable during very wet conditions.
Volumetric runoff coefficient 0.65

for roads
Volumetric runoff coefficient 0.65

for the industrial (plant) area
Volumetric runoff coefficient 1.00 No significant pond seepage losses. Pond evaporation
for the pond surface losses are negligible during short-term flood events.
Note 1: These criteria apply only for the design of the North Water Management Pond
3.2 Extreme Climate Input

Table 2 summarizes extreme climate input used in the preliminary design of the WMPs.
Table 2: Extreme Climate Input Used in the Preliminary Design of Water Management Ponds
Parameter Unit Value Source
1:100 year snow cover water equivalent mm 388.0 WSP, 2018
24-hr 1:1000 year rainfall mm 101.6 WSP, 2018
3.3 Design Flood

Other than the extreme climate input, the assessment of WMPs design flood uses the catchment area draining
towards each pond. Figures B-1 and B-2 (attached at the end of the memo) present the catchment limits considered
for each of the two project phases.
Table 3 presents the WMPs estimated design flood volumes.
3
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 3: Water Management Ponds Design Flood Volumes
Pond Project Phase Catchment Area Volumetric Runoff Design Flood

(km²) Coefficient Volume
(area-weighted) (m³)
NWMP Phase 1 1.20 0.64 376,200
Phase 2 2.72 0.60 792,700
EWMP Phase 1 0.43 0.56 117,100
Phase 2 0.67 0.51 168,600
3.4 Preliminary Design

The EWMP will have a maximum storage capacity of 0.18 Mm³ sufficient to contain the design flood with a minimal
freeboard of 1.0 m between the design flood water level and the dyke crest.
The NWMP will have a storage capacity of 1.36 Mm³, as detailed in Table 4.
Table 4: North Water Management Pond Preliminary Design - Phase 2
Elevation (m) Storage Volume (m) Description
198.2 0 Pond base
198.5 48,700 Plant water supply needs (end-of-winter minimum allowance)
200.5 359,700 Top of late winter ice layer (2 m)
204.9 1,152,400 Maximum water level during the Design Flood (Directive 019
“crue de projet”)
205.9 1,358,800 Minimum dyke crest, 1.0 m above the maximum Design Flood
water level
4.0 SITE-WIDE WATER BALANCE UPDATE

The objective of the site-wide water balance review is to:
 estimate the effluent discharge to CE2 Creek; and
 define a water management strategy for the North Water Management Pond (NWMP) that is in accordance
with the NWMP design while providing a year-long process plant water supply.
The initial site-wide water balance was developed by Stantec (2019) using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to
simulate monthly water fluxes. For the current update, GLCI provided Golder with a copy of the initial model
4
N° de projet 19135464-11000
spreadsheet. As instructed by GLCI, Golder kept the model’s structure along with unchanged assumptions, as much
as possible. For this reason, this technical memorandum should be considered a complement of the Stantec (2019)
report; reading both documents is required to understand the site-wide water balance model as the current
memorandum does not document all Stantec (2019) model details.
The following sections document:
 Golder’s updates to the Stantec (2019) water balance model;
 the results of the updated model; and
 Golder’s recommendations for future project phases.
4.1 Initial Water Balance Model

A flow logic diagram of the initial model (Stantec, 2019) is presented in Figure B-3:
 The model calculates monthly evaporation, runoff, and infiltration for each catchment based on precipitation
and temperature climate data and the Thornthwaite equation (Stantec, 2019).
 The site-wide runoff was collected in two ponds. The water is being reused as process water at the ore process
plant. The surplus is being discharged to the environment to two natural creeks (i.e., CE2 Creek and CE3
Creek).
5
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Figure B-3: Site Wide Water Balance Flow Diagram From Initial Water Balance Model (Stantec, 2019)
4.2 Changes to the Initial Water Balance Model

This section describes the updates made by Golder to the initial water balance model (Stantec, 2019) in the current
study.
4.2.1 Updated Water Management Plan and Flow Logic Diagram

Golder updated the initial water balance model (Stantec, 2019) to reflect the preliminary engineering design study
changes. The main updates to the water management plan are:
 All site runoff will be ultimately managed at the NWMP.
 Runoff from infrastructure located north of CE3 Creek will be conveyed to the NWMP mostly by gravity.
 Runoff from the open pit and infrastructure located south of the CE3 Creek will be collected in the EWMP or
in a sump in the open pit, and will be pumped to NWMP.
6
N° de projet 19135464-11000
The preliminary engineering design staged the water management plan in two phases, Phase 1 until the end of
Year 3 of operations and Phase 2 for the remaining life of the mine. The site layouts for the two phases are presented
in the main body of the Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water Management Facility Preliminary Engineering
Design Report.
The updated flow logic diagrams for the site-wide water balance model and for the two development phases are
presented in Figures B-9 and B-10 (in Section 4.3).
4.2.2 Climate Scenarios

Climate inputs to the initial water balance model and the updated model are precipitation and pond evaporation.
Pond evaporation was kept constant, using monthly average values for all climate scenarios; precipitation alone
was varied between the scenarios. Stantec (2019) defined three climate (precipitation) scenarios:
 Average conditions
 1:25 year wet
 1:25 year dry
Stantec (2019) developed precipitation statistics were calculated based on records from the La Grande Rivière
climate station (operated by Environment and Climate Change Canada - ECCC).
For the current water balance update, Golder defined a new climate (precipitation) scenario accounting for potential
climate change impact on the average climate conditions. Average seasonal change ratios were applied to the
historical average monthly precipitation based on (Ouranos 2020) 2041-2070 Moderate Emission Scenario climate
change predictions. According to the selected scenario, mean precipitation is predicted to increase by 19.3% in
winter, 5.7% in spring, 3.5% in summer, and 9.4% in fall. Golder applied these change percentages to the Stantec
(2019) average monthly precipitation values, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Average Total Precipitation Values for Current and Future Climate Conditions
Month Average Precipitation – Historical Average Precipitation – Climate

Climate (Stantec, 2019) Change Scenario (note 1)
(mm) (mm)
January 33.2 39.6
February 24.2 28.9
March 32.0 33.8
April 33.7 35.6
May 39.8 42.1
June 65.2 67.5
7
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Month Average Precipitation – Historical Average Precipitation – Climate

Climate (Stantec, 2019) Change Scenario (note 1)
(mm) (mm)
July 78.5 81.2
August 91.1 94.3
September 110.9 121.3
October 88.6 96.9
November 71.9 78.7
December 46.1 55.0
ANNUAL TOTAL 715.2 774.9

Note 1: Developed by applying changes extracted from Ouranos (2020) 2041-2070 Moderate Emission Scenario to Stantec (2019) historical
average values.
4.2.3 Catchment Areas

Catchments areas were updated relative to Stantec (2019) based on the updated site layout from the preliminary
engineering design study. Table 6 presents the updated catchment area values. Figures B-1 and B-2 (attached at
the end of the memo) present the catchment limits considered for each of the two project phases.
Table 6: Catchment Areas Considered on the Site Wide Water Balance Update
Facility Year of Operation Area (ha)
-1 to 3 22.1
Water Management Ponds
4 to 19 34.9
Waste Rock and Tailings Storage Facility -1 to 3 61.2

(WRTSF)
4 to 19 172.5
Overburden and Peat Storage Facility -1 to 3 11.4

(OPSF)
4 to 19 25.4
Process Plant -1 to 19 9.6
Concrete Batch Plant -1 to 19 6.2
8
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Facility Year of Operation Area (ha)
North Haul Roads (north of CE3 Creek) -1 to 19 10.9
South Haul Roads (south of CE3 Creek) -1 to 19 18.1
Explosives Magazine -1 to 19 0.9
ROM Pad -1 to 19 4.2
4.2.4 Production Rates

Preliminary engineering design updated ore, tailings and waste rock production rates are presented in Table 7.
9
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 7: Ore, Tailings and Waste Rock Production Rates

Year of
Ore Production (t) Tailings Production (t) Waste Rock Production (t)
Operation
0 - 1,837,688
-1
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,025,313

1
2,000,000 1,700,000 6,045,645

2
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,147,954

3
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,286,049

4
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,985,567

5
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,283,752

6
2,000,000 1,700,000 5,353,079

7
2,000,000 1,700,000 7,800,002

8
2,000,000 1,700,000 8,445,275

9
2,000,000 1,700,000 9,027,489

10
2,000,000 1,700,000 8,851,748

11
2,000,000 1,700,000 9,409,258

12
2,000,000 1,700,000 9,225,094

13
2,000,000 1,700,000 9,070,236

14
2,000,000 1,700,000 6,753,935

15
2,000,000 1,700,000 6,963,663

16
2,000,000 1,700,000 6,000,000

17
2,000,000 1,700,000 7,092,017

18
901,720 766,462 1,300,620

19
TOTAL 36,901,720 31,366,462 129,904,384
10
N° de projet 19135464-11000
4.2.5 Site-Wide Soil Balance

The preliminary engineering design study updated the site-wide soil balance. The updated volumes are presented
in Table 8.
Table 8: Site Wide Soil Balance
Operation Year Organic Soil / Peat (m3) Clay (m3) Granular Soil (m3)
-1 32,224 363,525 505,696
1 15,302 0 732,583
2 0 0 0
3 10,587 122,188 701,209
4 10,381 0 496,968
5 944 1547 10,924
6 3,984 0 190,732
7 1 0 489,379
8 16,582 0 793,860
9 3,013 0 144,231
10 29 0 1,394
11 0 0 112,206
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 3,890 0 186,237
16 5,045 0 241,547
17 to 19 0 0 0
TOTAL 101,983 487,259 4,606,966
11
N° de projet 19135464-11000
4.2.6 North Water Management Pond Operating Rules

The following NWMP operating rules were implemented in the updated water balance model:
 The pond water level is lowered before the spring freshet to accommodate the Directive 019 Project Flood
without overflow as recommended by (MDDEP, 2012).
 No water is discharged from the NWMP to the environment during the spring freshet.
 After the spring freshet, the contact water from the site is pumped to the NWMP while maintaining a minimum
1 m freeboard below the pond’s spillway invert.
 From November to March, the minimal NWMP operational water volume is defined considering a maximum
process plant demand of 30 m³/h (Stantec, 2019) 1 for the remainder of the winter season. The monthly
timestep model assumes the spring freshet starts on May 1. If the available water storage in the pond is below
the minimal operational storage, no water is pumped from the NWMP to the final effluent.
 The NWMP maximum and the minimal operational water volumes, as they were implemented in the updated
water balance models, are presented on Tables 9 and 10.
The NWMP operating rules influence the monthly effluent discharge, but change little the annual effluent volume.
1
The VE study did not define an updated process plant demand.
12
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 9: North Water Management Pond Maximum Operational Water Volumes (m3)
Month Year of Operation NWMP Operational Strategy to Maintain the Pond Volume below the Maximum
of the
-1 1 to 3 4 to 17 Operational Water Volumes
Year
1 386,700 386,700 756,000 Progressive level drawdown to provide capacity to store a D019 Design Flood in spring
Maintain process plant water supply (late freshet allowance) + allow for late winter icepack
4 205,300 205,300 359,700
thickness (2 m)
5 609,600 609,600 1,186,500 Reaches maximum capacity in the event of a Directive 019 Design Flood
6 558,600 558,600 1,103,300 Progressive level drawdown after spring freshet
7 507,700 507,700 1,020,200 Maintain level 1 m below spillway invert
13
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 10: North Water Management Pond Minimum Target Operational Water Volumes (m3)
Month Year of Operation NWMP Operational Strategy to Maintain the Pond Volume above the Minimum
of the
-1 1 to 3 4 to 17 Operational Water Volumes
Year
Maintain 3 months of process plant supply + Allow for late winter icepack thickness (2 m) +
1 270 700 270 700 425 000 Maintain process plant supply in case of late freshet
Maintain 1 month of process plant supply + Allow for late winter icepack thickness (2 m) +
Maintain process plant water supply (late freshet allowance) + Allow for late winter icepack
4 205 300 205 300 359 700
thickness (2 m)
5 205 300 205 300 359 700 Maintain at least 1 month of process plant supply
11 314 200 314 200 468 600
Maintain process plant supply in case of late freshet
12 292 500 292 500 446 800
Maintain process plant supply in case of late freshet
14
N° de projet 19135464-11000
4.3 Water Balance Results

The following summarizes the main results of the updated water balance model:
 The annual water balance is positive even under the 1:25 year dry scenario, and the process plant demand
could be supplied by the site runoff and pit dewatering flows. Effluent is expected to be discharged to the
environment even under 1:25 year dry scenario. Under historical average climate conditions, the average
monthly effluent discharge for the second phase of the mining operation is about 160,000 m³/month, with a
peak discharge of about 320,000 m³/month in October, as presented in Figure B-4. The operational rules
impose that there is no effluent discharge during the snowmelt period (May and June).
400 000
Effluent Discharge
Effluent Discharge (m³/month)
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure B-4: Monthly Discharge Flows from the North Water Management Pond to Creek CE-2 under Normal Climate
Conditions – Year 9 of Mine Operation
 For all 4 modelled climate scenarios, the water level in the NWMP remains below the spillway invert. This is
expected because the NWMP was sized to contain the Directive 019 flood event, which is larger than the 1:25
year wet runoff.
 Figures B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8 present the calculated NWMP monthly storage volumes and effluent discharge
for the average, 1:25 year dry, 1:25 year wet, and climate change scenarios.
 Table 11 presents the annual effluent discharge values.
 Tables 12 and 13 present the monthly effluent discharge for Year 3 and Year 9, which are representative of
the project's two operational phases.
 Figures B-9 and B-10 present the flow diagram including annual average flows for Year 3 and Year 9 for the
simulated average (historical) climate conditions.
15
N° de projet 19135464-11000
1 600 000 1 600 000

1 500 000 1 500 000
1 400 000 1 400 000
1 300 000 1 300 000
1 200 000 1 200 000

1 100 000 1 100 000
1 000 000 1 000 000
Volume (m³)
900 000 900 000

800 000 800 000
700 000 700 000
600 000 600 000
500 000 500 000
400 000 400 000
300 000 300 000
200 000 200 000
100 000 100 000
0 0
01-00
07-00
01-01
07-01
01-02
07-02
01-03
07-03
01-04
07-04
01-05
07-05
01-06
07-06
01-07
07-07
01-08
07-08
01-09
07-09
01-10
07-10
01-11
07-11
01-12
07-12
01-13
07-13
01-14
07-14
01-15
07-15
01-16
07-16
01-17
07-17
01-18
07-18
01-19
07-19
01-20
Operational Year (Month-Year of Operation)
Spillway Invert Pond Crest Target Volume Before Spring Freshet Storage Volume Effluent Discharge
Figure B-5: North Water Management Pond Stored Water Volume and Effluent Discharge for Historical Average Climate Conditions
16
N° de projet 19135464-11000
1 600 000 1 600 000

1 500 000 1 500 000
1 400 000 1 400 000
1 300 000 1 300 000
1 200 000 1 200 000

1 100 000 1 100 000
1 000 000 1 000 000
Volume (m³)
900 000 900 000

800 000 800 000
700 000 700 000
600 000 600 000
500 000 500 000
400 000 400 000
300 000 300 000
200 000 200 000
100 000 100 000
0 0
01-00
07-00
01-01
07-01
01-02
07-02
01-03
07-03
01-04
07-04
01-05
07-05
01-06
07-06
01-07
07-07
01-08
07-08
01-09
07-09
01-10
07-10
01-11
07-11
01-12
07-12
01-13
07-13
01-14
07-14
01-15
07-15
01-16
07-16
01-17
07-17
01-18
07-18
01-19
07-19
01-20
Figure B-6: North Water Management Pond Stored Water Volume and Effluent Discharge for 1:25 year Dry Climate Conditions.
17
N° de projet 19135464-11000
1 600 000 1 600 000

1 500 000 1 500 000
1 400 000 1 400 000
1 300 000 1 300 000
1 200 000 1 200 000

1 100 000 1 100 000
1 000 000 1 000 000
Volume (m³)
900 000 900 000

800 000 800 000
700 000 700 000
600 000 600 000
500 000 500 000
400 000 400 000
300 000 300 000
200 000 200 000
100 000 100 000
0 0
01-00
07-00
01-01
07-01
01-02
07-02
01-03
07-03
01-04
07-04
01-05
07-05
01-06
07-06
01-07
07-07
01-08
07-08
01-09
07-09
01-10
07-10
01-11
07-11
01-12
07-12
01-13
07-13
01-14
07-14
01-15
07-15
01-16
07-16
01-17
07-17
01-18
07-18
01-19
07-19
01-20
Figure B-7: North Water Management Pond Stored Water Volume and Effluent Discharge for 1:25 year Wet Climate Conditions.
18
N° de projet 19135464-11000
1 600 000 1 600 000

1 500 000 1 500 000
1 400 000 1 400 000
1 300 000 1 300 000
1 200 000 1 200 000

1 100 000 1 100 000
1 000 000 1 000 000
Volume (m³)
900 000 900 000

800 000 800 000
700 000 700 000
600 000 600 000
500 000 500 000
400 000 400 000
300 000 300 000
200 000 200 000
100 000 100 000
0 0
01-00
07-00
01-01
07-01
01-02
07-02
01-03
07-03
01-04
07-04
01-05
07-05
01-06
07-06
01-07
07-07
01-08
07-08
01-09
07-09
01-10
07-10
01-11
07-11
01-12
07-12
01-13
07-13
01-14
07-14
01-15
07-15
01-16
07-16
01-17
07-17
01-18
07-18
01-19
07-19
01-20
Figure B-8: North Water Management Pond Stored Water Volume and Effluent Discharge for Average Climate Conditions Considering the Potential Effects of
Climate Change on Average Monthly Precipitation
19
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 11: Annual Effluent Discharge from the North Water Management Pond
Effluent Discharge (m³) for Each Climate Scenario
Year of Average
Operation Conditions
Average Historical
1:25 Year Dry 1:25 Year Wet Considering
Conditions
Potential Climate
Change Effects
1 702,400 556,900 849,300 761,900
2 650,500 495,600 807,500 713,400
3 909,100 716,300 1,103,600 985,300
4 1,054,600 705,900 1,406,600 1,202,400
5 1,439,700 1,090,000 1,792,800 1,587,900
6 1,541,500 1,171,100 1,915,500 1,697,100
7 1,721,500 1,311,200 2,135,600 1,891,200
8 1,978,000 1,535,300 2,424,900 2,159,200
9 1,900,800 1,455,400 2,350,500 2,083,000
10 1,891,700 1,447,300 2,342,200 2,074,200
11 1,904,700 1,456,800 2,356,800 2,087,700
12 1,911,500 1,463,700 2,365,100 2,094,900
13 1,785,400 1,366,700 2,209,700 1,958,500
14 1,786,300 1,366,800 2,211,400 1,959,700
15 1,791,300 1,367,200 2,219,500 1,966,000
16 1,811,200 1,385,100 2,241,300 1,986,500
17 1,770,800 1,344,100 2,203,300 1,946,800
18 1,649,300 1,255,000 2,049,000 1,813,800
19 1,464,500 1,070,200 1,864,200 1,629,000
20
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 12: Year 3 Monthly Effluent Discharge from the North Water Management Pond
Effluent Discharge (m³)
Month of Average
the Year Conditions
Average Historical
1:25 Year Dry 1:25 Year Wet Considering
Conditions
Potential Climate
Change Effects
1 79,570 76,830 82,340 82,650
2 76,140 74,210 78,100 78,560
3 77,540 75,280 79,820 79,160
4 80,670 77,670 83,700 82,470
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 15,040 0
7 84,000 0 155,360 109,540
8 95,520 73,220 116,430 101,990
9 140,300 109,060 171,840 153,310
10 143,260 111,320 175,500 156,540
11 45,510 36,560 54,550 50,100
12 86,540 82,160 90,960 90,960
21
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Table 13: Year 9 Monthly Effluent Discharge from the North Water Management Pond
Effluent Discharge (m³)
Month of Average Conditions

the Year Average Historical Considering
1:25 Year Dry 1:25 Year Wet
Conditions Potential Climate
Change Effects
1 152,790 148,060 157,560 158,920
2 147,110 143,710 150,540 152,150
3 148,800 145,010 152,630 152,650
4 155,250 149,940 160,610 159,470
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 94,620 0
7 217,850 11,700 331,330 284,130
8 218,420 167,190 270,140 236,120
9 308,530 236,100 381,640 338,700
10 317,280 242,800 392,470 348,270
11 69,560 53,340 85,930 78,790
12 165,240 157,580 172,970 173,780
22
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Figure B-9: Water Balance Flow Diagram and Average Flows (m³/day) for Operational Year 3 under Historical Average
Climate Conditions
23
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Figure B-10: Water Balance Flow Diagram and Average Flows (m³/day) for Operational Year 9 under Historical Average
Climate Conditions
5.0 CONCLUSION
The current study presents the preliminary design of WMPs and the updated water balance modelling results for
the JBLMP Project.
5.1 Design of Water Management Ponds

The NWMP, with a maximum storage capacity of 1.36 Mm³, has been sized to contain the design flood (“crue de
projet”) recommended by Directive 019 without spillage to the environment and meet process water requirements
year-round. The EWMP will have a maximum storage capacity of 0.18 Mm³ sufficient to contain the design flood.
24
N° de projet 19135464-11000
5.2 Water Balance Model

An initial model was developed by Stantec (2019) in support of the JBLMP previous project’s feasibility study. Golder
updated the model to incorporate the changes to the site footprint and to the water management strategy following
the completion of the preliminary engineering design studies.
As instructed by GLCI, Golder used the spreadsheet model developed by Stantec (2019) and limited to a minimum
the changes to the model. The Stantec (2019) model structure and many assumptions were preserved. The main
changes to the Stantec (2019) model include:
 Inclusion of a new average climate scenario, which accounts for potential climate change effect on
precipitation.
 Update of the site general arrangement plan (that is, the catchment areas) following the preliminary
engineering design study.
 Use of the updated ore and tailings production rates, and site-wide soil balance.
 Use of the updated North Water Management Pond operational rules.
The main results of the updated model are:
 The site’s annual water balance is positive even under the 1:25 year dry scenario, and the process plant
demand can be supplied by the site runoff and pit dewatering flows. Effluent is expected to be discharged to
the environment even under 1:25 year dry scenario.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The design of the NWMPs and the site-wide water balance model should be updated during future project’s
engineering phases.
A detailed water management plan should be prepared including a refined water balance and detailed design for
water management infrastructure.
Design of Water Management Ponds

 The design of both WMPs should be reviewed during future phases of design of JBLMP.
 Both WMPs will require an emergency spillway to prevent embankment overtopping under extreme climate
conditions. The emergency spillways shall be designed to pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), and the
design of WMPs should be adjusted if required.
 Verify with provincial government the Directive 019 environmental flood design event containment criteria (i.e.
would the government accept water discharge during the flood event as part of the event’s management
strategy).
25
N° de projet 19135464-11000
Site-wide water balance model:

 Account for a more detailed site development plan, incorporating the sequence of development of the open
pit, WRTSFs and OPSF.
 Update catchment areas based on the design of the site drainage infrastructure (ditches, sumps and pump
capacities), which is planned to be completed at future engineering design phase of the JBLMP.
 Update of the open pit dewatering plan accordingly to the sequence of development of the pit.
 Simulate a wider range of climate conditions and climate variability, including a spectrum of climate change
scenarios, to evaluate required WMPs pump capacities based on daily effluent discharge rates.
 Account for variability in evapotranspiration and evaporation rates in runoff generation.
7.0 REFERENCES
Ministère du Développement Durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, 2012 – Directive 019 sur l’industrie minière.
Ouranos, 2020 – Consortium sur la climatologie régionale et l'adaptation aux changements climatiques.
https://www.ouranos.ca/portraits-climatiques. Date of last access : May 20, 2020.
Stantec, 2019 – Report: Galaxy Lithium - Mine Wide Water Balance, In support of the Feasibility study for the James
Bay Project., N°121622255
WSP (2018). James Bay Lithium, Feasibility Study, James Bay, Quebec, N°171-02562-01.
JPL/VR/
Attachments:
 Figures B-1 and B-2. Delineation of the watersheds, whose runoff is managed in the Water Management Pond
for Phase 1 (Year -1 to Year 3) and Phase 2 (Year 4 to Year 19) of the site development, respectively.
26
N
CLIENT PROJECT
GALAXY LITHIUM (CANADA) INC. JAMES BAY PROJECT - PEA 2021
SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE UPDATE
DESIGNED - Catchment Areas - Phase 1 (End of Year 3)
PREPARED JPL
REVIEWED VR PROJECT N° PHASE REV FIGURE
APPROVED JPL 19135464 11000 A B-1
N
NOTES:
CONCRETE BATCH PLANT WILL BE RELOCATED, BUT
THE FOOTPRINT WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS PHASE 1
CLIENT PROJECT
GALAXY LITHIUM (CANADA) INC. JAMES BAY PROJECT - PEA 2021
SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE UPDATE
DESIGNED - Catchment Areas - Phase 2 (Full site development)
PREPARED JPL
REVIEWED VR PROJECT N° PHASE REV FIGURE
APPROVED JPL 19135464 11000 A B-2
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
APPENDIX C
Slope Stability Analyses

19135464/11000
March 2021
Table C-1: Slope Stability Summary
Foundation
Crest Maximum Overall Minimum Factor of Safety
Thickness (m) Figure
Model Elevation Height Slope
No.
(m) (m) (XH:1V)
Peat Clay Till Loading Condition Target Calculated
Short-term Static (EoC) 1.3 1.3 C-1

OPSF – Overburden
220 16 5 1 6 1 Long-term Static 1.5 2.9 -
Mineral Soil
Long-term Pseudo-static 1.0 2.6 -
Short-term Static (EoC) 1.3 1.3 C-2
OPSF – Peat 220 16 5 1 6 1 Long-term Static 1.5 1.6 -
Short-term Static U/S (EoC) 1.3 1.7 C-3
North WMP – High Fill 206.2 8 3 1 4.7 1 Long-term Static U/S 1.5 1.7 -
Long-term Pseudo-static U/S 1.0 1.6 -
North WMP – Deep Cut 206.2 8 3 3 3.6 3 Long-term Static U/S 1.5 1.8 -
Short-term Static U/S (EoC) 1.3 1.9 -
East WMP – High Fill 213 4 3 0.1 - 9 Long-term Static D/S 1.5 1.8 C-5
Long-term Pseudo-static D/S 1.0 1.6 -
Page 1 of 3
19135464/11000
March 2021
Foundation
Crest Maximum Overall Minimum Factor of Safety
Thickness (m) Figure
Model Elevation Height Slope
No.
(m) (m) (XH:1V)
Peat Clay Till Loading Condition Target Calculated
East WMP – Deep Cut 213 4 3 0.1 - 9 Long-term Static U/S 1.5 1.9 -
Short-term Static (EoC) 1.3 1.3 -
West WRTSF 260 53 2.3 1 - 5 Long-term Static 1.5 1.5 C-7
Northeast WRTSF 290 83 2.3 1 - 4 Long-term Static 1.5 1.5 C-8
East WRTSF 290 73 2.3 0.5 - 3 Long-term Static 1.5 1.5 C-9
Southwest WRTSF 270 60 2.3 1 - 5 Long-term Static 1.5 1.5 C-10
Page 2 of 3
19135464/11000
March 2021
Notes:
1. OPSF = “Overburden Peat Storage Facility”; WMP = “Water Management Pond”, WRTSF = “Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility”; EoC = “End of
Construction”; D/S = “downstream”; U/S = “upstream”
2. WMPs – maximum height is equal to pond depth; crest width = 6 m; 3H:1V berm and excavation slopes U/S and D/S
3. Southwest WRTSF - No geotechnical investigations completed, assumed foundation conditions based on general site conditions.
4. The general stratigraphy of the site consists of, in descending stratigraphic order: peat/organic soil, clay, till, and bedrock. Stratigraphic layers are based
on available geotechnical investigations to date and have been simplified for the purposes of the preliminary stability analysis.
Page 3 of 3
Approx. Crest Elev. 220 m
Erosion Protection
CLIENT PROJECT
GALAXY LITHIUM (CANADA) INC. JAMES BAY PROJECT - 2021 PEA

DESIGNED MAS OPSF - OVERBURDEN - TYPICAL SECTION - SHORT TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
REVIEWED MAS TITLE PHASE REV FIGURE
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-1
Approx. Crest Elev. 220 m
Erosion Protection
5H
1V
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS OPSF - PEAT - TYPICAL SECTION - SHORT TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-2
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS NORTH WMP - TYPICAL SECTION - HIGH FILL- SHORT TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-3
Crest Elv. 206.2 m
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS NORTH WMP - TYPICAL SECTION - DEEP CUT - SHORT TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-4
230
Compacted Fill (Till)
Crest Elv. 213 m

220 0.3 m Waste rock
Peat
3H
1V
210
Native Granular (Till)
200
Bedrock
190
0 20 40 60 80 100
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS EAST WMP - TYPICAL SECTION - HIGH FILL- LONG TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-5
230
Compacted Fill (Till)
Crest Elv. 213 m

Peat 0.3 m Waste rock
220
3H
1V
210
200
Bedrock
190
0 20 40 60 80 100
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS EAST WMP - TYPICAL SECTION - DEEP CUT - SHORT TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-6
300
Crest Elev. 260 m

280
260 122 m
Waste rock
2.3 H
240 1V
53 m
Peat
220 Native Granular (Till)
23.5
200
Bedrock
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS WEST WRTSF - TYPICAL SECTION - LONG TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-7
320 Crest Elev. 290 m
300
191 m
280
Waste rock
2.3H
260 1V
83 m
240
Peat
220
200
Bedrock
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS NORTHEAST WRTSF - TYPICAL SECTION - LONG TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-8
320 Crest Elev. 290 m
300 168 m
280 Waste rock
2.3H
260
1V
73 m
Peat
240
220
200
Bedrock
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS EAST WRTSF - TYPICAL SECTION - LONG TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-9
300
Crest Elev. 270 m
280
138 m
260 Waste rock
2.3H
60 m
240 1V
Peat
220
200
Bedrock
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
CLIENT PROJECT

DESIGNED MAS SOUTHWEST WRTSF - TYPICAL SECTION - LONG TERM STATIC CONDITIONS
PREPARED GK
APPROVED DJ 19135464 11000 A C-10
March 22, 2021 19135464-11000
APPENDIX D
Quantity Estimates
Appendix D - PEA Level Quantities and Capital Cost Estimate
Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility, Water Management Ponds and Overburden Peat Stockpile
James Bay Lithium Mine Project
Prepared by: MAS
Checked by: DCJ
Unit Total Phase 1 (Year -1) Phase 2 CAPEX (Ultimate) Total (including closure)
Item / Description Unit
Cost Quantity Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
Earthworks contractor mobilization Lump sum 1 1 $0 0 $0 1 $0
Site preparation
Tree clearing (full footprints)
2
North WMP (including toe berm footprint) m 260,327 131,762 $0 128,565 $0 260,327 $0
2
East WMP m 81,053 81,053 $0 0 $0 81,053 $0
East WRTSF m2 543,750 347,309 $0 196,441 $0 543,750 $0
Northeast WRTSF m2 552,323 0 $0 552,323 $0 552,323 $0
West WRTSF m2 292,520 292,520 $0 0 $0 292,520 $0
Southwest WRTSF m2 313,080 0 $0 313,080 $0 313,080 $0
OPSF m2 252,584 112,502 $0 140,082 $0 252,584 $0
Foundation Preparation (for slope stability purposes)
North WMP (toe berm footprint only) m3 92,169 41,830 $0 50,339 $0 92,169 $0
East WMP (toe berm footprint only) m3 2,633 2,633 $0 0 $0 2,633 $0
East WRTSF (25 m wide overburden stripping) m3 39,323 28,963 $0 10,360 $0 39,323 $0
Northeast WRTSF (25 m wide overburden stripping) m3 59,063 0 $0 59,063 $0 59,063 $0
West WRTSF (25 m wide overburden stripping) m3 33,200 33,200 $0 0 $0 33,200 $0
Southwest WRTSF (25 m wide overburden stripping) m3 43,103 0 $0 43,103 $0 43,103 $0
OPSF (15 m wide overburden stripping) m3 27,784 4,256 $0 23,528 $0 27,784 $0
WMP Construction
North WMP
Excavate WMP - Peat m3 130,465 74,107 $0 56,358 $0 130,465 $0
Excavate WMP - Soil m3 694,412 394,444 $0 299,968 $0 694,412 $0
Perimeter Berm Fill - Place, Compact clay (0.3m lifts, moisture condition, compact, trim) m3 245,718 98,616 $0 147,102 $0 245,718 $0
Supply and install non-woven geotextile on slopes and crest m2 86,307 45,184 $0 41,123 $0 86,307 $0
Anchor trench - non-woven geotextile lin. m 3,184 1,704 $0 1,480 $0 3,184 $0
Erosion protection - 300 mm minus Rip-rap m3 38,344 20,119 $0 18,225 $0 38,344 $0
East WMP
Excavate WMP - Peat m3 7,904 7,904 $0 0 $0 7,904 $0
Excavate WMP - Soil m3 92,817 92,817 $0 0 $0 92,817 $0
Perimeter Berm Fill - Place, Compact clay (0.3m lifts, moisture condition, compact, trim) m3 30,883 30,883 $0 0 $0 30,883 $0
Supply and install non-woven geotextile on slopes and crest m2 16,796 16,796 $0 0 $0 16,796 $0
Anchor trench - non-woven geotextile lin. m 1,138 1,138 $0 0 $0 1,138 $0
Erosion protection - 300 mm minus Rip-rap m3 8,084 8,084 $0 0 $0 8,084 $0
WRTSF Construction
East WRTSF Perimeter Access Road lin. m 3,053 2,147 $0 906 $0 3,053 $0
Northeast WRTSF Perimeter Access Road lin. m 3,907 0 $0 3,907 $0 3,907 $0
West WRTSF Perimeter Access Road lin. m 2,127 2,127 $0 0 $0 2,127 $0
Southwest WRTSF Perimeter Access Road lin. m 2,148 0 $0 2,148 $0 2,148 $0
OPSF Construction
Waste rock berm / perimeter haul road m3 167,549 85,610 $0 81,939 $0 167,549 $0
Erosion protection - 1000mm minus rockfill m3 44,836 4,400 $0 40,435 $0 44,836 $0
Surface course for haul road m3 5,452 2,589 $0 2,863 $0 5,452 $0
Perimeter Collection Ditch Construction

East WRTSF (D1, D2, D8 and D9)
Ditch length lin. m 3,053 2,147 $0 906 $0 3,053 $0
Excavation Volume (1m base width, 1.5m depth, 2.5H:1V) m3 30,225 21,255 $0 8,969 $0 30,225 $0
Supply and install Non-woven geotextile m2 27,721 19,495 $0 8,226 $0 27,721 $0
Rip-Rap - 0.3 m thick m3 7,510 5,282 $0 2,229 $0 7,510 $0
West WRTSF (D3 and D4)
Ditch length lin. m 2,127 2,127 $0 0 $0 2,127 $0
Excavation Volume (1m base width, 1.5m depth, 2.5H:1V) m3 21,057 21,057 $0 0 $0 21,057 $0
2
Supply and install Non-woven geotextile m 19,313 19,313 $0 0 $0 19,313 $0
Rip-Rap - 0.3 m thick m3 5,232 5,232 $0 0 $0 5,232 $0
Northeast WRTSF (D7)
Ditch length lin. m 3,907 0 $0 3,907 $0 3,907 $0
Excavation Volume (1m base width, 1.5m depth, 2.5H:1V) m3 38,679 0 $0 38,679 $0 38,679 $0
Supply and install Non-woven geotextile m2 35,476 0 $0 35,476 $0 35,476 $0
Rip-Rap - 0.3 m thick m3 9,611 0 $0 9,611 $0 9,611 $0
Southwest WRTSF (D5, D6)
Ditch length lin. m 2,148 0 $0 2,148 $0 2,148 $0
Excavation Volume (1m base width, 1.5m depth, 2.5H:1V) m3 21,265 0 $0 21,265 $0 21,265 $0
Supply and install Non-woven geotextile m2 19,504 0 $0 19,504 $0 19,504 $0
Rip-Rap - 0.3 m thick m3 5,284 0 $0 5,284 $0 5,284 $0
WRTSF Intermediate Pump Stations

Excavate/Construct Sump and Supply/Install Pump Station each 4 2 $0 2 $0 4 $0
MINE WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPEX SUBTOTAL $ Cdn - - - $0 - $0 - $0

Mine Waste Facility Design and CQA (assume EPCM is included elsewhere in PEA) Allowance 15% - - $0 - $0 - $0
Mine Waste Storage Facility Closure
West WRTSF (0.5 m thick overburden cover on top and benches) ha 29.3 29.3 $0
Northeast WRTSF (0.5 m thick overburden cover on top and benches) ha 55.2 55.2 $0
East WRTSF (0.5 m thick overburden cover on top and benches) ha 54.4 54.4 $0
Southwest WRTSF (0.5 m thick overburden cover on top and benches) ha 31.3 31.3 $0
OPSF vegetation/seeding (full surface) ha 25.4 25.4 $0
Drainage system modifications for closure (spillway and ditch modifications) Allowance 1 1 $0
Infrastructure decommissioining (pipelines and pump stations) Allowance 1 1 $0
Closure design and CQA (assume EPCM factor included elsewhere in PEA) Allowance 15% 1 1 $0
MINE WASTE CAPEX GRAND TOTAL (Including Closure) - - - $0 - $0 - $0
Notes:
1) Material quantities have been calculated based on PEA level design.
2) Unit rates (shaded blue) to be estimated by G-Mining and Galaxy Lithium.
3) No contingency has been included in the above cost estimates.
4) All costs are in 2021 $CDN dollars and exclude taxes.
5) Pipelines and pumping costs (shaded blue) to be estimated by G-Mining.
6) Waste rock and overburden haul costs are included under mining.
19135464 GOLDER 2021-03-17_RevA

golder.com

Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water Management Facility Preliminary Engineering Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water Management Facility Preliminary Engineering Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water Management Facility Preliminary Engineering Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Tailings, Waste Rock, Overburden and Water

+1 905 567 4444

March 22, 2021

1 e-copy to Galaxy Lithium

 Preliminary engineering design of mine waste and water management facilities.

 Geotechnical investigations to identify potential granular borrow sources.

 Further refinement of the site wide water balance.

 Optimize the locations and designs of the WMPs.

 Advancement of the mine closure plan.

 Water treatment requirements for effluent discharge from the NWMP.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 6

3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 WRTSF Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 7

4.0 MINE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN............................................................................................... 8

4.1 Design Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Water Management .............................................................................................................................. 8

4.2.1 Water Balance................................................................................................................................. 8

4.2.2 Water Management Ponds ............................................................................................................. 9

4.2.2.1 Water Management Pond (WMP) Dyke Design ........................................................................ 10

4.2.3 Perimeter Water Collection Ditches .............................................................................................. 10

4.3 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility Development .......................................................................... 10

4.4 Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facility (WRTSF) Design .................................................................... 12

4.5 Overburden Peat Storage Facility (OPSF) Design ............................................................................ 14

4.6 Subsurface Conditions and Slope Stability ........................................................................................ 14

4.7 Conceptual WRTSF Closure .............................................................................................................. 16

5.0 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL QUANTITY ESTIMATES ............................................................................. 16

6.0 PATH FORWARD ......................................................................................................................................... 17

7.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

 Run-of-Mine (ROM) pad and stockpile

 Mineral processing infrastructure and site buildings

 Spodumene concentrate warehouse

 Truck shop and fuel station

 Overburden and Peat Storage Facility (OPSF)

 Four Waste Rock Tailings Storage Facilities (WRTSFs)

 Propane and explosives storage facilities

 69kV substation and power transmission lines

 Other ancillary infrastructure and equipment

3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

The key WRTSF operating data are listed below:

 Life of mine is 18.5 years

 Total tonnage of tailings produced is ~31.4 million tonnes (Mt)

 Deposited dry density of filtered tailings in the WRTSF is 1.7 t/m3

 Total volume of tailings is ~18.5 million cubic metres (Mm3)

 Annual required storage volume of tailings solids is ~1 Mm3

 Total tonnage of waste rock produced is 129.9 Mt

 Waste rock dry density is 2.2 t/m3

 Total volume of waste rock is ~59.0 Mm3

4.0 MINE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN

 Tailings storage will be distributed amongst all four of the WRSTFs.

4.2 Water Management

 Flows associated with runoff from precipitation

 Flows associated with dewatering of the open pit

 Evapotranspiration from WRTSFs and OPSF

 Evaporation from pond surfaces

 Seepage from WRTSF and OPSF

 Infiltration losses and other water uses/losses (e.g., dust control)