report - epa.wa.gov.au 4 - golders... · 2.1 preliminary groundwater investigation ... this...

November 2010

GROUNDWATER SUMMARY REPORT – AREA D

Submitted to:Jon Hanna WorleyParsons Level 4, QV1 Building 250 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000

REPO

RT

Report Number. 097641461-032-R-Rev0 Distribution:1 Copy - WorleyParsons 1 Copy - Golder Associates

Executive Summary

Jon Hanna of Worley Parsons (Worley) asked Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to summarise the groundwater work carried out to date for the Area Delta (Area D) of Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) Pilbara Iron Ore Project.

Golder was requested to carry out groundwater investigation in the Area D at a pre-feasibility level. The objectives of the groundwater investigation were to:

assess aquifer properties within the tenement;

assess the dewatering requirement for the proposed pit;

assess the potential water supply within Area D for their processing plant water supply requirement of 5.3 ML/day for the 5 Mtpa operation;

identify potential water supply outside Area D, in the case where the dewatering water supply would not suffice;

provide advice on furth

assess the extent of the cone of depression from the dewatering and water supply activities; and

er groundwater work in order to meet their water supply requirement to a

ly

eration, we

ources, such as Area E and maybe Area C may also be

though the current mine plan

stigation results to a feasibility study level, we recommend that the

tudy, a desktop study should be carried out to

ore and

main test production bore and monitoring bores,

lies (15 Mtpa operation), additional work may be required based on the outcome of the desktop study.

feasibility study level.

A groundwater numerical model was developed with the information from the hydrogeological field program. The model was calibrated at a steady-state level using the static groundwater level throughout the area.

Based on the predictive model the pit dewatering at Area D could provide 20% of the required water suppfor the processing plant and dust suppression using three dewatering wells. In order to meet their water requirement, the model has predicted that a further 3 production wells will be required outside the tenement targeting the main palaeochannel north east of Area D. To meet the water supply for a 5 Mtpa oprecommend that Flinders carry out a feasibility study to establish a wellfield in targeting the main palaeochannel north east of Area D. Other water sconsidered to provide supplemental water supply.

For a 15 Mtpa operation, Flinders would likely need to identify additional water supply sources. Note thatthese water sources would need to be identified at a feasibility stage, even shows that the 15 Mtpa upgrade are only considered in Year 5 of mining.

In order to bring the hydrogeological invefollowing studies need to be prioritised:

if the 15 Mtpa operation forms part of the feasibility sidentify potential water supplies at a regional scale;

feasibility level hydrogeological study at Area D, Area E and possibly Area C depending on the outcomeof an initial hydrogeological assessment, which would comprise establishing a test production bmonitoring bores in each of the regions, pumping tests, analysis and groundwater modelling;

feasibility level hydrogeological study at the off tenement region north-east of Area D targeting thepalaeochannel, which would comprise establishing a pumping tests, analysis and groundwater modelling;

if the proposed regions are deemed unlikely to provide the required water supp

November 2010 Report No. 097641461-032-R-Rev0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 ORIGINAL SCOPE AND VARIATIONS .................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Investigation ......................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Pit Dewatering Preliminary Drawdown Extent .............................................................................................. 1

2.2.1 Variation .................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Further Groundwater Work ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.4 Production Well Preliminary Location ........................................................................................................... 2

2.5 Off Tenement Drilling Limitations .................................................................................................................. 2

2.6 PFS Costing ................................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 LIST OF DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5

5.1 Regional Desktop Study ............................................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Proposed Programme to Identify Storage in Area D and E .......................................................................... 6

5.3 Assessment of Geology and Hydrogeological Properties Outside Tenement ............................................... 6

5.4 Updating Groundwater Flow Models............................................................................................................. 6

5.5 Proposed Groundwater Study for 15 Mtpa Water Supply ............................................................................. 6

6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

TABLES Table 1: List of Hydrogeological Documents Related to Area D and Submitted by Golder ................................................. 3

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Hydrogeological Documentation Submitted to Flinders and Worley

APPENDIX B Limitations

November 2010 Report No. 097641461-032-R-Rev0 ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION Jon Hanna of Worley Parsons (Worley) asked Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to summarise the groundwater work carried out to date for the Area Delta (Area D) of Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) Pilbara Iron Ore Project. The summary report would include:

a description of the original scope of work and any variations requested for the PFS study;

a brief discussion or a list of the deliverables; and

a summary of the recommendations for further work.

2.0 ORIGINAL SCOPE AND VARIATIONS The different scopes of work are described below.

2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Investigation Prior to carrying out the fieldwork, Golder was asked to:

assist Flinders with the required licenses from the DoW for the fieldwork as well as for their drilling water supply; and

providing Worley with the work procedures for the fieldwork programme.

The scope of work for the preliminary groundwater investigation included:

ed at installing groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater sampling and

ons for use as a groundwater storage);

sted to provide Worley with the pit dewatering preliminary drawdown estimate. The scope

Modflow;

ndwater drawdown cones around the open pit; and

a desktop study to characterise the regional and local groundwater conditions;

a field programme, aimhydraulic testing; and

analysis and report writing, which included:

preliminary assessment of the suitability of the geological formatisupply (including an initial assessment of groundwater

options for discharging excess pumped groundwater;

potential effects on third party users and the environment; and

recommendations for work required during the feasibility stage.

2.2 Pit Dewatering Preliminary Drawdown Extent Golder was requeof work included:

construction of the Area D model using

calibration of the steady-state model;

transient-state model with dewatering bores; and

reporting of details and conclusion which included:

presenting a range of groundwater inflow in the pit and dewatering estimates;

presenting a range of grou

recommendations.

November 2010 Report No. 097641461-032-R-Rev0 1

The work was carried out with Modflow, however, due to model software limitations, the results were

ev0 to carry out a numerical groundwater flow selected scenarios:

g 15 Mtpa with beneficiation (30 ML/day).

sing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation for 5 years (10ML/day)

water work required for the feasibility

proposed water supply / dewatering wells and

Tenement Drilling Limitations their proposed further groundwater work programme excluding any off e limitation that such restriction would cause to the groundwater component

rastructure. The cost estimate was g cost and sustaining capital for all infrastructures downstream et at the surface flange connections at each bore - downstream

LIST OF DOCUMENTS The table below lists all the documents related to hydrogeology that have been submitted to Flinders and Worley. The document can be found in Attachment A.

considered unreliable.

2.2.1 Variation A variation was requested in document 097641461-021-TM-Rmodel using Feflow software and carry out predictive runs of

Pit dewatering – reaching full pit depth within 10 years.


The groundwater supply requirements for processing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation (10 ML/day).

The groundwater supply requirement for processin

The groundwater supply requirement for procesand 15 Mtpa for 5 years (30 ML/day).

2.3 Further Groundwater Work Golder was requested to provide the scope of work for further groundstudy.

2.4 Production Well Preliminary Location Golder was requested to provide a preliminary location for the to provide preliminary pumping rates.

2.5 OffGolder was requested to reviewtenement drilling and provide thof the project.

2.6 PFS Costing Golder was requested to provide a cost estimate for the water supply infto include installation, material cost, operatinfrom the battery limit. The battery limit was sof the head-works. The cost was inclusive of the power and telemetry.

3.0


Table 1: List of Hydrogeological Documents Related to Area D and Submitted by Golder Document Name Document Number Description

Groundwater PFS scope of work and site visit report: Flinders mine Pilbara prospect

097641461-002-TM-Rev0

This memorandum provides a summary of the site visit, identifies potential groundwater related issues in connection with the proposed development and provides a preliminary scope of work for the groundwater investigation.

Preliminary groundwater investigation work plan

097641461-003-TM-Rev0

This work plan provides a summary of the preliminary groundwater investigation recommended by Golder for the hydrogeological component of the pre-feasibility study.

Application for 26D And 5C licences – Flinders Mines’ tenement number E47/882

097641461-005-L-Rev0 This letter is a request to the DoW in order to obtain the required permit for water supply and monitoring bore installation.

Work procedures for hydrogeological fieldwork programme. Flinders Mine – Pilbara Iron Ore Project hydrogeological programme

097641461-009-TM-RevA-DRAFT

This work procedure was prepared by Golder to outline the procedure for monitoring bore installation, development, recovery test, groundwater sampling and slug test during the hydrogeological fieldwork programme, which forms part of the PFS for Flinders for their Pilbara Iron Ore Project. The main objective of this procedure was to outline the processes to undertake the work.

Initial groundwater investigation: Area Delta. Flinders Mines Iron Ore Project

097641461-010-R-RevB-DRAFT

This report describes the groundwater investigation carried out at Area D to identify a reliable water supply for the operations and to assess the dewatering requirements from the open pit. The report also includes recommendations for further work.

Preliminary groundwater inflow and drawdown cone estimates – Area D, Flinders Mine Pilbara Prospect

097641461-011-TM-Rev0

This technical memorandum outlines the work required to preliminary estimate the groundwater inflow and drawdown cone around the proposed open pit at Area D.

Pit dewatering preliminary drawdown extent

097641461-015-TM-Rev0 This technical memorandum provides preliminary estimate of the drawdown cone around the proposed open pit resulting from pit dewatering.

Further groundwater work - Area D 097641461-016-TM-Rev1

This technical memorandum provides recommendations for a more extensive hydrogeological investigation in Area D, which would eventually form part of the feasibility study related to mining in Area D. The purpose of this memorandum was to provide the information necessary for the Program of Works (POW) for the groundwater field work program.

Potential impacts on groundwater resources - Area D

097641461-018-TM-Rev0

This technical memorandum outlines the different potential impacts that could be associated with mining of Area D on the groundwater resources and seeks to document 097641461-016-TM-Rev0.


Document Name Document Number Description

Extent of cone of depression from pit dewatering – Area Delta. Flinders Mines Iron Ore Project

097641461-020-R-Rev0

This report describes the numerical groundwater flow model developed by Golder to estimate groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements for the proposed iron ore pit at Area D of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project. This groundwater model was developed using the software Modflow and due to instability of the model, it was not possible to estimate the groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements.

Preliminary groundwater inflow and drawdown cone estimates – Area D, Flinders Mines Pilbara Prospect

097641461-021-TM-Rev0

Due to instability problem encountered in the Modflow groundwater flow model developed in 097641461-020-R-Rev0, Golder proposed the carry out the work using Feflow. This technical memorandum outlines the work required estimate the groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements at Area D using Feflow.

Preliminary location of production wells 097641461-022-M-Rev0

This memorandum provides information concerning the proposed dewatering bore locations and additional target areas (if required) for the water supply bores and an indication of the potential extractable volumes from each bore.

Off tenement drilling limitations – Area D 097641461-023-L-Rev0

This letters highlight the implications of the absence of geological and hydrogeological knowledge outside the Flinders tenement.

Preliminary groundwater drawdown estimates – Area Delta, Flinders Mines Limited Pilbara Iron Prospect

097641461-026-R-Rev0

This report describes the numerical groundwater model developed by Golder with Feflow and the results from the predictive model estimating groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements for the proposed iron ore pit at Area D of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project

PFS costing – Area D 097641461-029-TM-Rev0

The technical memorandum describes the cost estimate for the installation of the dewatering and water supply infrastructure downstream from the selected battery limit.


4.0 CONCLUSION The dewatering of the pit was modelled according to preliminary mine plans, which assume that mining will start along the upper regions of the valley and no dewatering would be required for approximately the first 5 years of operation. During the first 5 years, the modelled has assumed that dewatering would still be carried out in the pit area for water supply purposes.

Based on the predictive model, pit dewatering will be carried out using three dewatering wells. The model has predicted that pit dewatering could supply 20% of the required water supply for the processing plant and dust suppression; therefore, all predictive models scenarios have been carried out to accommodate the water supply requirement.

The water supply requirement is 5.3 ML/day for the 5 Mtpa operation. In order to achieve this water supply, the model has predicted that a total of 6 production wells will be required. Three production wells are the dewatering wells located within the Area D proposed pit outline, whilst the remaining three production wells are located outside the tenement and are targeting the main palaeochannel.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The work carried out to date by Golder has been sufficient for pre-feasibility level. Uncertainties and assumptions still remain. In order to bring the hydrogeological investigation results to a feasibility study level, Flinders must:

identify potential water supplies at a regional scale;

accurately quantify the storage from Area D;

accurately quantify the storage from Area E, and possibly Area C depending on the outcome of an initial hydrogeological assessment; and

assess the resource potential of regional potential water supply sources, in the case Area D and E storage is not sufficient.

In order to achieve such level of information, Golder recommends to carry out:

regional desktop study;

d E;

rea.

e detail below.

ion

could be used as a water supply, and that could eventually be targeted for field investigation.

fieldwork programme at Area D an

exploration drilling off-tenement;

groundwater modelling of Area D and E;

fieldwork programme in selected groundwater supply area; and

groundwater modelling of the selected groundwater supply a

Each of the recommendation is described in mor

5.1 Regional Desktop Study Based on the results from the groundwater modelling work, the groundwater storage in the CID/BID at Area D may not sufficient to accommodate for the 5 Mtpa water demand (currently set at 5 ML/day). The water demand for 15 Mtpa production rate has not yet been identified. In order to obtain enough informatfor feasibility level, Golder has recommended carrying out a desktop review of the potential water supply sources in the region. This work will identify potential aquifers in the area that



5.2 Proposed Programme to Identify Storage in Area D and E Golder proposes to carry out field investigations in both Area D and in Area E. Both areas will be investigated following the same approach. The proposed work objective is to identify the storage from each area’s aquifer.

The proposed program comprises the installation of a test production well and four observation wells, carrying out a 7-day pumping and recovery test, analysing the results.

Golder also proposes to develop a 3D groundwater flow model for Area E using the data collected during the field programme.

5.3 Assessment of Geology and Hydrogeological Properties Outside Tenement

A large portion of the 3D groundwater flow model developed for Area D is located off-tenement. Based on the preliminary model, the extent of the cone of depression includes the area off-tenement. In order to bring the model to a feasibility level, the geology and hydrogeology off-tenement will need to be assessed. Golder recommends acquiring a miscellaneous lease in the area downgradient from Area D and carrying out a drilling program in the area, installation of monitoring bores and hydraulic testing.

5.4 Updating Groundwater Flow Models The data collected during the fieldwork programmes will be incorporate in to the 3D groundwater flow model of Area D and E. The steady-state models will be re-calibrated with the new geology and hydrogeology for the off-tenement potion of the model. The pumping test results will be used to calibrate the transient-state models.

Following update and calibration of the models, a technical report up to feasibility level will be produced.

5.5 Proposed Groundwater Study for 15 Mtpa Water Supply In the case the feasibility study is done for the higher production rate of 15 Mtpa, and therefore higher water supply, Golder recommends carrying out additional groundwater investigations in other areas that would have been previously identified in the regional desktop study. This work would also aim to provide feasibility level information for the increased water demand expected after 5 years of mining.

The proposed programme will include installation of a test production well and four observation wells, carrying out a 7-day pumping test and recovery, analysing the results and preparing a technical report to feasibility level.

The proposed programme will also include the development of a 3D groundwater flow model which will be calibrated with the pumping test data for the transient-state model.

In addition to this preliminary groundwater supply study, provision of groundwater supplies to meet the later water requirement for the 15 Mtpa option, would be evaluated in greater detail during the first years of mining.

6.0 LIMITATIONS Your attention is drawn to the document ‘Limitations’, which is included in Appendix B of this report. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Geneviève Marchand Hydrogeologist

GM/JJV/sp

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-032-r-rev0.docx

November 2010 Report No. 097641461-032-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A Hydrogeological Documentation Submitted to Flinders and Worley


TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Level 2, 1 Havelock Street, West Perth, Western Australia 6005, Australia (PO Box 1914, West Perth WA 6872) Tel: +61 8 9213 7600 Fax: +61 8 9213 7611 www.golder.com

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

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

This memorandum provides a summary of the site visit, identifies potential groundwater related issues in connection with the proposed development and provides a preliminary scope of work for the groundwater investigation.

Site Visit Report Jan Vermaak and Greg Hookey from Golder Associates undertook a site visit on 18 November, of the proposed Flinders Mines Pilbara Project, situated in the Hamersley Ranges in Western Australia. We were accompanied by Peter Hairsine and Con Farmassonis from Worley Parsons and Gary Sutherland from Flinders Mines. Nick Corlis from Flinders Mines (Flinders) was also present during the visit.

The purpose of the site visit was to familiarise ourselves with the site, in particular the topography, drainage features and other aspects which may be of importance to the groundwater and surface water studies.

The visit comprised helicopter bourn inspection of the five areas of interest on the Blacksmith tenement. Gary Sutherland provided an overview of the project and described the status of the exploration programme. After the site inspection, Jan Vermaak had a discussion with Nick Corlis and also inspected drilling core. Greg Hookey visited some areas on the tenement by car together with Gary Sutherland.

There are five areas of interest which are located in the valleys and valley flanks of a prominent Proterozoic sedimentary ridgeline, which are part of the Hamersley Ranges. The five areas of interest are named Ajax, Blackjack, Champion, Delta and Eagle. There are two types of mineralisation namely Channel Iron Deposit (CID), containing mostly hematite, and Bedded Iron Deposit (BID) containing a high grade goethite mineralisation. The valleys containing CID and BID are underlain by Dales Gorge Member Banded Iron Formation (BIF) units, Mt McRae Shale and Mount Sylvia Formation.

The terrain on the tenement is generally very rugged. However, valleys in the ranges flatten out rapidly into large expansive flat lying terrain. During the inspection, no springs were observed and all drainage lines appeared to be ephemeral. Vegetation comprised mostly Spinifex grass and low woodland and no vegetation were observed which would suggest a shallow water table, spring or perennial stream. Only one small permanent water hole was identified in the Blackjack area. We landed close to the waterhole and inspected the area. It appears that the waterhole is fed by a perched groundwater system through fractures in the BID, which outcrops in the area.

After the site inspection, Jan Vermaak had discussions with Nick Corlis regarding the exploration drilling programme. Nick mentioned that, in general, large water losses (lost circulation) were encountered during the diamond drilling programme and also during the RC drilling programme, where groundwater was intersected, large water strikes were generally recorded. This is indicative of a highly permeable material, possibly associated with the CID.

Flinders Mines also measured groundwater levels in most of the open exploration drill holes. Flinders Mines also keep record of drillholes where large water losses and/or significant water strikes were recorded. Groundwater, when reported, was observed between 30 and 50 metres depth. Based on the groundwater

DATE 26 November 2009 DOCUMENT No. 097641461 002 TM Rev0

TO Nick Corlis Flinders Mine Ltd

CC Steven Godfrey

FROM Jan Vermaak EMAIL [email protected]

GROUNDWATER PFS SCOPE OF WORK AND SITE VISIT REPORT: FLINDERS MINE PILBARA PROSPECT

Nick Corlis 097641461 002 TM Rev0Flinders Mine Ltd 26 November 2009

2/4

level measurements, Nick Corlis estimates that about 75% of the mineralisation is situated above the groundwater level.

Nick Corlis also confirmed that most drainages are ephemeral and no springs or permanent water holes were noted during the exploration programme, apart from the one water hole in the Blackjack area.

Nick Corlis stated that, in general, little clay is associated with the mineralisation. It appears that most clays have been washed out the valleys and occurs mainly in the flat lying area. The mineralised regions are covered by a thin layer of transported material, and in some places, outcrop on the valley flanks.

During the core inspection, I noticed that the CID appears to be highly porous and that the core has the appearance of “Swiss Cheese”. The BID material appears to have a low porosity and permeability,. However, several discontinuities have been identified and it is likely that groundwater flow in the BID will be controlled by these discontinuities.

The following data are being collected by Flinders and these will assist us with the PFS stage groundwater study:

� Ground surface contours (LIDAR survey);

� Tenement boundaries, tracks, infrastructure etc in GIS format;

� Surface geology map and geological cross-sections;

� Groundwater levels in exploration bores (x, y, z coordinates of exploration bores and depth to groundwater level);

� A summary of exploration holes where significant water losses occurred or where significant water strikes have been encountered;

� Groundwater quality results from samples taken from exploration bores.

Potential Groundwater Related Issues From experience (based on work carried out at both Yandi and the proposed Solomons operations), we would anticipate that the CID formations would have a high permeability and hence, high groundwater inflows are expected once mining below the water table commences. Water management is therefore closely associated with the mine development.

A groundwater supply would be required during construction and during operations prior to mining below the groundwater level. The CID formations on the Flinders tenement are potential targets for this groundwater supply. To assess whether the CID formations are suitable as a potential groundwater supply, we need to assess:

� The potential yield of groundwater supply wells targeting the CID formations;

� The groundwater volume (storage) which is available from the valleys on the tenement; and

� Potential hydraulic connection with regional hydrogeological units, for example geological structures in the proterozoic sediments underlying the CID formations.

The potential well field targeting the CID formations would also have a secondary function of dewatering the CID deposit in advance of mining.

Note that it is crucial to identify whether a groundwater supply (in addition to what is available from the CID formations) be identified at an early stage. If the CID is not adequate as a groundwater supply, additional groundwater resources will need to be identified and this may result in delays to the project.

It is possible that, when mining does take place from below the groundwater level, that significant groundwater inflows can be expected. Some of this water can be used as part of the process plant water supply requirements, but it is possible that a large portion of this groundwater flows would need to be discharged.


3/4

There are several options for discharging excess pumped groundwater, but we note that regulators may not approve discharge of pumped groundwater into the environment, even if the groundwater is not contaminated. The regulators preferred approach for discharging pumped groundwater is reinjection. It is important to identify options for discharging excess pumped groundwater (if required). If reinjection is considered as an option for discharging pumped groundwater, prospective reinjection sites should be identified at an early stage.

Scope of work for PFS groundwater study It is proposed that we carry out a staged approach for the groundwater study. The scope of work would comprise:

� A desktop study to characterise the regional and local groundwater conditions;

� A field programme, aimed at installing groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater sampling and hydraulic testing; and,

� Analysis and report writing;

The desktop study will comprise a regional assessment of the groundwater in the Flinders Mine region. Golder will rely on public information as well as information from nearby projects to gain a better understanding of the regional groundwater setting. Golder will also access the DoW groundwater database to identify third-party groundwater users and identify groundwater allocation policies for the region. Golder will work together with environmental scientists to identify potential groundwater dependent ecosystems, which might be affected by the mining operations. We will also rely on the data provided by Flinders Mine to develop a groundwater contour map of the respective deposits, which will provide us with a better understanding of the local groundwater setting.

Golder will assess the regulatory requirement for licensing of any water bores, specifically in relation to the Rights on Water and Irrigations Act 1914, given the current strong regulatory focus on this act in the Pilbara. Golder will organise, in collaboration with Flinders representatives, the 5C and 26D licences required by the DoW for the pre-feasibility study.

The fieldwork programme will comprise converting three RC exploration bores to monitoring wells in the Delta zone. We understand that there may not be any drill rigs available during the months December to March because of access restrictions. However, we have been advised that the site may be accessible by means of 4WD vehicles. As such, Golder proposes to install the monitoring wells by means of a portable hoist system for lowering the casing into the exploration bores.

We have assumed that Flinders will be arranging transporting materials to site and that a Flinders person will be available to assist with the monitoring bore installation. However, Golder can arrange materials and site labour if requested. The materials will comprise PVC casing (solid and slotted), gravel, bentonite and cement – a detailed specification of materials can be provided at a later stage. Golder also requires a portable air compressor for developing the monitoring wells and for hydraulic testing.

After monitoring bores have been installed, we will develop the monitoring bores using the portable air compressor. We will then carry out hydraulic tests, which would comprise air-lift test followed by recovery tests. We note that airlift and recovery tests may not provide accurate results if the formations are highly permeable. Golder proposes to use a pressure transducer to record the response of groundwater levels more accurately.

In order to more accurately estimate aquifer properties from a highly permeable formation, a 48 hour pumping test would be required carried out in a 10 inch diameter test well.

Golder will carry out analysis of the hydraulic tests and prepare a report which can be incorporated in the PFS report. The report will

� describe the hydrogeological setting at the proposed mine,

� provide a preliminary assessment of the suitability of the CID formations for use as a groundwater supply (including an initial assessment of groundwater storage),


4/4

� provide options for discharging excess pumped groundwater;

� describe potential affects on third party users and the environment;

� provide recommendations for work required during the feasibility stage.

Fee Estimate Table 1 shows the fee estimate (exclusive of GST) for the PFS groundwater component. The fee estimate excludes disbursements. We assumed that all expenses related to this work, including flights, accommodation and meals, vehicle hire, groundwater quality analyses and material costs will be met by Flinders Mines. Any expenses incurred by Golder will attract a 10% handling fee.

Table 1: Fee Estimate (Excluding GST)

Description Fee Estimate

Desktop Study and Licence Application 9,800 Fieldwork 19,800 Analysis and Reporting 14,400 Total (Excluding GST) 44,000

Schedule Golder proposes to carry out the desktop study during December 2009. The desktop study can be completed in two to three weeks time and a technical memorandum provided prior to the Christmas break

Golder proposes to carry out the fieldwork component in January, depending on access to the site and depending on delivery of materials to site. The field work can be completed within two weeks.

Groundwater samples will be analysed for major ions and dissolved metals for quality purposes as well as geochemical classification.

Analysis and report writing can be carried out directly after the fieldwork programme with a preliminary draft report available within four weeks after completion of the field programme, depending on . This report will highlight any other work required for the PFS study, for example, identifying areas for additional groundwater supply or for groundwater reinjection.

Concluding Remarks We understand that Flinders may want to “fast track” the groundwater component for the PFS. We will be happy to discuss in more detail the scope of work for a more detailed groundwater investigation suitable for feasibility level work.

We trust that this memorandum meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact Jan Vermaak at 08 9213 7662 if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.

Jan Vermaak Associate, Senior Hydrogeologist JJV/GH m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461 002 tm rev0 hydro scope of work.doc


DATE 15 December 2009 DOCUMENT No. 097641461 003 TM Rev0

TO Nick Corlis Flinders Mines

Steven Godfrey, Jon Hanna CC

FROM Geneviève Marchand EMAIL [email protected]

PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN

This work plan provides a summary of the preliminary groundwater investigation recommended by Golder Associates (Golder) for the hydrogeological component of the pre-feasibility study. A field programme, aimed at installing groundwater monitoring wells, collecting groundwater samples and carry out hydraulic testing is proposed as a first assessment of the groundwater conditions.

Prior to site visit, the both exploration campaign databases will be reviewed, and some exploration holes will be selected based on the following conditions:

Boreholes targeting BID, with groundwater level above the BID, and located downgradient and in the middle of the valley bed;

Boreholes targeting CID only, with groundwater level preferably above the CID, and located in the middle of the valley of either one of the tributaries;

Borehole does not penetrate basement by more than 6 to 10 m; and

Golder Associates Pty Ltd Level 2, 1 Havelock Street, West Perth, Western Australia 6005, Australia (PO Box 1914, West Perth WA 6872)

Tel: +61 8 9213 7600 Fax: +61 8 9213 7611 www.golder.com



Locate the boreholes;

epth; and

ecting the most

. As such, Golder proposes to install the monitoring wells by lowering the casing into

e carried out in open exploration hole with water level in the BIF in order to assess its hydraulic properties.

Borehole where significant water strikes have been encountered.

The proposed position will be provided after review of all data.

Once some exploration holes have been selected, we ask if Flinders Mines can carry out the following:

Verify that the borehole is still open to d

Measure water level in the borehole.

Three exploration holes will be selected based on the result of this monitoring round by selappropriate exploration holes to assess the hydraulic parameters of the CID and the BID.

The fieldwork programme will comprise converting three RC exploration bores to monitoring wells in the Delta zone. We understand that there may not be any drill rigs available during the months December to March because of access restrictions. However, we have been advised that the site may be accessible by means of 4WD vehiclesthe exploration bores.

After monitoring bores have been installed, we will develop the monitoring bores using the portable air compressor. We will then carry out hydraulic tests, which would comprise air-lift test followed by recovery tests. We note that airlift and recovery tests may not provide accurate results if the formations are highly permeable. Golder proposes to use a pressure transducer to record the response of groundwater levels more accurately. Furthermore, hydraulic testing will also b

Nick Corlis 097641461 003 TM Rev0Flinders Mines 15 December 2009

Work Plan Monitoring Bore Installation Each monitoring bore will be constructed using nominal 50 mm (NB) Class 12 uPVC and 6 m of nimonal 50 mm (NB) Class 12 uPVC 0.5 mm machine slotted. A sump will be installed below the screen, when the exploration hole has entered basement, on the entire basement length. The annulus will be filled with a 3 – 6 mm washed and graded gravel pack up to the top of the aquifer. A 0.5m of finer sand will be put above the gravel pack, and will be followed by a meter of ¼” bentonite pellet and backfilled to the top. The construction details are shown on Figure 1 and the material list is provided in Table 1 and has been based on depth of basement encountered in the middle of the valley.

Airlift and hydraulic testing Following installation, a datalogger will be installed at the bottom of the monitoring bore and the monitoring bore will be airlifted using a compressor and a polypipe until the water is free of sediment. The monitoring bore head design is shown on Figure 2 and the connection to the air compressor is shown on Figure 3. The flow rate will be monitored using a 100mm diameter PVC pipe to allow air and water separation with a bucket and a stop-watch.

When the airlifted groundwater is free of sediment, the compressor can be stopped and the recovery of the water level will be recorded with the datalogger set at the bottom of the monitoring bore.

Slug tests with datalogger will be carried out in open holes through the BIF to assess its hydraulic parameters.

Table 1: Material Description Quantity

Monitoring Bore Construction material

Slotted PVC, Class 12, 50 mm ND in 3 m length 6

Plain PVC, Class 12, 50 mm ND in 3 m length 90

PVC end cap for 2” ND PVC pipe 6

PVC primer and glue One of each

0.5 m3 Filter pack 3 to 6 mm diameter

Bentonite pellet 1/4” diameter 1 plastic pail of 22 kg (50 lbs)

Builders sand 20 kg

Airlift Equipment

50mm diameter PVC elbow 1

HDPE PN 10 or greater, 20 mm diameter 100 m

Hose clamp to fit 20 mm HDPE 2

Whip check for 20 mm diameter HDPE 1

Air valve for 20 mm HDPE 1

Fittings to connect HDPE 20 mm diameter to Air Compressor 1 set

Air Compressor 100 PSI on trailer mounted 1

PVC pipe 100 mm diameter 6 m

Equipment Provided by Golder

Teck Screws long enough to join 2 PVC lengths 500

Power drill 1

Tripod with a 50 mm diameter middle section 1

2/3

Nick Corlis 097641461 003 TM Rev0Flinders Mines 15 December 2009

Description Quantity

50 mm diameter clamps 2 sets

EC and pH field probe 1

Sampling bottles, filters and eskie 1

Datalogger 30 m + cable 1 datalogger and 80 m of cable

Slug 1

Groundwater Sampling and Analysis The field parameters (EC and pH) will be measured on site. Groundwater samples will be collected during airlifting. The groundwater samples will be filtered and acidified on site and refrigerated until sent to the laboratory. We ask if Flinders Mines could provide a refrigerator to store the samples. The groundwater samples will be analysed for major ions and dissolved metals for quality purposes as well as geochemical classification.

Schedule The fieldwork will start following reception of the 26D licence. This application was sent on the 15 December 2009, and the DOW typically takes up to 4 weeks to process the licence. With the holiday season coming up, it is possible that the licence will only be granted at the end of January. Golder will then be able to carry out the fieldwork within two weeks of approval, depending on wether the materials are on site and on access to the site. The field work can be completed within two weeks.

Concluding Remarks We trust that this work plan meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this programme

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

Geneviève Marchand Jan Vermaak Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist - Associate GM/JJV/gm \\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461 003 tm rev0.doc

Attachments: Figure 1: Monitoring Bore Construction Details Figure 2: Monitoring Bore Airlift Fittings Details Figure 3: Airlift Set-up Details

3/3

Golder Associates Pty Ltd



A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

16 December 2009 Project No. 097641461 005 L Rev0

Miss Cally Coster Department of Water Lot 4608 Cherratta Road Karratha Industrial Estate KARRATHA WA 6714

APPLICATION FOR 26D AND 5C LICENCES – FLINDERS MINES’ TENEMENT NUMBER E47/882

Dear Miss Coster

Flinders Mines Ltd (Flinders) is currently carrying out a drilling exploration program at the tenement number E47/882 located in the Hamersley Ranges approximately 70 km north-west of Tom Price (see Appendix B – Location Plan).

Drilling was undertaken by McKays Drilling using mostly RC drilling rigs. This method uses air as drilling fluid and did not require much water supply for the previous RC exploration program. The forthcoming drilling campaign will be undertaken using diamond coring rigs which can only be operated with water injection. Flinders wish to supply the water from existing exploration holes and apply for a 5C licence to abstract water.

Also, part of the mining tenement discussed above is progressing towards a pre-feasibility study. As part of this study, Flinders is organising early next year a groundwater investigation program and applies for a 26D licence to install monitoring bores.

Golder Associates Ltd (Golder) is acting on behalf of Flinders to assist them with the:

water supply for the exploration drilling;

groundwater investigation as part of the forthcoming pre-feasibility study.

Water Abstraction Method The common practice for water supply during exploration project is to pump the water with a submersible pump directly from open exploration holes. Exploration holes are carefully selected to limit the risk of borehole collapse and deterioration of the aquifer (geological borehole logs review, downhole geophysics data, etc.).

The database review has shown that the bores located within the inferred resource and in the lower part of the channels are can be considered as a potential source of water supply (See Appendix C – Existing Exploration and Water Bore Location Plan).

Water Demand Diamond core drilling technique requires water injection. Previous experiences have shown that the average water demand is approximately 30 KL per day (rig operated 2 shifts a day). The forthcoming program is expected to extend for approximately 10 weeks. Therefore, it is estimated that the water demand will be approximately 2,100 KL. The application form specifies 3,600 kL per year, which would offer to Flinders more flexibility with drilling exploration programs.

Abstracted water will be monitored by a cumulative flow meter of a type authorised under the Right in Water and Irrigation.

Miss Cally Coster 097641461 005 L Rev0Department of Water 16 December 2009

2/2

A schedule for water abstraction has not been confirmed but it is expected that the annual water abstraction, as presented below, will not be exceeded.

Aquifer System The exploration program is run across 5 valleys named Ajax, Blackjack, Champion, Delta and Eagle. The aim is to estimate the thickness of Channel Iron Deposit (CID) and Bedded Iron Deposit (BID). Drillings are usually stopped when penetrating into the basement rocks (clay, cherts, banded iron formation, shale).

Reviewed data have shown that water, if any, was observed between 30 and 50 meters below ground surface (bgs) within CID, BID and the basement rocks (superficial aquifer). The groundwater targeted for this water supply is mostly contained in the CID.

A licence to take water was already issued at this tenement (Instrument No. GWL166679). It allows Flinders to abstract a maximum of 3,600KL of water per year for “general camp purpose” within the “fracture rocks”.

Monitoring Bored For the pre-feasibility study on its tenement, Flinders is planning to install monitoring bores at each of the 5 exploration areas. The number of monitoring bores to be installed is not defined. However, at this stage, Flinders wish to receive authorisation for the construction of six (6) monitoring bores at each of the five (5) exploration areas.

Bores will be installed either:

in existing exploration holes after reaming to a larger diameter and cleaning; or

after drilling new holes.

At his stage, the location and type of monitoring bores cannot be defined. Thus the application for 26D licence was filed out for five (5) bores to be reamed out and twenty-five (25) new bores within the tenement number E47/882.

We trust the information provided in this cover letter is self sufficient for the application for a 26d and 5C licence at the flinders’ tenement number E47/882. Should you have any queries, please contact us.

Yours faithfully


Anthony Le Beux Jan Vermaak Hydrogeologist Associate, Senior Hydrogeologist ALB/JJV CC: Mr. Nick Corlis, Flinders Mines Ltd

Attachments: A- Form A, Applications for 26D and 5C Licences

B- Location Plan C- Existing Exploration and Water Bore Location Plan

m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461 005 l rev0 dow licence.doc

ATTACHMENT A Form A, Applications for 26D and 5C Licences

ATTACHMENT B Location Plan

CLIENT Flinders Mines PROJECTAPPLICATION FOR 5C and 26D LICENCE

DRAWN ALB DATE 24/09/2009 TITLE

CHECK JJV DATE 24/09/2009

SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. APPENDIX No.

B097646341

Location Plan

See Appendix C

ATTACHMENT C Existing Exploration and Water Bore Location Plan

CLIENT Flinders Mines PROJECT APPLICATION FOR 5C and 26D LICENCE

DRAWN ALB DATE 24/09/2009 TITLE


SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. APPENDIX No.

C097646341

Existing Exploration and Water Bore Location Plan - Tenement E47/882

Delta

Eagle

Champion

Blackjack

Ajax






1.0 PURPOSE This work procedure has been prepared by Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to outline the procedure for monitoring bore installation, development, recovery test, groundwater sampling and slug test during the hydrogeological fieldwork programme, which forms part of the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) for their Pilbara Iron Ore Project. The main objective of this procedure is to outline the processes to undertake the work.

2.0 SCOPE This work procedure comprises the following components:

Slug testing of open boreholes.

Installation of three monitoring bores in existing resource RC holes.

Development of monitoring bores using airlift techniques.

Collection of groundwater samples.

Recovery test of developed monitoring bores.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES A Golder Associates hydrogeologist will be responsible for the following:

Organisation of transport of groundwater sampling equipment.

Organisation of a vehicle for Golder field technician to carry out field program.

Notifying the site superintendent of the dates and scope of hydrogeological program.

Carry out the field program.

Transport of groundwater samples to laboratory.

The delivery of laboratory data to the Golder project manager.

Golder Associates are responsible for supplying the following materials:

Monitoring Bore Construction Material as described below:

Teck screws long enough to join 2 PVC lengths.

Wooden plate with 80 mm diameter orifice.

DATE 28 January 2010 REFERENCE No. 097641461-009-TM-RevA-DRAFT

TO Nick Corlis Flinders Mine Ltd

CC Stephen Godfrey and Peter Hairsine


WORK PROCEDURES FOR HYDROGEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK PROGRAMME FLINDERS MINE – PILBARA IRON ORE PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGICAL PROGRAM

Nick Corlis 097641461-009-TM-RevA-DRAFTFlinders Mine Ltd 28 January 2010

2

Monitoring Bore Installation Sheet (Attachment A).

Groundwater sampling equipment:

EC and pH field probe.

0.45 micron filters.

Nitrile gloves.

Deionised water.

Laboratory bottles.

Esky.

Chain of custody documentation.

Groundwater Development, Purging and Sampling Data Sheet (Attachment B).

Hydraulic Testing Equipment:

Solid slug.

Pressure transducer datalogger and associated cable.

Laptop.

Buckets.

Hydraulic Testing Data Sheet (Attachment C).

Flinders Mines Ltd will be responsible for the following:

Arranging access to the fieldwork area during the specified dates.

Organisation of a trailer mounted air compressor to be delivered to site.

Providing Golder field staff with any site or company inductions required to carry out the proposed work.

Providing Golder with a field assistant on-site for the entire duration of the fieldwork.

Arranging any field communication devices for Golder field staff such as UHF radios.

Providing excavator and operator to excavate sump for groundwater discharge.

Providing a crane-truck for lowering down the PVC.

Providing monitoring bore construction material described below:

6 slotted PVC, Class 12, 50 mm ND in 3 m length;

90 plain PVC, Class 12, 50 mm ND in 3 m length;

6 PVC end cap for 2” ND PVC pipe;

PVC primer and glue;

1.0 m3 of filter pack 3 to 6 mm diameter;

one plastic container of bentonite pellet 1/4” diameter;

20 kg of builders sand;

two 50 mm diameter clamps (approximately 250 mm in width);


3

power drill; and

hacksaw.

Providing airlifting equipment described below:

one 50 mm diameter PVC elbow with a 20 mm hole drilled in the upper part;

100 m of HDPE PN 10 or greater, 20 mm diameter;

2 hose clamps to fit 20 mm HDPE;

one whip check for 20 mm diameter HDPE;

one air valve for 20 mm HDPE;

fittings to connect HDPE 20 mm diameter to Air Compressor;

Air Compressor 100 PSI on trailer mounted minimum of 175 Cfm; and

6 m of PVC pipe 100 mm diameter.

Assembling the monitoring bore headwork for the airlifting.

Providing a water level dipper.

Supply of ice to keep samples chilled whilst in the field.

Supply of a refrigerator and freezer for sample storage whilst on standby for transport to the laboratory.

Provision of accommodation and food for Golder personnel whilst on-site.

4.0 WORK PROCEDURES Prior to going to site, several potential location for monitoring bore installation and testing will be selected, to be decided by both Golder and Flinders personnel. Flinders will perform a primary assessment of the existing resource drill hole condition, which will include the measurement of the water level as well as the depth of the open hole.

4.1 Slug Test Golder will carry out a series of slug tests in open boreholes with water level in the BIF (basement) and in the CID. Slug tests (rising head or falling head test) will be carried out in open boreholes to obtain a measure of the hydraulic conductivity of the ground around the borehole.

The main features of a slug test are the measurements of the recovery of water levels in the bore after a near-instantaneous change in water level in that bore. In more detail, it consists of the following steps:

1. An initial reading is taken of the depth to water under relatively stable conditions.

2. The water level in the bore is rapidly raised or lowered, e.g. by raising or lowering a slug or by adding or removing water.

3. A series of time - depth to water readings are taken.

4. The observations are plotted and analysed to assess the condition of the monitoring bore and estimate permeability of the ground in the zone immediately around the borehole.

4.1.1 Equipment The main equipment needed is a water level dipper, a pressure transducer and datalogger, a “slug”, and a stopwatch. The slug tests will be performed using a solid slug of known volume to avoid introducing water in the bore and to perform both falling head test and a rising head test subsequently.


4

4.1.2 Design of the Slug The design of the slug should be as follows:

The simplest slug design consists of a watertight PVC tube filled with sand (so that it sinks in water) and completely sealed at both ends with glued end caps. An eyehook screwed into the cap at the upper end allows the slug to be attached to a rope or cable. There should be no route for water to get inside the slug.

The maximum diameter of the slug should be at least 1 cm less than the minimum ID of the monitoring bore casing such that a transducer cable can run up the side of the slug without fouling/tangling.

If rope is used, the ends of the rope should be taped over with duct tape such that there are no loose ends of rope down the monitoring bore to get tangled with anything.

A slug of volume approximately 1 litre is ideal for testing a standard monitoring bore of ID 50 mm (e.g. 900 mm length by 37.5 mm diameter)

4.1.3 Slug Test Procedures 1) Note all time and depth/distance measurements on an appropriate form or in a field notebook. Data will

be recorded in the Hydraulic Testing Data sheet (Attachment C).

2) Measure and record water level from top of casing (TOC).

3) Measure and record depth of monitoring bore from TOC.

4) Measure and record the ID of the monitoring bore casing (typically 50 mm in monitoring bores).

5) Measure and mark (e.g. with tape) enough transducer cable to hang transducer close to, but above, bottom of monitoring bore whilst respecting the maximum water pressure recommended by the manufacturer.

6) Set datalogger to record depth to water in metres from top of casing. If it can be programmed to do so, the datalogger should be set to record water levels at high frequency (e.g. one/second) at early time with the time interval between measurements increasing “logarithmically” to one every 5 minutes. The datalogger should be programmed to record the data from both slug in and slug out tests.

7) If datalogger is to be set to start recording at a specific time, synchronise stopwatch with logger. On most loggers, the timing of the start of the test can either be pre-programmed into the datalogger, or can be manually activated at the same time as the slug is lowered.

8) Install transducer close to but not touching the bottom of the monitoring bore, whilst respecting the maximum pressure recommended for the transducer. (Ensure transducer does not slam into bottom of monitoring bore!). SECURE transducer at top of the monitoring bore such that it cannot move during slug test.

9) Tie rope securely to slug. Do not leave any loose ends of rope that can get tangled with anything. Tape down loose ends with duct tape.

10) Measure dimensions of slug such that volume of slug can be calculated (this can be useful information for estimating initial displacement in the analysis).

11) Measure length of slug and rope/cable such that base of slug can be placed immediately above, but not touching, the water in the monitoring bore. Mark rope for this positioning (e.g. with duct tape) such that mark on rope will be at TOC in its initial position. Place another mark on rope for TOC level with slug at fully submerged position if there is room above the top of the transducer for the slug to be completely submerged. Ensure slug is not lowered far enough to interfere with top of transducer. Cut rope with sufficient slack and tie the other end to a fixed object near the top of the monitoring bore and do not untie until the slug is completely removed from the monitoring bore.

12) Ensure water level has stabilised following transducer installation (in low K formations this can take a while). This can be done either by rechecking the water level using the same water level tape.


5

13) Once water level has stabilised, note the time in order to set reference depth on datalogger. It is displacement from the initial water level that we are interested in, rather than the absolute water level. Therefore, the reference depth can be set to zero, and all subsequent water levels will be recorded either as a positive or negative number, the magnitude of which is the water displacement from its initial level. Alternatively, the reference level can be set as the initial measured depth to water and the displacement can be calculated later.

14) Lower slug to just above water level and tie it off at that point (first mark on rope at TOC).

15) Start test by lowering slug quickly such that second mark on rope is at TOC and tying it off immediately at that level. Ensure slug is not lowered far enough to touch the top of the transducer. Datalogger should begin recording at the same time as the slug is lowered.

16) Intermittently check water level on datalogger during test. Ideally, it should have recovered to within 95% of its previous level before the test is terminated and a new one is begun.

17) Perform a rising head test using the same method in the same monitoring bore, except by completely removing the slug from the monitoring bore as quickly as possible.

4.1.4 Analysis Golder uses two software for the analysis of slug tests, “AQTESOLV 4.0 for Windows” and Hydrobench.

The preferred analysis method will be selected based on the formation, test, results and water level.

4.2 Monitoring Bore Installation The borehole selection for hydraulic testing is based on the following criteria:

Does not penetrate more than 10 m in basement.

Water level above the top of the tested aquifer.

Located in the middle of the valley.

Prior to installation, a final selection will be made based on the status of the drillhole, therefore, upon arrival, a final water level and depth measurements will be carried out. One monitoring bore will be installed in the CID in the upgradient portion of in Area D whilst two will be installed in the BID or in the CID in the downgradient portion of Area D.

The monitoring bores will be used to take water level measurements, collect groundwater samples and for hydraulic testing of a defined interval.

Monitoring bores on-site will have the following components:

Screen;

Casing;

Filter Pack;

Fine Sand Layer;

Annular Seal; and

Backfill.

Figure 1 illustrates these components. Note that the screen is typically placed at the base of the casing, with no interval of blank casing below it. This is not always possible. In the case where the borehole penetrates the basement, a blank sump section will be placed below the screened section of monitoring bore casing to case off the basement.


6

4.2.1 Screen and Casing The monitoring bore screen and casing allows access from the ground surface to the groundwater within the screened interval of the borehole. The monitoring bore casing and screen must be strong enough to withstand the stresses imposed on it during installation and development.

4.2.1.1 Materials The monitoring bore casing and screen should consist of an appropriate material in terms of strength, durability in long-term exposure to the groundwater, chemical inertness, ease of handling, and cost. The casing and screen should also fit in existing RC resource drillholes.

For the hydrogeological investigation, 50 mm inside diameter (ID) Class 12 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) satisfies these criteria. External diameter of this pipe is about 60 mm. The screen will be 6m in length. The screen slot size will be 0.5 mm which will retain the recommended 90% of the filter pack or more.

4.2.1.2 Screen and Casing Placement 1) The total length of screen and casing assembly should be measured by the field representative before

or during assembly such that the depth of the base of the screen is known to the nearest centimetre upon placement.

2) The screen and casing is lowered one length at a time using a crane truck, clamps and ropes.

3) A wooden plate with its 80 mm diameter opening, is installed over the open hole.

4) A clamp is attached at the upper end of the first length which is lowered through the 80 mm opening in the wooden plate, until it is stopped by the wooden plate (width of the clamps > 80 mm diameter opening in the plate).

5) The second clamp is attached to the second PVC length and lifted using the crane truck.

6) The two PVC lengths are then glued and screwed together, to accelerate the installation.

7) The total length is slightly lifted by the crane-truck, and the lower clamp is removed.

8) The PVC is then lowered into the hole until the clamp is stopped by the wooden plate.

9) Steps 5 to 8 are repeated until the PVC reach the depth of the borehole.

10) The screen and casing are then slightly raised so that they are suspended immediately above the base of the borehole during placement of the filter pack to prevent the slots from distorting.

4.2.2 Filter Pack Sediment in monitoring bores affects the quality of groundwater samples, causes practical problems during sampling, reduces available drawdown, and affects the accuracy of aquifer property testing such as slug testing. The primary purpose of the filter pack is to prevent sediment from the formation moving into the monitoring bore screen. In addition, the filter pack stabilises the borehole test interval and minimises settlement of materials above the monitoring bore screen.

4.2.2.1 Material If the formation is known to be sufficiently coarse to be retained by the monitoring bore screen alone, it is possible to install monitoring bores without a filter pack. However, in order to minimise settlement of materials above the monitoring bore screen, it is preferable to use a filter pack as a formation stabiliser even in a coarse formation.

The filter pack should consist of clean quartz sand. Ideally, it should be sized such that its 70% retained (30% passing) grainsize is no more than approximately 5 times the 70% retained (30% passing) formation grainsize. In general a filter pack should be selected that is visibly coarser than the formation.

The monitoring bores primary purpose is for hydraulic testing. Since the formation tested is believed to be highly permeable, it is recommended to use a coarser sand, 3-6 mm, to avoid interference with the hydraulic testing.


7

4.2.2.2 Placement The filter packed interval is effectively the screened interval of the monitoring bore. It is typically important that monitoring bores collect samples are representative of the discrete zone of interest in the site hydrostratigraphy and that hydraulic testing targets the right unit.

The filter pack must be placed such that it completely fills the annular space around the screen and eliminates bridging, segregation of the filter pack, or collapse of the borehole wall against the screen. It is the responsibility of the Field Representative to verify and document this process.

The top of the filter pack should be checked during placement with a decontaminated weighted tape. The expected volume of filter pack required to fill to the planned level should be calculated based on the known borehole size and casing size. The actual volume of filter pack used should be approximately measured (for example using a bucket of known volume). These values should be documented by the Field Representative. A large discrepancy between the two volumes is evidence of bridging or an oversize borehole.

The filter pack will be placed all the way to the top of the targeted unit in order to test the entire aquifer layer.

4.2.3 Annular Seal The primary purpose of the annular seal is to prevent vertical migration of water and/or contaminants through the annulus between the monitoring bore casing and the borehole wall. The base of the seal also effectively provides the upper limit of the zone of monitoring of the monitoring bore i.e. it seals off the top of a discrete sampling zone.

4.2.3.1 Materials Materials used for annular seals should have a very low permeability. Typical materials used for the annular seal are bentonite or cement.

Bentonite has the particularly advantageous property of expanding into any voids upon hydration, as well as having a very low permeability. It is available in several forms, including pellets (uniformly shaped and sized and made by compression of bentonite powder), granules (irregularly sized and shaped raw bentonite), and powder. Bentonite pellets or granules should always be adequately hydrated. Bentonite pellets will be used for the Flinders’ monitoring bore construction.

It should be noted that bentonite can also affect the chemistry of groundwater as it has a high cation exchange capacity, and a high pH. Therefore, the pH and metallic ion content of the groundwater may be affected. However, the chemical effects of bentonite are typically negligible for most parameters of interest in groundwater monitoring bores.

Since the filter pack is coarse, a 0.5 m of very fine sand layer will be placed at the top of the filter pack to reduce any chemical effect of the bentonite on the chemistry of water samples as well as infiltration of the filter pack by the bentonite.

4.2.3.2 Placement The annular seal should be placed such that it completely fills the annular space around the screen and eliminates bridging, voids, or collapse of the borehole wall against the casing. It is the responsibility of the Field Representative to verify and document this process.

The expected volume of seal required to fill to the planned level should be calculated based on the known borehole size and casing size. The actual volume of fine sand and seal used should be approximately measured (for example using a bucket of known volume). These values should be documented by the Field Representative. A large discrepancy between the calculated volume and the actual volume is evidence of bridging or an oversize borehole.

4.2.4 Backfill The remaining portion of the annulus will be backfilled to prevent damage to the monitoring bore and stability.


8

4.2.4.1 Materials Typical materials used for the backfill are drilling cuttings or local sand and silt, dry, in a size that can easily go down the annulus. All oversized backfill material is to be avoided. If the drilling cuttings or the material around the bore are too coarse, appropriate size material should be transported to site.

4.2.4.2 Placement The backfill should be placed such that it completely fills the annular space around the screen and eliminates bridging, voids, or collapse of the borehole wall against the casing. It is the responsibility of the Field Representative to verify and document this process.

The expected volume of backfill required to fill to the planned level should be calculated based on the known borehole size and casing size. The actual volume of backfill should be approximately measured (for example using a bucket of known volume). These values should be documented by the Field Representative. A large discrepancy between the two volumes is evidence of bridging or an oversize borehole.

The backfill is installed from the top of the annular seal up to ground level.

4.2.5 Finalisation The clamp can be removed and detached from the crane-truck. The PVC above ground will be cut at the appropriate length above ground, approximately 0.5 m, and an end cap will be used to close the monitoring well. The monitoring well ID will be written on the PVC.

We recommend installing a 500 × 500 mm concrete plinth with a monitoring well ID.

4.2.5.1 Documentation The Field Representative is responsible for:

construction of the monitoring bore;

estimation of and actual volumes of filter pack and seal; and

completion of a monitoring bore installation sheet for each monitoring bore (Attachment A).

4.3 Development The primary objective of the development of a groundwater monitoring bore is to optimise communication between the monitoring bore and the formation such that samples obtained from the monitoring bore are likely to be representative of the groundwater in the formation. Additional purposes are to maximise the permeability of the formation and filter pack in the vicinity of the borehole wall by mobilising and removing any fines that may have accumulated, and to remove any fines that may collect inside the monitoring bore screen during the development process.

4.3.1 Method Monitoring bore development is necessary to remove fine particulate matter, commonly clay and silt, from the geologic formation near the monitoring bore intake, the filter pack and the screen. Pumping alone will not achieve this. Therefore, development should consist of surging as well as pumping, i.e. reversals of flow should be induced that can dislodge particulate matter more effectively than unidirectional flow. One of the most common methods of development is airlifting using compressed air. Note that if airlifting is used, the compressed air must be must be mineral oil free, and any development equipment that is used within the monitoring bore must be decontaminated prior to use. The following criteria should be met during development.

The total duration is largely dependent on the yield from the formation.

The groundwater flowrate during development should be measured and documented by the Field Representative using a development record form (Attachment B).

Monitoring bore development procedures should be conducted until the water produced from the monitoring bore is clear and free of sediment.


9

Temperature, pH, and conductivity of the pumped water will be measured and recorded by the Field Representative during development.

4.3.2 Material The airlift will be performed using a trailer mounted air compressor and using the following material:

Monitoring bore head material:

50 mm diameter PVC elbow.

PVC pipe 100 mm diameter.

Airlifting material:

HDPE PN 10 or greater, 20 mm diameter.

Hose clamp to fit 20 mm HDPE.

Whip check for 20 mm diameter HDPE.

Air valve for 20 mm HDPE.

Fittings to connect HDPE 20 mm diameter to Air Compressor.

Trailer Mounted Air Compressor 175 Cfm.

The set-up can be seen on Figures 2 and 3.

4.3.3 Installation 1) Locate the nearest sump that would not interfere with the aquifer test. If no sump is located near

enough, a new sump must be dug.

2) Note all time and depth/distance measurements on an appropriate form or in a field notebook. Data will be recorded in the Hydraulic Testing Data sheet (Attachment C).

3) Measure and record water level from top of casing (TOC).

4) Measure and record depth of monitoring bore from TOC.

5) Measure and record the ID of the monitoring bore casing (typically 50 mm in monitoring bores).

6) Measure and mark (eg with tape) enough transducer cable to hang transducer close to, but above, bottom of monitoring bore whilst respecting the maximum water pressure recommended by the manufacturer.

7) Set datalogger to record depth to water in metres from top of casing. If it can be programmed to do so, the datalogger should be set to record water levels at high frequency (e.g. one/second) at early time with the time interval between measurements increasing “logarithmically” to one every 5 minutes. The datalogger should be programmed to record the data from both slug in and slug out tests.

8) If datalogger is to be set to start recording at a specific time, synchronise stopwatch with logger. On most loggers, the timing of the start of the test can either be pre-programmed into the datalogger, or can be manually activated at the same time as the slug is lowered.

9) Install transducer close to but not touching the bottom of the monitoring bore, whilst respecting the maximum pressure recommended for the transducer. (Ensure transducer does not slam into bottom of monitoring bore!). SECURE transducer at top of the monitoring bore such that it cannot move during slug test.

10) Lower the HDPE pipe to the appropriate depth (50 to 60% submergence depending on depth of pressure transducer).

11) Secure the HDPE pipe with the hose clamp.


10

12) Fix the 50 mm PVC elbow to the monitoring bore.

13) Seal the HDPE pipe on the elbow orifice using silicon or duck tape.

14) Install the 100mm PVC pipe to discharge into the sump.

15) Start the air compressor and note the time.

16) Measure the flow rate at regular interval and note the time.

17) Monitor the sediment load using the bucket.

4.3.4 Measurement The flowrate will be measured using a known-volume bucket and a stopwatch, at the end of the 100 mm diameter PVC pipe. The volume is calculated by dividing the volume of the bucket in litres by the number of seconds necessary to fill it up. The flowrate is recorded in L/s with the time of measurement.

The water is left in the bucket and the amount of sediment accumulated at the bottom of the bucket is monitored. The airlift procedure can be stopped when no or only few sediment is found at the bottom of the bucket.

4.3.5 Documentation The Field Representative is responsible for recording:

the time at which the test started;

the depth of the air line;

the flowrate at regular intervals; and

the time at which the airlift was stopped.

4.4 Groundwater Sampling This section outlines the field procedure for carrying out the collection of representative groundwater data and samples from arrival at a monitoring bore to submission of groundwater samples for freight to the laboratory.

A standard Golder groundwater sampling record form should be completed at each monitoring bore. A copy of this form is provided as Attachment B. All groundwater sampling activities should be carried out sequentially as outlined below. All direct handling activities (equipment or samples) described below must be carried out whilst wearing disposable powder-free nitrile gloves.

The following procedures are described in more detail:

Decontamination procedure.

Collection of groundwater samples.

Shipment procedure.

Laboratory analysis.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) measures.

4.4.1 Decontamination Procedure All equipment that either enters the monitoring bore or carries water from the monitoring bore to the sampling container should either be dedicated to that particular monitoring bore or be decontaminated between each monitoring bore. The purpose of decontamination is to reduce the potential for cross contamination of analytes between monitoring bores. A fresh pair of Nitrile gloves should always be worn whilst carrying out the decontamination of field equipment. The following procedure should be used to decontaminate all non-dedicated groundwater sampling equipment:


11

Wash equipment in a solution of tap water and phosphate-free detergent (laboratory grade such as Deon 90).

Rinse in tap water.

Final rinse with deionised water.

4.4.2 Collection of Groundwater Samples A new pair of nitrile gloves should be used prior to collection of the sample into laboratory bottles. Groundwater will be collected into clean bottles, which have been labelled with the project number, date and an appropriate chain of custody (CoC) number, recorded as corresponding to that particular monitoring bore on the groundwater sampling form. Prior to collection of sample for dissolved metals, a 0.45 micron filter should be attached directly to the sampling syringe.

Once collected, all sample bottles should be placed in a chilled esky until the end of the day where they should be placed in a fridge until sent to the laboratory for analysis. Sufficient ice should be available to cool samples down prior to placement in the refrigerator.

4.4.3 Shipment Procedures At the end of each day, all samples collected should be placed in a refrigerated environment (ideal temperature 4°C, but ensure that samples do not freeze). Samples will be transported to the laboratories in Perth by the Golder field staff.

When sent to the laboratory, samples will be kept in eskies at a temperature of no more than 4°C, but above freezing point. Ice bricks should be used in preference to ice as this minimises leakage from the eskies, which is particularly important when air freight is being used. All glass containers should be packed in bubble wrap to reduce the likelihood of breakage during transport. A Chain of Custody form must be fully completed for all samples and included in the esky for the laboratory’s instruction.

4.4.4 Laboratory Analysis Representative primary water samples collected during the groundwater monitoring program will be submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory for analysis of the following analytes:

Major and minor cations and anions (Na, Mg, K, Ca, Cl-, F-).

Total suspended and dissolved solids (TSS/TDS).

Turbidity.

Acidity and alkalinity as CaCO3.

Dissolved metals (Al, Ag, As, B, Ba, Bi, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Li, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Te, Th, Tl, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, V, U and Zn).

Nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total nitrogen, total phosphorus).

Sulfate/sulfite.

4.4.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Each groundwater sample will be collected using dedicated nitrile gloves and dedicated high density polyethylene tubing. Each sample will be placed into clean laboratory supplied bottles containing relevant preservatives (where required). Samples for dissolved metals analysis will be field filtered with a single-use disposable 0.45 micron filter prior to mixing with preservative. Samples will be stored under cool conditions in an esky with ice or freezer bricks while in the field and in transit to the laboratory. Each sample, including all quality assurance samples, will be assigned a unique Sample Control Number, recorded on a Chain of Custody (CoC) form with all other relevant sampling information. A CoC record will be kept for samples from the time of sample collection until delivery to the laboratory.

We have not allowed for duplicate or triplicate groundwater samples during this campaign. The water quality samples provide a preliminary assessment of water quality.


12

For the baseline environmental water sampling, an appropriate number of water samples as well as duplicate and triplicate samples will be required.

A review of the laboratory’s quality system will also be carried out to assess whether:

the samples submitted are analysed and extracted within appropriate holding times;

an appropriate number of laboratory quality control samples are analysed;

RPDs for laboratory duplicates are within acceptable limits;

spike recoveries are within the acceptable range;

surrogate recoveries are within the acceptable range; and

soncentrations in laboratory blanks are below detection limits.

4.5 Hydraulic Testing 4.5.1 Recovery Tests A recovery test will be carried out in monitoring bores to assess the transmissivity of the tested aquifer. A recovery test is performed after a formation has been stressed (airlifted or pumped) for a known period of time, and consist in stopping the stress and measure the recovery of the water level within the stressed/tested formation.

1) An initial reading is taken of the depth to water under relatively stable conditions.

2) The water level in the monitoring bore is stressed either by pumping or airlifting for a known length of time.

3) The water level is measured immediately prior to stopping the stress.

4) The time is noted when the stress is stopped.

5) The water level is measured at regular interval.

6) The observations are plotted and analysed to assess transmissivity of the formation.

4.5.1.1 Equipment The main equipment needed is a water dipper, a pressure transducer and datalogger, an air compressor, the monitoring bore head set-up shown on Figures 2 and 3, and a stopwatch.

4.5.1.2 Recovery Test Procedures 1) The initial installation was performed prior to starting the airlift, including the notes, programmation and

installation of the datalogger.

2) Start test by stopping the air compressor and noting the time at which it was stopped.

3) Intermittently check water level with the water level dipper and note the time. Ideally, the water level should have recovered to within 95% of its previous level before the airlift was started.

In addition to the recorded water level/time data, the following data should be recorded for each monitoring bore tested:

Borehole, location and date.

Duration of airlift test.

Final flowrate of airlift test.

Depth to stable water level before test, measured from top of pipe.

Depth of borehole from ground level to bottom of test section.


13

Depth from ground level to bottom of the bentonite seal, i.e. top of test section.

Depth to top and bottom of aquifer, if known.

Diameter of borehole in test section.

Diameter (inside) of riser pipe above screen.

Diameter (inside) of monitoring bore screen.

Borehole inclination.

4.5.1.3 Analysis Golder Associates Australia uses two software for the analysis of slug test, “AQTESOLV 4.0 for Windows” and Hydrobench.

For analysis, the data must first be converted to time/displacement from the initial static condition. The time/displacement data can then be imported directly into the software.

The preferred analysis method will be selected based on the formation, test, results and water level.

5.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY The work will be carried out in accordance with the general Health and Safety Plan, which is currently being developed for the costeaning programme.

A job safety analysis (JSA) has been carried out for the following tasks:

Installation of monitoring bore (Attachment D).

Airlifting including the use of an air compressor (Attachment E).

Groundwater sampling (Attachment F).

CLOSING Golder has prepared this work procedure as a working document which may be revised following comment from Flinders Mine Ltd or prior to the commencement of work where improvements or alterations to the scope or methodology are required.

Yours faithfully GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Geneviève Marchand Hydrogeologist GM/JJV/sp Attachments: Figure 1: Construction Details Monitoring Bore

Figure 2: Monitoring Bore Airlift Details Figure 3: Airlift Set-up Details A – Monitoring Bore Installation Sheer B – Groundwater Development, Purging and Sampling Data Sheet C – Hydraulic Testing Data Sheet D – Job Safety Analysis – Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells E – Job Safety Analysis – Development of Groundwater Monitoring Wells F – Job Safety Analysis – Groundwater Sampling

m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461 009 tm rev0 field work procedures and jsa\097641461 009 tm reva-draft-fieldwork procedure.doc

ATTACHMENT A Monitoring Bore Installation Sheet

ATTACHMENT B Groundwater Development, Purging and Sampling Data Sheet

Golder Associates PF067 RL0 June 2008

Groundwater Development and Purging/Sampling Data Sheet □ Development □ Purge/Sample WELL NO.: ____________________________________ JOB NO.: ____________________________________

LOCATION: ____________________________________ COMPLETED BY: ____________________________________

WEATHER: ____________________________________ DATE: ____________________________________

TEMPERATURE: ____________________________________ TIME: ____________________________________ MONITORING WELL INFORMATION One well volume:

Depth to Water Below Top of Casing: A__________ (metres) (B-A)*2.0 = ____ litres -for a 51 mm (2.0 inch) diameter well

Depth to Bottom of Well Below Top of Casing: B__________ (metres) (B-A)*1.1 = ____ litres -for a 38 mm (1.5 inch) diameter well

Diameter Standpipe: C__________ (mm) EQUIPMENT LIST

pH and Temp. Meter: Model ______________ Serial No. ____________ Calibration Buffers: □4 □7 □10

Conductivity Meter: Model ______________ Serial No. ____________ Calibration Solutions: __________ and ______________

Dissolved Oxygen Meter: Model ______________ Serial No. ____________

Eh Meter: Model ______________ Serial No. ____________ Type __________________________________________

Pump: □ none □ Waterra □ Peristaltic □ Submersible

Bailer: □ none □ Stainless Steel □ Teflon □ PVC

Filter: □ Yes □ No

WELL DEVELOPMENT\PURGING

Purge volume: Well vol X ________ = ____________ litres Method: __________________________________________________

Flow Rate: ____________ L/min Volume ________ Start: __________________ Finish: ________________________

TIME VOLUME

REMOVED (L) Eh

(mV) TEMP (°C)

pH (UNITS)

COND. (uS/cm)

DIS.02 (mg/L) or %

REMARKS

Comments:

Odour: □no □ yes if yes ____________ Sheen □ no □ yes if yes ______________________

Turbidity Start: Clear | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Very Silty

Turbidity End: Clear | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Very Silty

Other: __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

BOTTLE Type Size: 40mL 100mL 250mL 500mL 1L 2L 4L Filtered Preservatives

1 □Plastic □ Glass ___ ____ ____ ____ __ __ __ □Yes □ No ______________








ATTACHMENT C Hydraulic Testing Data Sheet

Golder Associates

Hydraulic Testing Data Sheet

Slug Test

WELL NO.: ____________________________________ JOB NO.: ____________________________________


WEATHER: ____________________________________ DATE: ____________________________________

TEMPERATURE: ____________________________________ TIME: ____________________________________ MONITORING BORE INFORMATION

Depth to Water Below Top of Casing (b TOC): __________ (m bTOC)

Depth to Bottom of Well (b TOC) __________ (m bTOC)

Depth of Pressure Transducer (b TOC): __________ (m bTOC)

Depth of Pressure Transducer Below Water Level: __________ (m)

Time

slug in Water Level (m

bTOC) Time

slug out Water Level (m

bTOC) Time

troll out Water Level (m

bTOC) REMARKS

Time from start of test (min:s)

Water Level (m bTOC)





Golder Associates

Hydraulic Testing Data Sheet

Recovery Test

WELL NO.: ____________________________________ JOB NO.: ____________________________________


WEATHER: ____________________________________ DATE: ____________________________________

TEMPERATURE: ____________________________________ TIME: ____________________________________

MONITORING BORE INFORMATION

Depth to Water Below Top of Casing (b TOC): __________ (m bTOC)

Depth to Bottom of Well (b TOC) __________ (m bTOC)

Depth of Pressure Transducer (b TOC): __________ (m bTOC)

Depth of Pressure Transducer Below Water Level: __________ (m)

Time start of

airlift Water Level (m

bTOC) Time end of

airlift Water Level (m

bTOC) Time end of

recovery Water Level (m

bTOC) REMARKS

Time Flow Rate (L/s) Depth of Hose

(m bTOC) REMARKS

ATTACHMENT D Job Safety Analysis – Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Job Safety Analysis (JSA) Worksheet

Page 1 of 4 GAP Form No. HS1 RL2

Guidelines for Job Safety Analysis (JSA)

A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) is a process to identify hazards associated with each of the main steps making up a task and to develop solutions that will eliminate or control these hazards.

Undertaking a JSA

Step 1 Identify the job to be performed by the work team or individual.

Step 2 Break down the job into main tasks (steps) to be performed.

Step 3 Identify the hazards associated with each main task. • Could someone slip, trip of fall? • Could someone be struck by equipment? • Could someone become caught in equipment? • Is there any chemical exposure? • Could chemicals or substances spill? • Is the temperature or weather a factor? • Does the task involve the use of electrical equipment? • Are there any underground services? • Does the surrounding environment present any hazards? • Is fatigue likely to be a factor? • Could members of the public / contractors be harmed? • Could the task result in environmental harm?

Step 4 Determine the most appropriate measure(s) to control each hazard using the hierarchy of controls.

• Eliminate the hazard. • Substitute the hazard; • Introduction of engineering controls; • Introduce administrative controls; • Use personal protective clothing and equipment.

Step 5 Using the Risk Matrix, assess the residual risk that would be present once the control has been implemented.

Remember: Contact your Project Manager before proceeding if the residual risk is ‘Very High’ or ‘High’.

Step 6 Record the JSA results on the following pages and monitor the controls for effectiveness during the task.

Risk Matrix

Consequence or Impact Description: Insignificant

1 No injuries, low financial loss, minimal environmental impact.

Minor 2 First aid treatment, environmental impact can be managed with existing procedures and equipment, limited financial loss.

Significant 3 Medical treatment required, short-term environmental impact requiring assistance to manage, moderate financial loss.

Major 4 Extensive injuries, loss of production capability, environmental impact with potential long-term impact, high financial loss.

Catastrophic 5 Death, large scale, long term environmental impact with detrimental effect, very high financial loss.

Likelihood Description: Almost certain 5 Incident will occur in every circumstance (e.g. every time).

Likely 4 Incident will probably occur (e.g. 1 in 10 times).

Possible 3 Incident may occur at sometime (e.g. 1 in 100 times).

Unlikely 2 Incident not expected to occur, but conceivable (e.g. 1 in 1, 000 times).

Rare 1 Incident would only occur in exceptional circumstances (e.g. 1 in 10,000

times).

Risk Analysis Matrix: Consequence : Likelihood : Catastrophic

5 Major

4 Significant

3 Minor

2 Insignificant

1 Almost Certain 5 25 (VH) 20 15 10 5 Likely 4 20 16 (H) 12 8 4 Possible 3 15 12 9 (M) 6 3 Unlikely 2 10 8 6 4 (L) 2 Rare 1 5 4 3 2 1 (VL)



Activity/ Equipment:

Installation of groundwater monitoring wells at Flinders Mine

OR Project No: 097641461 Short Title: Installation of groundwater monitoring wells (If Applicable) (If Applicable)

Analysis By: Geneviève Marchand Date : 12 / 01 / 10

Site Staff: Name: Signature: Name: Signature:

Name: Signature: Name: Signature:


Steps List the steps required to perform the activity in the sequence they

are carried out.

Hazards Against each step list the hazards that could

cause injury or environmental impact.

Risk control measures List the control measures required to eliminate or minimise the risk of injury arising from the

identified hazards.

Residual Risk Score Risk when control(s) are in

place

Access to egress from monitoring wells or standpipe

Trip, slip fall

Plan your route of travel to the monitoring well to avoid areas with loose or rough surfaces and sudden changes in level.

6 (Low)

Vehicle movements Move the vehicle to be close to the location of the well, inspect the area for access, soft ground, obstacles that may damage the vehicle. If possible, drive in and drive out of the location, rather than reversing. If you need to reverse, consider the use of a spotter to guide you.

6 (Low)

Delineate work area Other area activities Assess what other activities are going on around you. Consider the potential for others to access your work area and delineate your work zone appropriately. In some circumstances traffic management may be required. At a minimum, use bollards and tape to delineate your work zone.

Use your work vehicle to assist in delineating your work zone.

6 (Low)




are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Prepare monitoring well Laceration from handtools When cutting PVC pipe ensure it is placed on a stable surface. Do not lean the pipe against your body when cutting.

Retractable safety knives or scissors should be used to cut filter sock.

6 (Low)

Chemical Where possible use screw fittings to eliminate the need to use glue. PVC glues are considered hazardous substances, primarily due to

vapour and potential skin contact. Safety glasses and nitrile gloves (or similar) must be worn when handling glues.

6 (Low)

Install monitoring well Overhead obstructions Ensure the area immediately above the monitoring well location is clear to allow for the installation of the length of PVC pipe.

6 (Low)

Manual handling Position your work vehicle to minimize carrying of equipment to the monitoring well location.

Consider decanting filter pack, bentonite pellets and cement into a bucket to transport them to the well site. This will reduce the need to carry heavy loads. If this is not possible use the handle or hold the bag as close to your body as possible to reduce the force on the spine.

Position yourself to minimize bending of the back (e.g. kneel on the ground when pouring filter pack or bentonite around well.

9 (Moderate)

Chemical Bentonite is a considered a hazardous substance, primarily due to the potential to generate dust. If used in a well ventilated area the risk is low.

6 (Low)

Environmental If possible, replace spoil from drilling around the monitoring well. Do not dispose of excess spoil near waterways.

If the site is likely to contain contaminants, excess spoil must be removed from site and disposed of in accordance with local requirements.

6 (Low)




are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Use of cement / concrete (sealing or installation of monument)

Most cements and concrete are considered a hazardous substance, primarily due to the potential to generate dust and also potentially to irritate skin.

Minimise dust generation when handling dry material.

Wear nitrile gloves (or similar) to protect hands when handling wet material.

12 (Moderate)

ATTACHMENT E Job Safety Analysis – Development of Groundwater Monitoring Wells





Undertaking a JSA









Risk Matrix












times).


5 Major

4 Significant

3 Minor

2 Insignificant





Development of Groundwater Monitoring wells and use of an air compressor at Flinders Mine

OR Project No: 097641461 Short Title: Development (If Applicable) (If Applicable)






are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Lifting and carrying equipment (muscle strains) Correct lifting techniques

2 people lifting when required

Gloves and work boots should be worn at all time

9 (Moderate)

Slips trips and falls Pinch points House keeping

Identify uneven ground

Effective communication

6 (Low)

Fire hazard from vegetation entrapment and exhaust contact while using light vehicle

Inspection of undercarriage of vehicles

Park with exhaust away from Spinifex

Carry a fire extinguisher

6 (Low)

Mobilisation and de-mobilisation of equipment

Unhooking and hooking compressor to the back of the light vehicle Stretching prior to shift

Identify uneven ground

Effective communication Correct lifting techniques

2 people lifting when required

Gloves and standard PPE should be worn at all time

6 (Low)




are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Building up the airlifting unit Attaching elbow, joiners and T-pieces to the PVC Use rechargeable drill to install screws

Wear earplug, safety glasses, gloves and Standard PPE 6 (Low)

Preparation for the Recovery test

Installing pressure transducers in bore holes using wire lines Ensure wire line has not frayed and/or contains sharp areas

Wear gloves 6 (Low)

Air hose becoming detached from the compressor Use whip checks and clips to secure hose

Start off with low air volume and increase slowly

Install an air volume regulator

9 (Moderate) Use of an air compressor

Air hose coming out of monitoring bore Ensure the poly line is secured prior to starting the compressor 9 (Moderate)

Working in hot and humid conditions

Heat stress Sunburn Dehydration Mental stress

Work under shade where possible

Wear sunscreen, a wide-brim hat, sunglasses

Regular breaks when required

Regular fluid intake (incl.Aqualyte)

Observe each other for signs of stress

9 (Moderate)

Working in an undeveloped area

Insect / Animal Bites Spinfex Spines

Standard PPE

First Aid Kit

Gaitors (if required)

Insect Repellent

Radio Communication

Compression bandage

Fly Net

6 (Low)

ATTACHMENT F Job Safety Analysis – Groundwater Sampling





Undertaking a JSA









Risk Matrix












times).


5 Major

4 Significant

3 Minor

2 Insignificant





Groundwater Sampling at Flinders Mine

OR Project No: 097641461 Short Title: Groundwater sampling (If Applicable) (If Applicable)






are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Trip, slip fall Plan your route of travel to the monitoring well to avoid areas with loose or rough surfaces and sudden changes in level.

If a number of sample containers or equipment is to be taken to the monitoring well a backpack or similar should be used.

6 (Low) Access to egress from monitoring wells or standpipe

Vehicle movements If you are planning to move the vehicle to be close to the well head, inspect the area for access, soft ground, obstacles that may damage the vehicle. If possible, drive in and drive out of the location, rather than reversing. If you need to reverse, consider the use of a spotter to guide you.

Delineate work area Other area activities Assess what other activities are going on around you. Consider the potential for others to access your work area and delineate your work zone appropriately.

Use your work vehicle to assist in delineating your work zone.




are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Fauna Spiders and other insects can often be found in and around the monitoring well lid. Avoid placing your fingers inside the lid when opening. Wear leather gloves to protect your hands.

6 (Low)

Sharp edges Wear leather gloves (or another approved type) when opening the well lid or standpipe. Sharp edges may be present and the use of hand tools may be required.

6 (Low)

Opening lid of monitoring well or standpipe

Manual Handling Position your work vehicle to minimise carrying of equipment between sample locations.

Use a steel security line to lower equipment into wells. Avoid using hosing to lower equipment.

9 (Moderate)

Equipment set-up Electricity For sampling where electricity is to be used to power a pump or compressor: Consider if you are working near a source of flammable vapour.

If so, employ ‘hotwork’ management procedures. Note that the groundwater well may be a source of flammable vapour.

Use equipment that has been tested and tagged, which is in date.

Do not place electrical equipment on wet ground, or use when raining.

12 (Moderate)

Equipment setup (continued)

Contamination (skin contact) Nitrile gloves shall be worn at all times after opening the standpipe lid and throughout the process until analysis is complete.

Dispose of water away from yourself to avoid splashing onto clothing.

Full length clothing is to be worn when groundwater sampling. Where hydrocarbon contamination is known to be present, cotton clothing is to be worn.

6 (Low)

Manual handling Position yourself to minimise bending of the back. A collapsible stool may be required if standpipe is near ground level.

9 (Moderate) Undertake sampling

Chemical (preservatives - acids) Safety glasses to be worn when opening sample bottles containing nitric acid.

Open sample bottles at arm’s length to minimise slashing and exposure to odour.

9 (Moderate)




are carried out.




identified hazards.


place

Have MSDS sheets for all chemical preservatives

Undertake sampling (cont.)

Handling groundwater during sampling Splash into eyes or onto skin, dermal contact/ingestion

Reduce potential for exposure by employing appropriate handling techniques as trained

Ensure field staff are trained and competent

Long sleeves, long pants & nitrile gloves when collecting/handling samples

Eye wash bottles

9 (Moderate)

Environmental Do not place any contaminated water in an area where it could enter a waterway.

It may be necessary to place a sheet of plastic on the ground and fill sample bottles over a bucket to ensure significantly contaminated water does not contact the ground.

If there is no suitable place to dispose of water on site, arrange with the client to dispose of it off-site in accordance with local requirements.

6 (Low)

March 2010

FLINDERS MINES IRON ORE PROJECT

Initial Groundwater Investigation: Area Delta

REPO

RT

Report Number: 097641461-10-R-RevB Distribution: 1 copy - Worley Parsons (Electronic Only) 1 copy - Flinders Mines Ltd (Electronic Only) 1 copy - Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Electronic Only)

Submitted to:Nick Corlis Flinders Mines Ltd 62 Beulah Road NORWOOD SA 5067

GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION: AREA DELTA

March 2010 Report No. 097641461-10-R-RevB

Executive Summary

Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) was commissioned by Mr Nick Corlis of Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) to undertake a groundwater investigation of the iron ore resource at Area Delta (Area D) of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project. The site is located within the Hamersley Ranges in the Central Pilbara, approximately 50 km north-west of Tom Price.

As part of the pre-feasibility study, Flinders need to identify a reliable water supply for the operations and need to assess the dewatering requirements from the open pit.

The objectives of this study were to assess at a preliminary level:

The groundwater resource potential of Area D; and

The potential groundwater inflow rates into the open pit.

The water supply requirements are not yet known and depend on throughput, method used for processing and other factors. Water supply requirements may range between 42 L/s to 700 L/s depending on throughput water supply requirements for processing.

There are three main aquifers in the Flinders Region, unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers, Channel Iron Deposits (CIDs) and Bedded Iron Deposits (BIDs) and fractured-rock aquifers. In Area D, CIDs, BIDs as well as a fractured-rock aquifer (fractured basement BIF) were encountered. CID deposits in the Pilbara are known to have high hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity.

The fieldwork programme included aquifer testing targeted the three saturated units in Area D, the CID, the BID and the basement rock (BM). The fieldwork included the installation of 3 monitoring wells, two of which were targeting the BID aquifer and one was targeting the CID. The monitoring wells in the BID were developed using airlifting technique, following development, the monitoring wells were sampled and the groundwater level recovery was monitored. Several open boreholes and the monitoring well in the CID were hydraulically tested using slug tests. A pumping test and recovery test was performed on the water supply in Area D.

Hydraulic conductivity values for both the CID and BID are high, varying between 1 × 10-3 m/s and 2 × 10-5 m/s (similar to gravel to medium grained sand). The hydraulic conductivity of the underlying fractured BIF is lower, varying between 1 × 10-5 m/s and 2 × 10-6 m/s.

In general, groundwater quality is very good. The TDS was below 300 mg/L for all samples, and all parameters were below the recommended drinking water standard (NHMRC, 2004). All groundwater samples showed a similar chemical signature.

The ore body is located in a valley bounded on three sides by hills and on the fourth side by the tenement limit. Groundwater inflow within the pit is estimated to be coming from three sources:

The storage within the ore body of the proposed pit;

The aquifer within the CID/BID outside the tenement limit; and

Flow from the BIF units underlying the orebody.

The storage values were estimated using the saturated volume of each unit and a range of potential effective porosity.

The storage within the ore body was calculated to range between 142,000 and 3.6 million m3.

The potential inflow from the CID/BID aquifer outside the tenement was calculated to be around 30 L/s or 2,600 kL/day.



The storage within the BIF underlying the ore body ranges between 1.33 and 13.3 million m3.

Based on the information at hand, the following is noted:

Groundwater levels are deep and most of the ore body (75%) is above the groundwater level, no dewatering would be required over most of the site, with the exception of the deeper ore body at the lower part of the valley in Area D.

Groundwater would need to be lowered in advanced of mining to promote dry mine working conditions, Without dewatering, inflow rates into the open pit is expected to be very high, possibly more than 100 L/s. Groundwater levels can be lowered through a number of dewatering wells.

There is an opportunity to use the groundwater in Area D as a water supply. Groundwater levels in the lower part of the valley in Area D can be lowered in advance, and this water may be used as the water supply for the process plant, dust suppression and potable water.

The following water management issues might be expected depending on the throughput and process options:

Potential Groundwater Management Issues Scenario Potential Water Issues

Scenario 1: Throughput of between 5 and 10 Mtpa, no beneficiation and mine life of between 5 and 10 years

Almost Water Neutral Water pumped from dewatering operations might meet water supply requirements – some disposal of excess water or some additional water supply regions may need to be identified

Scenario 2: Throughput of between 5 and 10 Mtpa, beneficiation and mine life of between 5 and 10 years

Almost Water Neutral Water pumped from dewatering operations and water supply extracted from the basement might meet water supply requirements – some disposal of excess water or some additional water supply regions may need to be identified

Scenario 3: Throughput of more than10 Mtpa, no beneficiation and mine life of less than 10 years

Water Deficit Water pumped from dewatering operations and basement aquifer may not meet water supply – additional water supply sources need to be identified, possibly from areas from within the Flinders tenement

Scenario 4: Throughput of more than10 Mtpa, beneficiation and mine life of less than 10 years

Water Deficit Water pumped from dewatering operations and basement aquifer will not meet water supply. It is possible that more than one additional water supplies might need to be identified, possibly from areas outside the Flinders tenement

Based on the data collected throughout this hydrogeological assessment, and in order to gather more reliable value of storage and inflow, it is recommended that Flinders:

Carry out a long-term pumping tests and recovery in the CID/BID aquifer, and monitor the groundwater level in adjacent observation bores in order to assess the specific yield of the aquifer, as well as confirm the transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity;



Install additional groundwater monitoring wells along the tenement boundary in the CID/BID aquifer area in order to obtain a better understanding of the aquifer thickness and profile in the area and to assess potential groundwater related effects outside the tenement;

For Scenarios 3 and 4, investigate the aquifer potential in other areas within the tenement, such as Area E, which could have potential for water supply; and

For Scenario 4, carry out a desktop review of the potential groundwater supply sources in the region.

Once the open pit(s), mine waste facilities and process plant locations have been identified, more specific groundwater studies will be required to better assess the potential groundwater related effects on the environment.


March 2010 Report No. 097641461-10-R-RevB i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objectives..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Water Requirements..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTINGS ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2.1 Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Local Geological Setting ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.1 Regional Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1.1 Department of Water Database ........................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1.2 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Monitoring Well Installation......................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Monitoring Well Development ..................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Monitoring Well Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Aquifer Testing ........................................................................................................................................... 15

3.4.1 Slug Test............................................................................................................................................... 15

3.4.2 Airlift Recovery Test .............................................................................................................................. 15

3.4.3 Pumping and Recovery Test................................................................................................................. 16

3.4.4 Aquifer Testing Analysis........................................................................................................................ 16

4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Groundwater Level ..................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Aquifer Characteristics................................................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Groundwater Chemistry.............................................................................................................................. 19

4.3.1 Dissolved Metals ................................................................................................................................... 21

5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 22

5.1 Depth to Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 22

5.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Aquifer Parameters..................................................................................... 24


March 2010 Report No. 097641461-10-R-RevB ii

5.3 Groundwater Flow Directions, Gradients and Velocities............................................................................. 24

5.4 Groundwater Chemistry.............................................................................................................................. 25

5.5 Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Zones ........................................................................................... 25

5.6 Groundwater Storage and Inflow Rates...................................................................................................... 25

5.7 Groundwater Supply and Demand.............................................................................................................. 26

5.8 Potential Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 26

5.9 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 27

5.10 Options for Discharging Excess Pumped Groundwater.............................................................................. 27

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................ 27

7.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................... 27

TABLES Potential Groundwater Management Issues ....................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Water Requirement per Processing Option........................................................................................................... 3 Table 3: Water Requirement as Flow Rate (L/s) ................................................................................................................. 4 Table 4: Average Temperature 1997-2010 (Tom Price Weather Station) ........................................................................... 4 Table 5: Average Monthly Rainfall 1972-2009 (Tom Price Weather Station) ...................................................................... 5 Table 6: Most Prospective Aquifers in the Central Pilbara .................................................................................................. 8 Table 7: DoW Database Summary.................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 8: Lithological Summary of the Selected Bores....................................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Airlift Details ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 10: Groundwater Level Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 16 Table 11: Aquifer Testing Results ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 12: Range of Hydraulic Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 19 Table 13: Hydraulic Conductivity with Location in the Valley............................................................................................. 19 Table 14: Ion Balance Results .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 15: Physical Parameters and Major Ions Analytical Results.................................................................................... 20 Table 16: Dissolved Metals ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 17: Saturated Zone.................................................................................................................................................. 22 Table 18: Aquifer Average Hydraulic Parameters ............................................................................................................. 24 Table 19: Estimated Effective Porosity.............................................................................................................................. 24 Table 20: Range of Estimated Storage per Unit................................................................................................................ 25 Table 21: Total Estimated Storage in the Area in BM ....................................................................................................... 26 Table 22: Groundwater Storage Life in Years per Processing Option............................................................................... 26


March 2010 Report No. 097641461-10-R-RevB iii

FIGURES

Within text

Figure 1: Flinders (FMS) Hamersley Tenements (Flinders, 2009) ...................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Resource Areas within the E47/882 Lease Outline .............................................................................................. 2 Figure 3: Climate Data from Tom Price Weather Station, Pilbara ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Site Stratigraphy Profile ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Gravel pack installation ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Airlift Set-up ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Flowrate Measurement ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Piper Plot ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9: Saturated Zones................................................................................................................................................. 23

After text

Figure A: Department of Water Database Well Locations

Figure B: Hydraulic Test Locations

Figure C: Water Level Contours

Figure D: Potential for Groundwater Downgradient from the Tenement Limit in Area Delta

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Department of Water Database APPENDIX B Monitoring Well Logs APPENDIX C Aquifer Test Analyses APPENDIX D Groundwater Sample Analytical Results APPENDIX E Limitations


March 2010 Report No. 097641461-10-R-RevB 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) was commissioned by Mr Nick Corlis of Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) to undertake a groundwater investigation of the iron ore resource at Area Delta (Area D) of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project. The site is located within the Hamersley Ranges in the Central Pilbara, approximately 50 km north-west of Tom Price (Figure 1) and Area D is located within the exploration lease E47/882 (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Flinders (FMS) Hamersley Tenements (Flinders, 2009)

1.1 Objectives As part of the pre-feasibility study, Flinders need to identify a reliable water supply for the operations. They also need to assess the dewatering requirements from the open pit.

The objectives of this study were to assess at a preliminary level:

The groundwater resource potential of Area D; and

The potential groundwater inflow rates into the open pit.

The study results are a first estimate and more work is required to refine these estimates once the mine plan, mine schedule and project water requirements are known.



Figure 2: Resource Areas within the E47/882 Lease Outline

Typically, Channel Iron Deposits (CID) formations in the Pilbara area have a high hydraulic conductivity and hence, high groundwater inflows are usually expected into the open pit once mining below the water table commences. Water management is therefore closely associated with the mine development. There is no data available concerning the hydrogeology of Bedded Iron Deposit (BID) formations, based on their vuggy nature; Golder believes that they will have a high hydraulic conductivity.

Furthermore, a groundwater supply would be required during construction and during operations prior to mining below the groundwater level. The formations on the Flinders tenement are potential targets for this groundwater supply.

The following factors were considered to assess whether the formations are suitable as a potential groundwater supply:

The potential yield of groundwater supply wells targeting the CID and BID formations;

The groundwater volume (storage) which is available from the valleys on the tenement; and

Potential hydraulic connection with regional hydrogeological units, for example geological structures in the Proterozoic sediments underlying the CID and BID formations.

The potential well field targeting the CID and BID formations would also have a secondary function of dewatering the deposit in advance of mining.

1.2 Scope of Work The groundwater investigation comprised:

A desktop study to characterise the regional and local groundwater conditions;



A field programme, aimed at installing groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater sampling and hydraulic testing; and,

Analysis and report writing.

The report will:

Describe the hydrogeological setting at the proposed mine;

Provide a preliminary assessment of the suitability of the geological formations for use as a groundwater supply (including an initial assessment of groundwater storage);

Provide options for discharging excess pumped groundwater;

Describe potential affects on third party users and the environment; and,

Provide recommendations for work required during the feasibility stage.

1.3 Water Requirements Worley Parsons provided the water requirements for the different processing options. Mining and haul road dust suppression water requirement has not yet been estimated. The different options are:

Option 1: All fines dry processing (3 stage crushing process);

Option 2: Fines and lump dry processing (2 stage crushing);

Option 2a: Lump and Fines dry processing (all natural fines and lump mixed with generated lump and fines);

Option 3: All fines wet processing (natural fines);

Option 4: Lump and fines wet processing natural fines only;

Option 5: All fines (all material scrubbed, wet screened and all natural fines treated); and,

Option 6: Lump and fines or all fines (wet process lump and fines or all fines, reject all material < 1-3 mm).

The different option water requirements are described in Table 1 and in Table 2.

Table 1: Water Requirement per Processing Option Water Usage (L/tonne)

Throughput Option 1 Option 2 Option

2a Option

3 Option 4 Option 5

Option 6

5 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500 10 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500 15 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500 20 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500 25 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500 30 Mtpa 200 200 200 700 700 700 500

Note: Mtpa million tons per year

As a rule of thumb, dust suppression in the Pilbara requires 1 L/s per Mtpa with a minimum of 10 L/s. This estimated requirement was added to the processing water requirements. The range of flow rate required is presented in Table 2. At this stage, the life of the mine is unknown.



Table 2: Water Requirement as Flow Rate (L/s) Throughput Option 1 Option 2 Option 2a Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6

5 Mtpa 42 42 42 121 121 121 89 10 Mtpa 73 73 73 232 232 232 169 15 Mtpa 110 110 110 348 348 348 253 20 Mtpa 147 147 147 464 464 464 337 25 Mtpa 184 184 184 580 580 580 421 30 Mtpa 220 220 220 696 696 696 506

The range of flow rates required for the different options vary between 42 to 696 L/s.

2.0 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTINGS The morphology of the landscape is variable, and shaped by the structure of the underlying geology and imposed weathering processes (Van Vreeswyk and al., 2004). The Pilbara has moderately high relief with a number of ranges, river valleys and peneplains. The rangelands, including those on the tenement, are mostly rugged with prominent strike ridges and hills of outcropping rock separating deep valleys in which thick sequences of infill material have locally accumulated. Area D, where the groundwater investigation took place, is located within one of these valleys. Stream flows are mostly ephemeral and generally only flow after high intensity rainfall events.

2.1 Climate The climate in the Pilbara region is classified as arid-tropical, with two distinct seasons. Summers are hot and occur from October to April whilst winters are mild and last from May to September. The temperatures around the site are high in the summer months, with maximum temperatures varying between 33 to 38°C and minimum temperatures varying between 16 and 23°C (see Table 3). Winter temperatures are milder, with minimum temperatures reaching down to 7°C in July, whilst the maximum temperature can be as high as 29°C.

Table 3: Average Temperature 1997-2010 (Tom Price Weather Station) Month Min (°C) Max (°C)

January 23.0 38.5 February 22.3 35.8 March 20.4 33.9 April 17.4 31.4 May 12.1 27.6 June 8.0 23.2 July 7.1 23.0 August 8.4 25.6 September 11.4 29.2 October 16.0 33.6 November 18.8 35.6 December 21.7 37.8 Annual 15.5 31.3

Average yearly rainfall is around 400 mm based on the weather station in Tom Price (Table 4). Most of the rainfall occurs during the summer months. Figure 3 shows rainfall and temperature data from the Tom Price



weather station (Bureau of Meteorology, 2010). Rainfall events in the area are influenced by two primary climatic systems; a northern rainfall system associated with tropical lows, and a winter rainfall event associated with low pressure frontal systems (DoW, 2009).

Table 4: Average Monthly Rainfall 1972-2009 (Tom Price Weather Station) Month Rainfall (mm)

January 79.3 February 96.1 March 63.6 April 31.9 May 20.8 June 26.3 July 17.2 August 10.7 September 2.3 October 4.5 November 10.8 December 40.4 TOTAL 405.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApri

lMay

June Ju

ly

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

Novembe

r

Decembe

r

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120R

ainf

all (

mm

)

Mean Rainfall (mm) Mean Minimum Temperautre Mean Maximum Temperautre

Figure 3: Climate Data from Tom Price Weather Station, Pilbara



The evaporation rate in the Pilbara is considerably higher than the average rainfall. The Hamersley Range is located in the area with the lowest annual evaporation rate in the Pilbara, 3,000 mm per year (Van Vreeswyk and al., 2004).

2.2 Geology The following Regional Geology and Local Geology summaries have been adapted from 2008 Hamersley Report (Flinders, 2008) and from Golder Hamersley CID Resource Estimation report (Golder, 2009a).

2.2.1 Regional Geology The Hamersley Province contains late Archaean-Lower Proterozoic age (2800–2300 Ma) sediments of the Mount Bruce Supergroup situated between Archaean granitoid basement complexes of the Yilgarn and Pilbara blocks. The Supergroup has three sub-groups – the Fortescue, Hamersley and Turee Groups, which are overlain by remnants of the overlying Wyloo Group. The Hamersley Group Banded Iron Formations (BIFs) are the largest (in terms of contained iron), most extensive and thickest known in the stratigraphic record. On a regional scale, the Hamersley Group metasediments, including the BIF units, are described as relatively flat-lying along the northern margin of outcrop, becoming more complexly folded to the south.

The flat-lying BIF units of the Dales Gorge Member outcrop close to valley floor level in the Hamersley Ranges, therefore the valley systems are underlain by the Dales Gorge Member, McRae Shale or Mount Sylvia Formation. Local folding and faulting is present within the Brockman Iron Formation BIFs.

Flinders Mines Hamersley Project is exploring the cover material and the youngest units of the Tertiary sediments overlying the Hamersley Group, within the Marillana Formation. This formation is comprised of fluvial sediments occupying the Tertiary meandering palaeochannels of the Hamersley Basin, with the type sections for this unit in the central Hamersley Range area of the Pilbara region (such as at Yandi Mine).

Recent sediments include colluvial fan, colluvial sheetflood, and alluvial fan and depositional plain sediments within the highlands, and alluvial flood plain sediments within the low elevation areas of the Hamersley Ranges.

2.2.2 Local Geological Setting The Channel Iron Deposits (CID) and Bedded Iron Deposits (BID) iron mineralisation at the Flinders tenement is derived from iron-rich groundwater and sediments, deposited during the Tertiary era but subject to weathering and indurations to the present day. The outcropping geology of the region is the Dales Gorge, Whaleback Shale and Joffre Members of the Brockman Iron Formation, which are known to host large BID within other regions of the Hamersley Ranges. Underlying these units, and exposed on the margins of the range, are the Mount McRae Shale and the Mount Sylvia Formation. Incised into this bedrock geology are large channel systems, typically over 2 km in width, and extending for up to 20 km. During the Tertiary period, weathering and erosion of the generally iron-rich surrounding bedded material deposited iron ore fragments and detritus into these channels. This material has subsequently been buried, preserved and possibly enriched.

The four main stratigraphic groups on a hydrogeological point of view, and as recorded by recent RC drilling, may be summarised as:

RC (Recent Surficial deposits) refers to recent semi-consolidated alluvium or colluvium of BIF, chert and shale fragments with fine silty/clay matrix.

CID (Channel Iron Deposit – Hematite) also referred to as CID-1 to CID-4: vary from fine hematite pisolites with variable colluvium fragment concentrations, to semi consolidated pisolite dominant to competent hard hematite fragments with hematite matrix.

BID (Bedded Iron Deposit) comprised of BIDg – massive and vuggy citreous goethite dominant and BIDh – relict banding in Hematite-rich rock, with minor secondary limonite/Goethite.

BM (Basement) rocks such Chert, Shale, and fresh BIF are all contained within this one unit.



Stratigraphy Resource Code

Cover (RC) RC

CID-1

CID-2

CID-3 Channel Iron Deposit (CID)

CID-4

BIDg Bedded Iron Deposit (BID)

BIDh

Basement (BM) BM

Figure 4: Site Stratigraphy Profile

2.3 Hydrogeology Groundwater in the Pilbara occurs in various hydrogeological environments, ranging from surficial and sedimentary aquifers with intergranular porosity, to weathered and fractured aquifers (Van Vreeswyk and al., 2004). Three major aquifer groups were identified by the Waters and Rivers Commission Central Pilbara Groundwater Study in the Central Pilbara (Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001):

1) Unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers (valleyfill comprising alluvium and colluvium): up to 200 m thick, comprising interbeded sequences of clay, sand and gravel derived from alluvial drainages, outwash fans and scree slopes. These deposits form the major unconfined aquifer and are often in hydraulic connection with underlying calcrete and basement rocks.

2) Chemically-deposited aquifers (calcrete and pisolitic limonite): chemically deposited within Tertiary drainages or paleodrainages. Calcrete is characterised by secondary porosity with karstic features developed through the partial dissolution of calcrete via percolating surface water and groundwater movement.

3) Fractured-rock aquifers (dolomite and banded-iron formation). Wittenoom dolomite, as well as other dolomitic formations, are important fractured-rock aquifers, presenting the largest yields when overlain by a thick sequence of valleyfill (> 5,000 kL/day). The Brockman and Marra Mamba Iron formations contain localised aquifers associated with deformation, fracturing and mineralised ore bodies. The fractures fill during rainfall events and stream flows, and then decline due to periods of extraction or no rainfall.



Table 5: Most Prospective Aquifers in the Central Pilbara

Aquifer Type Aquifer Geological Unit Saturated Thickness (m)

Bore Yield (kL/day)

Aquifer Potential

Unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer

Valleyfill Alluvium Colluvium

15 30

<1,000 <1,500

Major Major

Chemically deposited aquifer

Calcrete Pisolitic limonite

Calcrete Robe Pisolite

15 10

5,000 1,500

Major Major

Fractured-rock aquifer

Fractured sedimentary BIF Dolomite Sandstone

Hamersley Basin Brockman Iron Fm Marra Mamba Iron Fm Wittenoom Dolomite Hardey Sandstone

20

25 30

<500

2,000 <250

Local

Major Local

Note: from Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001

A review of different operations in the area has shown that most of the mining operations extract water from the calcrete or the karstic dolomite. Four areas extract groundwater from CID aquifers:

1) Marillana Creek catchment – Strip aquifer 70 km long, 800 m wide and saturated thickness of 60 m. The aquifer is unconfined and has a transmissivity between 200 and 2,000 m2/day. Groundwater flowthrough 1,300 to 3,000 kL/day (Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001).

2) Fortescue River Valley CID - Yield of 7 L/s and TDS value up to 50,000 mg/L (Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001).

3) Turee Creek B borefield – Robe Pisolite – Aquifer thickness between 50 and 80 m and hydraulic conductivity between 4.6 to 9.2 × 10-4 m/sec. Groundwater flowthrough 400 kL/day (Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001).

4) The CID deposit at Yandi lies within Tertiary palaeochannels that are incised into shale, dolerite and BIF of the Weeli Wolli Formation. The CID consists of three main facies: a basal conglomerate; basal clay pisolite; and the main pisolite ore zone. The pisolite units have well-developed joints and solution cavities (providing up to 25% open pore space). The CID is the main aquifer with an estimated throughflow of 2.5 to 3 ML/day. The CID aquifer behaves as a fractured-rock aquifer, but over the long term, it may show an unconfined response. The basement rocks (Weeli Wolli Formation) contain fractured-rock aquifers with hydraulic conductivity much lower than that of the CID. The fractured-rock aquifer is highly localised and capable of providing significant bore yield (Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2003).

No data was available for BID type deposits.

2.3.1 Regional Hydrogeology The regional hydrogeology is derived from site observations during exploration drilling as well as data collected from the Department of Water (DoW) database. The data from the DoW database is comprised within a 25 km radius from Area D and was obtained on the 22nd of December 2009.

2.3.1.1 Department of Water Database A total of 40 wells were recorded within 25 km of Area D, with the nearest located 7.6 km north-east of Area D (Figure A and Cabbage Gum Bore in Table 6). The details are presented in Appendix A and are summarised in Table 6. The database does not contain all details (depth, static water level, flowrate, lithology) for all wells.

The main information gathered from the DoW database is summarised below. Out of the 40 wells:



11 are known to be operating and 15 are known to abandoned, not operating or disused. The status of the remaining 14 wells is unknown;

7 wells are domestic or livestock wells, with 6 other wells suspected to be of domestic/livestock use. Out of those 13 domestic or livestock wells, 5 are known to be abandoned;

Most of the wells are shallow, with a total of 28 wells shallower than 30.5 m;

The shallow wells (depth <30.5 m) are constructed in “soft material”, alluvium, calcrete and in “rock” (when the lithology is available). Their flowrates range between 0.05 and 0.8 L/s;

One well (20060023) is constructed in an “ore body”, it has a depth of 47 m and a flowrate of 2.5 L/s; and,

The deepest well has a depth of 165 m, the lithology is unknown, and the flowrate is 0.7 L/s.

The review of the DoW database is inconclusive. There are no known hydrogeological wells recorded for the neighbouring tenements.

2.3.1.2 Site Inspection The site inspection visit was carried out in November 2009 and the observations were communicated in the document 097641461 001 L Rev0 Site Visit Report (Golder, 2009b).

The tenement is located in a very rugged terrain, with the range’s valleys flattening out rapidly into large expansive flat lying terrain.

During the site visit, no springs were observed and all drainage lines appeared to be ephemeral, an observation which was confirmed by Nick Corlis from Flinders Mines. The vegetation comprised mostly Spinifex grass and low woodland. No vegetation observed would suggest a shallow water table, spring or perennial stream. Only one small permanent water hole was identified, in the Blackjack area, which appears to be fed by a perched groundwater system through fractures in the BID, which outcrops in the area.

Based on communication with Nick Corlis, it appears that during exploration drilling, groundwater, when reported, was generally observed between 30 and 50 m depth. In general, large water losses (lost circulation) were encountered during the diamond drilling programme. During the RC drilling programme, when groundwater was intersected, large water strikes were generally recorded, indicative of highly permeable material.

Based on the groundwater level measurements, Nick Corlis estimates that about 75% of the mineralisation is situated above the groundwater level.



Table 6: DoW Database Summary

WIN Site Id AWRC Name Owning Authority Drilled Depth

(m) Site Status Borehole water supply (L/s)

Static water level (m)

7495 39B Water Corporation 165.00 Not operating 0.73 46.76 7496 40C Water Corporation 98.00 Not operating 7608 40B Water Corporation 81.70 Not operating 47.23 20054610 Blooms Well Livestock well – Edney 13.41 Operating 0.05 12.19

20054611 G 8 8-73 Potentially Domestic/Livestock D'velle-Smith 19.81 Unknown 9.14

20054614 Crossing Bore Hamersley Iron 9.18 Operating 9.18 20054674 Millstream No 39A Water And Rivers Commission 11.90 Abandoned 20060010 House Well Domestic well 9.14 Operating 0.05 9.14 20060015 Hamersley Railway Bore 21 Hamersley Iron 30.48 Unknown 0.51 15.24 20060016 Hamersley Railway Bore 22 Hamersley Iron 30.48 Unknown 21.34 20060018 Homestead Bore Potentially Domestic/Livestock 19.81 Unknown 20060021 Gum Point Well Livestock well 20.73 Not operating 0.05 13.72 20060022 Sylvia Bore Livestock well 18.29 Operating 0.05 18.29 20060023 NO 3 Hamersley Iron 47.00 Operating 2.53 28.00 20060024 Nelson Bore Hamersley Iron Operating 20060025 Yards & Mill Hamersley Iron Operating 20060037 Matapan Well Domestic well 9.14 Abandoned 0.05 2.85 20060038 Weelumerrina Well Domestic/Livestock well 6.20 Operating 5.49 20060039 Hamersley Railway Bore 13 Hamersley Iron 21.34 Dry 20060040 Hamersley Railway Bore 14 Hamersley Iron 7.62 Dry 20060041 Hamersley Railway Bore 25 Hamersley Iron 30.48 Unknown 12.19 20060042 Hamersley Railway Bore 26 Hamersley Iron 22.86 Unknown 9.14 20060043 Hamersley Railway Bore 27 Hamersley Iron 21.34 Unknown 0.63 8.23



20060044 Hamersley Railway Bore 28 Hamersley Iron 15.24 Unknown 6.10 20060045 Hamersley Railway Bore 29 Hamersley Iron 15.24 Unknown 0.88 4.57 20060046 Weelumurra 6A PWD 69.00 Abandoned 2.91 20060047 New Wallina Bore Potentially Domestic/Livestock 15.24 Unknown 5.49 20060048 Wallina Well Potentially Domestic/Livestock 8.69 Abandoned 0.05 5.50 20060049 Cabbage Gum Bore Potentially Domestic/Livestock 18.29 Operating 20060050 Hamersley Railway Bore 24 Hamersley Iron 30.48 Unknown 15.24 20060116 Bacon Bore Livestock well 23.16 Abandoned 0.37 16.76 20060117 Hamersley Railway Bore 16 Hamersley Iron 28.65 Dry 20060118 Hamersley Railway Bore 17 Hamersley Iron 15.24 Dry 20060127 Weelamurra 5A PWD 67.41 Unknown 2.27 9.77 20060131 Wallina Well 27C (Old Wallina) Potentially Domestic/Livestock 7.75 Disused 3.96 20060133 Millstream No 40A Water And Rivers Commission 7.02 Abandoned 23031919 WARE25 Fluor Australia Pty Ltd 90.00 Unknown 23031920 WARE26 Fluor Australia Pty Ltd 48.00 Unknown 23033385 WARP16 Fluor Australia Pty Ltd 60.00 Operating 23033386 WARP19 Fluor Australia Pty Ltd 96.00 Operating



3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS The fieldwork programme comprised of the conversion of three RC exploration bores into monitoring wells within the Area D. After the installation, the monitoring wells were developed, when possible, using an air compressor and an air line. The monitoring wells have been hydraulically tested. Furthermore, selected open exploration bores have been hydraulically tested, as well as the water supply well in Area D.

The monitoring wells were installed in selected exploration bores based on the following criteria:

The borehole does not penetrate too deep into the basement (preferably less than 10 m);

The groundwater level is above the top of the targeted unit;

Two monitoring wells targeted the BID, preferably one in the middle of the valley and one at the bottom of the valley; and,

One monitoring well targeted the CID.

The exploration bores selected for hydraulic testing presented the following characteristics:

Borehole still open to appropriate depth as per February 2010;

Only one unit saturated (either BID, CID or BM);

Located in different area and unit throughout the site; and,

When testing the BM, the groundwater levels had to be within the BM.

The selected exploration bores are summarised in Table 7 as well as shown on Figure B.

Table 7: Lithological Summary of the Selected Bores Water Level

Depth CID BID Basement Hole ID

(m bTOC) Feb 2010 From To From To From To

HPRC0209 42.60 64.1 24 50 50 66 66 78 HPRC0226 50.76 66.8 20 56 56 66 66 84 HPRC0280 47.75 59.8 14 52 52 60 60 78 HPRC2062 52.90 76.3 10 26 26 36 36 84 HPRC2083 53.20 72.6 24 40 40 78 HPRC2117 47.00 76.7 6 24 - - 24 78 HPRC2136 52.94 75.7 12 52 - - 52 78 HPRC2143 51.27 68.6 12 34 34 38 38 72 HPRC2166 51.31 76.0 2 48 - - 48 78 HPRC2167 43.43 73.0 18 60 60 70 70 84 HPRC2175 47.62 86.5 16 50 50 80 80 90 HPRC2194 40.53 51.3 8 60 60 78 78 96 HPRC2201 51.38 77.4 6 30 30 46 46 78 Delta Bore/HPRC2076 42.58 96.5 14 50 50 70 70 108

Note: bTOC - below top of well casing

HPRC0226, HPRC0280 and Delta Bore are located in the drainage channel, known to drain surface runoff during rainfall events.



3.1 Monitoring Well Installation Monitoring wells were installed in three exploration boreholes, HPRC0226, HPRC2175 and HPRC2194. Monitoring wells were constructed using 50 mm1 inside diameter (ID) Class 12 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and machine slotted 50 mm ID Class 12 PVC with 0.5 mm slot size. Monitoring well HPRC2175 was installed with a 6 m sump.

All PVC lengths were glued and screwed together then lowered manually using clamps and ropes.

The annuluses were gravel-packed with graded gravel 1.6 to 3.2 mm diameter in HPRC2175 and the bottom 5 m of HPRC2194 (Figure 5). Gravel pack 10 mm diameter was used in HPRC0226 and the remaining portion of HPRC2194 (6 m). Above the gravel pack, 1 to 2 m of fine sand was installed to prevent infiltration of the bentonite in the gravel pack. A 0.5 to 1 m thick bentonite plug was installed above the fine sand and hydrated. The remaining sections of the annuluses were filled with river sand obtained in Tom Price.

Figure 5: Gravel pack installation

HPRC2194 presented an important cavity between 40 and 51 m below ground level which required up to 1.5 m3 of gravel to fill.

HPRC0226 was reported to have a firm blockage at the top of the basement rock (66 m), but was found to be open to full depth of 86 m when installing the PVC. Therefore, the screen was installed at 86 m, and the annulus was gravel pack to the top of the BID (56 m). It is possible that the installation would influence the hydraulic testing results; however, since the BID is likely to have a higher transmissivity than the basement rock, most of the influx of water would be generated by the most permeable unit, the BID.

All construction details can be seen on the borehole log in Appendix B.

3.2 Monitoring Well Development The primary objective of the development of a groundwater monitoring well is to optimise the contact between the monitoring well and the aquifer formation. Therefore, observations obtained from the monitoring well are likely to be representative of the groundwater in the formation. Additional objectives are 1 The diameter of the RC bore were too small to install 80 mm diameter casing



to maximise the permeability of the formation and filter pack around the borehole wall, by mobilising and removing any fines that may have accumulated, and to remove any fines that may collect inside the monitoring well screen during the development process.

HPRC2194 could not be developed since acceptable submergence of the airline was not possible (water level too deep compared to the submerged length of HDPE pipe).

HPRC2175 and HPRC0226 were developed using a 375 cfm air compressor and 20 mm diameter HDPE PN 10. Both monitoring wells were developed at maximum capacity, until the groundwater was free of sediment (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Airlift Set-up

Since HPRC0226 cleared up within about 1.5 hours, the airlift was continued for another 2 hours to provide a more efficient stress to the formation. The details of the airlifts are presented in the Table 8. Flowrates were calculated using a 20 L bucket and a stopwatch at the discharge pipe outlet (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Flowrate Measurement

The groundwater was discharged in the sump located on the drilling pad, and was left to infiltrate.



Table 8: Airlift Details

Monitoring Bore ID Flowrate (L/s) Duration (hrs) Static Water Level m bTOC

Depth of the hose m bTOC

HPRC0226 0.32 3h20 51.32 79 HPRC2175 0.54 2h30 48.20 72

3.3 Monitoring Well Sampling Groundwater samples were collected from the airlift discharge pipe outlet in HPRC0226 and HPRC2175, and from the pump outlet pipe at the Delta Bore.

Field parameters were measured using a Proplus Multiparameter Instrument, measuring pH, Eh, temperature and conductivity.

Samples were filtered on site when required, using a 45 μm filter and a hand pump, preserved and refrigerated. The samples were analysed by SGS Australia Pty Ltd, a NTA accredited laboratory. The samples were analysed for the following parameters:

Major and minor cations and anions (Na, Mg, K, Ca, Cl, F);

Total suspended and dissolved solids (TSS/TDS);

Turbidity;

Acidity and alkalinity as CaCO3;

Dissolved metals (Al, Ag, As, B, Ba, Bi, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Li, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Te, Th, Tl, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, V, U and Zn);

Nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total nitrogen, total phosphorus); and,

Sulfate/sulfite.

3.4 Aquifer Testing Different aquifer tests were performed on-site, depending on the monitoring well construction or equipment available.

3.4.1 Slug Test Slug tests were carried out in open boreholes and in monitoring well HPRC2194. The main features of a slug test are the measurements of the recovery of water levels in the bore after a near-instantaneous change in water level in that bore. All tests involved a 2.5 m long solid slug which was quickly introduced in the water (slug-in test). When the water level had returned to static level, the slug was quickly raised above the water level (slug-out test). The test was usually repeated twice. The variation in water level was measured using a pressure transducer and datalogger located 5 to 10 m below the water level and recording the water level every second. The water level recovery was also monitored manually with a water level metre.

HPRC2194 was also tested by quickly introducing 20 L of water in the monitoring well. The drop of water level was recorded using a datalogger located below the static water level.

3.4.2 Airlift Recovery Test Airlift recovery test was performed when the air compressor was stopped following the development of HPRC2175 and HPRC0226. The recovery of the water level was recorded using a pressure transducer/datalogger located below the groundwater level. The airline was not removed during the recovery period; therefore manual measurements were not possible. When the air inflow was stopped, displaced water dropped back down the well, disturbing the response from the aquifer in the early stage. This data was not used in the analysis.



3.4.3 Pumping and Recovery Test A pumping test was carried out at the Delta Bore, a well used for drilling water supply. The pumping test lasted until the 23,000 L tank located next to the well was full (approximately 4 hours), then the pump was stopped. The water level was measured using a pressure transducer/datalogger attached to the pump rising main. The water level could not be measured manually due to lack of space in the well casing.

3.4.4 Aquifer Testing Analysis Hydraulic test analysis objective is to assess the properties of the aquifer system. In the case where the aquifer system is simple, the analysis is straight-forward, but in the case of a fractured rock system, such as the aquifer system at the site, computation of the test is necessary.

All data was analysed using either Aqtesolv 4.0 or Hydrobench version 1.1. Each software package has its advantages, and the selection of the appropriate software for analysis of each test was based on the complexity of the field results.

Aqtesolv was used for slug tests presenting sinusoidal responses and straight line response.

HydroBench is an aquifer test analysis package developed by Golder and it is based on a numerical borehole simulator and can analyse any type or combination of hydraulic tests and uses an automated matching procedure. Wellbore storage can be calculated and modelled to match the curve. Skin effect is estimated based on the curve match. Hydrobench was used for airlift recovery, pumping test and more all other slug tests.

4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Groundwater Level Prior to Golder’s fieldwork, Flinders’ field staff had undertaken a groundwater level and depth survey of selected bores within Area D. The results are shown in Table 9 and were used to create the groundwater contour map (Figure C).

Table 9: Groundwater Level Survey Results

Hole ID Easting Northing Ground

Elevation(m AHD)

Water Level

(m bTOC)

Water Elevation(m AHD)

Drilled Depth

(m bgl)

Depth Feb 2010

(m bgl) Comments

HPRC020 551070. 7552865. 544.86 42.60 502.26 78 64.09 HPRC022 550979. 7552191. 554.43 50.76 503.67 84 66.8 HPRC025 550848. 7552322. 551.27 47.88 503.39 82 61.7 HPRC025 550354. 7551249. 570.54 Dry NA 66 66 HPRC028 550920. 7552235. 551.41 47.75 503.66 78 59.75 HPRC204 550009. 7552191. 560.26 Dry NA 78 25.3 Firm HPRC205 550349. 7552578. 556.57 53.82 502.75 78 71.5 Sunken HPRC206 550894. 7553125. 554.54 52.90 501.64 84 76.3 HPRC206 550696. 7552593. 550.66 48.46 502.20 66 61.3 HPRC207 551040. 7552074. 554.43 42.58 511.85 108 96.5 Bore setup HPRC208 548593. 7551811. 588.08 53.20 534.88 78 72.6 HPRC208 550186. 7552556. 560.04 57.30 502.74 72 69.2 HPRC209 550641. 7552387. 552.72 49.78 502.94 96 87.8 HPRC210 548855. 7551867. 581.42 62.82 518.60 78 71.3 HPRC210 548920. 7551780. 578.50 50.37 528.13 66 57 HPRC210 548966. 7551716. 579.04 44.73 534.31 66 65.1 HPRC211 549235. 7551767. 574.22 46.59 527.63 72 69.9



Hole ID Easting Northing Ground

Elevation(m AHD)

Water Level

(m bTOC)

Water Elevation(m AHD)

Drilled Depth

(m bgl)

Depth Feb 2010

(m bgl) Comments

HPRC211 549617. 7551664. 577.37 38.43 538.94 60 59 HPRC211 549558. 7551747. 571.08 47.00 524.08 78 76.7 HPRC213 549906. 7552125. 561.64 50.72 510.92 72 71 HPRC213 549847. 7552206. 562.26 52.94 509.32 78 75.7 HPRC214 550169. 7552191. 559.24 51.27 507.97 72 68.6 HPRC214 550103. 7552276. 559.37 36.37 523.00* 78 69.3 HPRC215 550843. 7552530. 549.70 47.13 502.57 102 46.7 HPRC215 550795. 7552609. 549.71 47.43 502.28 90 47.8 HPRC215 551170. 7552505. 547.28 44.72 502.56 90 85 HPRC215 551101. 7552592. 546.37 43.82 502.55 96 44.8 HPRC215 550989. 7552752. 546.53 44.40 502.13 84 80.2 HPRC216 549550. 7551972. 567.54 51.31 516.23 78 76 HPRC216 551139. 7552980. 545.22 43.43 501.79 84 73.04 HPRC216 551078. 7553066. 546.88 45.09 501.79 78 74.14 HPRC216 551020. 7553144. 548.43 46.83 501.60 84 58.38 HPRC217 550964. 7553222. 554.66 51.98 502.68 90 68.8 HPRC217 550908. 7553301. 548.39 46.79 501.60 84 82.25 HPRC217 550849. 7553394. 558.61 56.78 501.83 84 81.86 HPRC217 551129. 7553210. 547.27 45.57 501.70 84 16.92 Firm HPRC217 551060. 7553294. 549.12 47.66 501.46 90 87.79 HPRC217 551012. 7553378. 548.89 47.62 501.27 90 86.53 HPRC218 551174. 7553146. 546.57 Dry NA 96 46.86 HPRC219 551248. 7552818. 543.35 41.27 502.08 102 65.45 Soft HPRC219 551181. 7552884. 542.59 40.53 502.06 96 51.28 Firm HPRC219 551239. 7553054. 542.86 41.18 501.68 108 50.54 Firm HPRC220 552015. 7551747. 559.41 51.38 508.03 78 77.4 HPRC223 551053. 7552444. 548.44 46.26 502.18 84 50.14 Soft HPRC223 551118. 7552354. 548.79 45.75 503.04 78 64.9 Soft HPRC224 551168. 7552278. 550.76 47.51 503.25 90 57.48 Firm HPRC224 551347. 7552025. 554.54 50.15 504.39 78 50.29 Soft HPRC302 552216. 7551659. 554.54 54.80 499.74 60 59.5 HPRC303 551623. 7551855. 557.91 52.35 505.56 74 73.12 HPRC303 551574. 7551928. 556.36 51.74 504.62 72 51.57 Firm HPRC303 551507. 7552020. 554.69 Dry NA 72 49.32 HPRC303 551451. 7552101. 553.19 48.53 504.66 78 49.77 Firm HPRC303 551385. 7552189. 551.13 44.19 506.94 72 59.09 Firm HPRC303 551327. 7552272. 551.97 Dry NA 52 45.65 Firm HPRC303 551279. 7552341. 549.08 46.59 502.49 72 61.5 Soft HPRC304 551521. 7551782. 559.31 53.48 505.83 78 77.11 HPRC304 551407. 7551946. 556.15 51.40 504.75 72 61.82 Firm

Notes: *HPRC 2144 groundwater elevation is approximately 20 m higher than other bores in the area, therefore, it was not included on Figure C. m AHD : metre Australian Height Datum m bgl: metre below ground level



4.2 Aquifer Characteristics All aquifer test analyses are presented in Appendix C and the results are summarised in Table 10. The open holes, or monitoring wells, on which hydraulic tests were performed, are presented in Figure B. The column titled “zone” in the table below relates to the response from the test. On some occasions, it was noticed that the hydraulic test was presenting a double response, with a different transmissivity further away from the well.

Table 10: Aquifer Testing Results

Transmissivity (T) Aquifer

Thickness (b)

Hydraulic Conductivity

(K) Unit Hole ID Aquifer Test Zone

(m2/s) (m2/d) (m) (m/s)

Slug in/Slug out 1 3.66×10-3 317 12 2.95×10-4 1 5.54×10-3 479 12 4.47×10-4 CID HPRC2194

Slug Injection 2 2.05×10-4 18 12 1.65×10-5 1 7.06×10-5 6 5 1.41×10-5

BID/CID HPRC0280 Slug in/Slug out 2 5.05×10-2 4361 8 6.31×10-3

HPRC2167 1 1.39×10-3 120 10 1.39×10-4 HPRC0209

Slug in/Slug out 1 2.11×10-2 1822 22 9.59×10-4

HPRC0226 1 3.84×10-3 332 10 3.84×10-4 BID

HPRC2175 Airlift recovery

1 2.85×10-3 246 30 9.49×10-5 1 5.82×10-4 50 26 2.24×10-5

BM/BID Delta Bore Pumping/Recovery2 9.96×10-3 861 26 3.83×10-4

HPRC2166 1 5.74×10-5 5 25 2.30×10-6 HPRC2117 1 8.19×10-5 7 30 2.73×10-6 HPRC2083 1 1.47×10-4 13 19 7.75×10-6 HPRC2136 1 3.03×10-4 26 23 1.32×10-5 HPRC2143 1 5.76×10-3 497 17 3.39×10-4 HPRC2201 1 4.93×10-4 43 26 1.90×10-5

BM

HPRC2062

Slug in/Slug out

1 3.62×10-4 31 24 1.54×10-5

Slug test recovery in HPRC0280 presented two responses, the sinusoidal response combined with a normal recovery curve (Appendix C – Figure C-3). Both curves were analysed separately. HPRC0280 is an open hole which intercepts both BID and CID. The unusual response may have been caused by the presence of both aquifers. Both results are presented in Table 10, as Zone 1 and Zone 2.

HPRC2194 injection test analysis provided a high transmissivity value near the monitoring well, followed by a lower transmissivity value around 10 m from it (Appendix C – Figure C-2). This type of response can be due to boundary conditions in the 10 m radius around the monitoring well, with a lower transmissivity.

The Delta Bore also presented two responses, with a lower transmissivity near the bore, and a higher transmissivity 35 m away from the bore (Appendix C – Figure C-10). The construction details of the Delta Bore were not recorded. From discussion with the driller, the bore is apparently constructed with 12 m of screen and a 6 m sump at the bottom. The measured depth in February 2010 was 96.5 m. Based on the geology, the screen would be located in the basement rock. The length of gravel pack in the bore is also unknown, but was assumed to cover the screened portion of the well (the basement rock portion only). It is possible that the second response, with a higher transmissivity, is caused because of a hydraulic connection between the BID and the basement rock.



The high transmissivity estimated with the airlift test in HPRC0226 suggests that the monitoring well is influenced mainly by the BID aquifer, even though the construction is 20 m in the basement rock (Appendix C – Figure C-8). Since the transmissivity was high, it was assumed that the response was only from the BID.

The range of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity per unit is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Range of Hydraulic Parameters

Aquifer Minimum T (m2/day)

Maximum T(m2/day)

Minimum K(m/s)

Maximum K (m/s)

CID 18 479 1.65×10-5 4.47×10-4 BID 120 1822 9.49×10-5 9.59×10-4 BM 5 497 2.30×10-6 3.39×10-4

Note: the bores intercepting two aquifers were not included in this table.

Based on those results, it appears that the BID aquifer has the highest transmissivity, whilst the basement and CID aquifers have similar transmissivities. The BID results are similar to the ones encountered at Marillana Creek and Turee Creek B borefield, whilst the CID results are lower than other CID in the Pilbara (section 2.3.1). Note that the CID values were from 3 tests performed on the same monitoring well that has not been developed, therefore, the results may be underestimated.

The high range of hydraulic conductivities encountered in the basement aquifer is related to the location of the borehole within the valley, with lower hydraulic conductivity in the upper portion of the valley, and higher hydraulic conductivity in the lower portion the valley.

Table 12: Hydraulic Conductivity with Location in the Valley

Borehole ID Location within the valley K (m/s)

HPRC2166 Upper 2.30 × 10-6 HPRC2117 Upper 2.73 × 10-6 HPRC2083 Upper 7.75 × 10-6 HPRC2136 Middle 1.32 × 10-6 HPRC2143 Middle 3.39 × 10-4 HPRC2201 South – Lower 1.90 × 10-5 HPRC2062 North - Lower 1.54 × 10-5

4.3 Groundwater Chemistry Monitoring wells HPRC0226 and HPRC2175 and the Delta bore were sampled and the analytical results are presented in Appendix D. In addition, the analytical results from the camp bore were provided to us by John Brennan. Water Sample 1 (sampled on 19 August 2008) and Water Sample 2 (3 March 2009) were collected from the camp bore located in Area E, and installed in the basement rock.

The ion balances were calculated and are presented in Table 13. Ion balance is the difference between the sum of the anions and the cations. Water samples from the camp bore show acceptable ion balance value. However, water samples from the other bores shows an ion balance error of greater that 5%, therefore it is possible that errors have been introduced during sampling, transport or analysis. Even though the ion balance is higher than the 5%, the samples can still be compared with each other.



Table 13: Ion Balance Results

Hole ID Sum of Cations (meq/L)

Sum of Anions (meq/L)

Ion Balance (%)

Water Sample_1 3.33 3.60 -4.1 Water Sample_2 3.00 2.93 0.8 HPRC0226 5.40 4.35 10.4 HPRC2175 4.88 3.78 11.8 Delta Bore 5.50 4.43 10.5

The major ion results are presented in Table 14 and on a Piper plot (Figure 8) plotted using Aquachem, a management software for water quality and groundwater sampling data. The results from the camp bore are also presented on the Piper plot.

Table 14: Physical Parameters and Major Ions Analytical Results Analyte Description Units PQL HPRC0226 HPRC2175 Delta Bore

Sampling date 12-02-2010 09-02-2010 10-02-2010 pH pH Units Field result 8.2 7.9 7.0 Conductivity @25oC µS/cm <2 410 380 400 Total Dissolved Solids @ 180oC mg/L <10 260 240 230 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <5 150 120 160 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L <1 14 11 13 Chloride, Cl mg/L <1 38 41 34 Fluoride, F mg/L <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 Nitrate-Nitrogen, NO3-N mg/L <0.05 1.1 4.1 0.17 Nitrite-Nitrogen, NO2-N mg/L <0.05 0.09 0.08 0.23 Total Persulphate Phosphorus, P mg/L <0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 Sodium, Na mg/L <0.5 35 35 35 Magnesium, Mg mg/L <0.1 28 23 29 Potassium, K mg/L <0.1 8.9 8.4 9.4 Calcium, Ca mg/L <0.2 27 25 27 Ammonia Nitrogen NH3-N mg/L <0.005 0.02 0.3 0.04

Note: PQL : Practical Quantitation Limit

Water Sample 1 and 2 as well as Delta Bore are representative of the basement rock aquifer, whilst HPRC0226 and HPRC2175 both come from the BID aquifer. Based on the Piper Plot presented in Figure 8, it appears that:

All samples have similar ratio of cations (Ca, Mg, Na+K) and are plotting in the “no dominant type” portion of the cations;

Although the concentrations of anions (SO4, HCO3 and Cl) are slightly different, the ratios are plotting within the “bicarbonate type” portion of the anions; and,

Overall, there are no significant differences between all the groundwater, suggesting a good connection between the different aquifers.



Figure 8: Piper Plot

4.3.1 Dissolved Metals The dissolved metal results are presented in Table 15. Aluminium, barium, boron, iron, manganese, mercury, rubidium, strontium and zinc were the only metals detected. All parameters were below the Australian Drinking Water Standard (NHMRC, 2004).

No correlation could be identified between the different metals or with other parameters. Mercury and zinc showed concentrations higher than the recommended Fresh Water guidelines (ANZECC, 2000 - mercury: 0.00006 mg/L and zinc: 0.008 mg/L) but below the ANZECC Long-term Irrigation Water Protection Guidelines for the same parameters (ANZECC, 2000 – mercury: 0.002 mg/L and zinc: 2 mg/L).

The dissolved metal concentrations were similar in all the wells sampled, which support the suggestion that all groundwater have similar signature, thus are all well interconnected.

Table 15: Dissolved Metals Analyte Description Units PQL HPRC0226 HPRC2175 Delta Bore

Aluminum, Al mg/L <0.001 0.004 0.009 0.003 Antimony, Sb mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Arsenic, As mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Barium, Ba mg/L <0.001 0.033 0.023 0.021 Bismuth, Bi mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Boron, B mg/L <0.005 0.2 0.17 0.24 Cadmium, Cd mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 Chromium, Cr mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Cobalt, Co mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Copper, Cu mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Iron, Fe mg/L <0.005 0.023 0.013 0.045



Lead, Pb mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Lithium, Li mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Manganese, Mn mg/L <0.001 0.084 0.007 0.039 Mercury, Hg mg/L <0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 Molybdenum, Mo mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Nickel, Ni mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Rubidium, Rb mg/L <0.001 0.03 0.02 0.03 Selenium, Se mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Silver, Ag mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Strontium, Sr mg/L <0.001 0.084 0.085 0.079 Tellurium, Te mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Tin, Sn mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Thallium, Tl mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Thorium, Th mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Uranium, U mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Vanadium, V mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Zinc, Zn mg/L <0.001 0.1 0.052 0.052

5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Depth to Groundwater Groundwater is encountered at elevations exceeding 530 m AHD (Australian Height Datum) in the upper part of the valley and declines rapidly towards the middle portion of the valley, reaching elevation around 508 m AHD. In the lower portion of the valley, the groundwater gradient flattens out, down to an elevation around 502 m AHD. All groundwater levels were evaluated regardless of the lithological unit(s) intercepted and assuming that the three units (CID, BID and BM) are part of one hydrogeological unit. The lowest groundwater level within the valley is located in the north-east corner, at 501.3 m AHD. The groundwater level is located within the CID unit.

The recent surficial deposit (RC) is not saturated anywhere in Area D (Figure 9 a). The first unit to show a saturated zone is the CID, in the north-eastern portion of the site (Figure 9 b). The CID is never fully saturated. The BID is fully saturated is some areas, when present, mostly in the north-eastern portion of the site where the water level is the lowest (Figure 9 c). Note that Figure 9 was built using the full geological dataset, and the water level surface was built limited to the wells in Table 9. Therefore, the water level was interpolated using less data points than the geology explaining some irregularities, and is only used as visual aid. Furthermore, the basement shown is the base of the drill holes and not the base of the basement rock.

The volume of the saturated zone in each unit is presented in Table 16. All calculations were performed using the most recent geological block model using Maptec’s Vulcan software and by importing the water level data into the model. The basement rock saturated volume could not be calculated since the extent of the basement fractured system is large and extends further than the site limit. The southernmost valley does not have significant water level measurements, however, based on the data available, only a slight portion of the BID was saturated.

Table 16: Saturated Zone

Unit Volume Saturated (m3)

CID 7.0 million BID 7.3 million



a) Base of the RC b) Base of the CID showing saturated CID zone

c) Base of the BID showing saturated BID zone

Figure 9: Saturated Zones

Legend:

Groundwater Level surface

Base of RC

Base of CID

Base of BID

End of Drilling in Basement Rock



5.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Aquifer Parameters Based on hydraulic testing, an average transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity was estimated for each unit. The average was calculated using the geometric mean of all the values available for each unit.

Table 17: Aquifer Average Hydraulic Parameters

Aquifer Minimum K (m/s)

Maximum K (m/s)

Average K (m/s)

Minimum T (m2/day)

Maximum T (m2/day)

Average T (m2/day)

BM 2.30 × 10-6 3.39 × 10-4 1.30 × 10-5 5 497 26 CID 1.65 × 10-5 4.47 × 10-4 1.30 × 10-4 18 479 139 BID 9.49 × 10-5 9.59 × 10-4 2.64 × 10-4 120 1822 365 BID/CID 1.65 × 10-5 6.31 × 10-3 2.14 × 10-4 16 7086 260

Since there are no impermeable layers in between the units, and the groundwater chemistry is similar in each unit, it is believed that the aquifers are well inter-connected, and act as an unconfined aquifer.

Furthermore:

The CID hydraulic parameters are based on several test on the same monitoring bore;

The CID is not all saturated; and

The BID measured hydraulic parameters are similar to the CID hydraulic parameters encountered in the CID units in other mine sites.

Based on this information, an average value of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity was calculated for the CID/BID aquifer including all tests within the CID, the BID and the combination of both to represent the CID and BID saturated thickness.

The hydraulic testing performed on-site is not sufficient to obtain an accurate value of the storage or specific yield. In unconfined aquifers (as the one encountered on-site), the specific yield is equivalent to the porosity. Golder believes, from inspection of the drill core, that the BID and maybe CID will have significant porosity due to the vuggy nature. Based on the Yandi mine’s CID, the porosity could be as high as 25% (Water and Rivers Commission, 2004). The basement aquifer will mostly have a typical fractured rock porosity.

Table 18: Estimated Effective Porosity Aquifer Maximum Porosity

(%) Minimum Porosity

(%)

BM 1 0.1 CID and BID 25 1

5.3 Groundwater Flow Directions, Gradients and Velocities The groundwater flow is controlled mainly by topography. Generally, the groundwater flows from the upper portion of the ridge towards the Area D valley. From the upper portion of the valley, the groundwater flow direction is towards the tenement north-east limit (Figure C) with a gradient of 4.8% in the upper portion of the valley, and flattens out within the valley to a gradient of 1.2%.

Groundwater flow in the lowest portion of the valley is mainly above the BM, within the BID and CID (Figure 9). The groundwater average linear velocity in the valley is estimated to be around 0.2 m/day in the BID and CID and 0.01 m/day in the basement rock.



5.4 Groundwater Chemistry In general, groundwater quality is very good. The TDS was below 300 mg/L for all samples, and all parameters were below the recommended drinking water standard (NHMRC, 2004). All groundwater samples showed a similar signature regarding major ions and dissolved metals, which indicates that all aquifers are well inter-connected.

5.5 Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Zones The groundwater recharge is believed to come from direct infiltration through the RC unit in the CID and the BID and then through the BM. Discharge of the CID and BID aquifers appears to be towards another tertiary channel downgradient from the site. No other discharge point in known downgradient from the site.

5.6 Groundwater Storage and Inflow Rates The ore body is located in a valley bounded on three sides by hills and on the fourth side by the tenement limit. Groundwater inflow within the pit is estimated to be coming from three sources:

The storage within the ore body of the proposed pit;

The aquifer within the CID/BID outside the tenement limit; and

Flow from the BIF units underlying the orebody.

The volume of groundwater within the ore body on Flinders tenement was calculated using the saturated volume of each unit (CID and BID) and the range of porosity estimated for each unit. The total volume of storage estimated in the ore body for Area D varies between 142,000 m3 to 3.6 million m3. This volume is limited to the tenement boundaries and the aquifer limit.

Table 19: Range of Estimated Storage per Unit

Aquifer Volume Saturated (m3)

Maximum Porosity (%) Storage (m3) Minimum

Porosity (%) Storage (m3)

CID 7.0 million 1.7 million 69,600 BID 7.3 million

25 1.8 million

1 72,600

TOTAL 14.2 million NA 3.6 million NA 142,000

Groundwater inflow from the CID/BID aquifer outside of the tenement, downgradient of the north-east boundary (Figure D) was calculated using the Dupuit-Forchheimer equation for linear flow, since the groundwater is limited to the valley, it was therefore assumed to be linear flow. The inflow rate will depend on the mining rate.

At the tenement boundary, the CID/BID saturated thickness is approximately 30 m over a width of approximately 250 m based on the drilling. The valley extends approximately 1,600 m downgradient towards a wider valley (Figure D).

The Modified Dupuit – Forchheimer equation is shown below, assuming insignificant rainfall recharge:

LHKxQ

2

=

where x is the width of the valley, approximately 250 m, K is the hydraulic conductivity 2.1 × 10-4 m/s, H is the estimated drawdown expected and has been fixed to 30 m the saturated thickness of the CID/BID in the north-east corner, L is the length at which drawdown is expected. In this case, 1,600 m was used since the main valley is located 1,600 m downgradient from the tenement limit, and the main valley is likely to act as a recharge boundary.



Using all those estimates and the modified Dupuit – Forchheimer equation, the potential inflow coming from outside the tenement from the CID/BID aquifer is around 30 L/s or 2,600 kL/day.

Based on the data provided in Table 5, the CID aquifers were in the range of 1,500 kL/day for a 10 m thick aquifer, which confirms that our estimate is probable.

In addition to the groundwater in the ore body, the basement also contains groundwater storage. Since the saturated volume of the basement can extend further from the Area D valley, the extent of the basement aquifer was calculated using the limit of the model (3,400 m north-south and 4,900 m east-west). Furthermore, we have assumed a saturated thickness of 80 m. The porosity of the basement rock was estimated to be in the range of fractured rock aquifer, 0.1 to 1%.

Table 20: Total Estimated Storage in the Area in BM

Aquifer Volume Saturated (m3)

Maximum Porosity (%) Storage (m3) Minimum

Porosity (%) Storage (m3)

BM 1.33 billion 1 13.3 million 0.1 1.33 million

5.7 Groundwater Supply and Demand The water supply requirements per processing option and mining rate are given in Table 2. The potential for groundwater supply include:

Inflow of groundwater within the pit, either from the ore body or the CID/BID aquifer outside the tenement, calculated in Section 5.6, if dewatered ahead of mining; and,

Additional groundwater supply within the basement rock calculated in Section 5.7.

Based on the maximum potential groundwater supply from all sources, the life of the groundwater supply from the tenement per processing options (including the estimate for dust suppression) may vary between 1 to 55.3 years (Table 21).

Table 21: Groundwater Storage Life in Years per Processing Option Throughput Option 1 Option 2 Option 2a Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6

5 Mtpa 55.3 55.3 55.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 10.9 10 Mtpa 14.9 14.9 14.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.7 15 Mtpa 8.1 8.1 8.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 20 Mtpa 5.5 5.5 5.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 25 Mtpa 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 30 Mtpa 3.4 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4

5.8 Potential Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Mr. Jonathan Hanna of Worley Parsons has identified groundwater dependant ecosystems:

One permanent waterhole in the Ajax area;

Stygofauna has been identified in the neighbouring catchment; and

Two wetlands were identified; however, both were outside of Area D.

Based on this communication, no groundwater dependant ecosystem was based in Area D apart for the potential for stygofauna, which will be assessed at a later stage.



Furthermore, the DoW database has not identified any third-party user of the groundwater that could potentially be extracted in Area D, or downgradient.

5.9 Regulatory Requirements We understand that Worley Parsons will assess the regulatory requirement for licensing of any water bores.

5.10 Options for Discharging Excess Pumped Groundwater Excess groundwater could be encountered in the case where the processing options are low water consumption (options 1, 2 and 2a), the mining rate is 5 Mtpa and the aquifer system has high porosity. In this case, discharge locations will have to be assessed.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data collected throughout this hydrogeological assessment, it is recommended that Flinders:

Carry out a long-term pumping test (48 hours) and recovery in the CID/BID aquifer, and monitor the groundwater level in adjacent observation bores in order to assess the specific yield of the aquifer, as well as confirm the transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity. The recommended borehole should accommodate for a monitoring well casing diameter of 10 inches and drilled near the north-east tenement boundary, and would also assess the thickness of the aquifer in the area;

Install additional groundwater monitoring wells along the tenement boundary in the CID/BID aquifer area in order to obtain a better understanding of the aquifer thickness and profile in the area and to assess potential groundwater related effects outside the tenement;

Start investigating the aquifer potential in other areas within the tenement, such as Area E, which could have potential for water supply; and

Depending on the processing options and water requirements, carry out a desktop review of the potential groundwater supply sources in the region.

Once the open pit(s), mine waste facilities and process plant locations have been identified, more specific groundwater studies will be required to better assess the potential groundwater related effects on the environment.

7.0 REFERENCES Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, 2000. http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_marine_water_quality

Bureau of Meteorology, 2010. Station 005072 – Tom Price.

Department of Water, 2009. Pilbara Integrated Water Supply – Pre-Feasibility Study, Final report.

Environmental Protection Authority, Bulletin 924, January 1999. West Angelas Iron Ore Project – East Pilbara, Ashburton, Roebourne. Robe River Mining Co. Pty. Ltd. Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority.

Flinders, 2008. 2008 Hamersley Report. (Draft internal drilling report)

Golder Associates Pty, 2009a. Hamersley CID Resource Estimation – Areas A, B, C, D and E. Report number 087641499 002 R Rev0 submitted to Flinders Mines Ltd in September 2009.

Golder Associates Pty, 2009b. Site Visit Report. Document number 097641461 001 L Rev0. 24 November 2009.



Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2001. Central Pilbara Groundwater Study, Water and Rivers Commission, Hydrogeological Record Series. Report HG8, 102 p.

Johnson, S.L. and Wright, A.H., 2003. Mine Void Water Resource Issues in Western Australia, Water and Rivers Commission, Hydrogeological Record Series. Report HG9, 93 p.

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 2004. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy.

Van Vreeswyk A.M.E., Payne, A.L., Leighton K.A. and Henning P. (2004). Technical Bulletin: An inventory and condition survey of the Pilbara region Western Australia. Department of Agriculture, Government of Western Australia, Number 92.






GM/JJV/sp

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-010-r-reva-draft\097641461-010-r-revb-draft.doc

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r A

ssoc

iate

s P

ty. L

td.

Una

utho

rised

use

or

repr

oduc

tion

of th

is p

lan

eith

er w

holly

or

in p

art w

ithou

t writ

ten

perm

issi

on in

fring

es c

opyr

ight

. ©

Gol

der

Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

DEPARTMENT OF WATERDATABASE WELL LOCATIONS

11/03/2010SR

097641461-010-R-REVA

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT

±Datum GDA94, Projection MGA Zone 50

0 2 4 6 81

kilometres1:200,506SCALEA3

CLIENT Flinders Mines Ltd

Level 2, 1 Havelock StreetWest Perth WA 6005

Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611

Groundwater InvestigationArea Delta

DRAFT ONLY

FIGURE A

COPYRIGHT:Geology data sourced from the Departmentof Industry and Resources (DoIR) online data centre1:250,000 digital mapseries: Mount Bruce, SF5011, 1996 &Pyramid, SF5007, 2004WIN Site data sourced from theDepartment of WaterTenement and drilhole data supplied by Client

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!! !

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.!.!.!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

7608

7495

23033386

23033385

20060131

2006012720060118

20060117

20060050

2006004920060048

2006004720060046

20060041-45 20060039

20060038

20060037

2006002520060024

2006002320060022

20060021

20060018 2006001620060015

2005461420054611

20054610

7496

23031920

23031919

20060133

20060116

20060040

20060010

20054674

E 47/882-I

E 47/1560-I

Qa

Qa

Qw

PLHb

PLHbPLHb

PLHbQc

Czc

Qa

AFj

Czcf

Czc

Qc

Czc

Czc

Czc

AHm

Qa

PLHb

AHs

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

PLHb

PLHb

Qaa

PLHb

AHs

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Qwc

AHs

Czc

Czrf

Czc

Czc

Czc

Czc

AHs

Czc

Czc

Czc

AFj

Qw

Qa

Qw

Czcf

Czc

Czc

Czk

Qc

Qw

Czp

Czc

AFu

Czc

AFj AHm

PLHj

AFd

Czc

Qaa

Qc

AHm

Qwf

Czcf

Czc

Czc

Czrf

AHs

AFjCzc

Czc

AHs

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

AHs

PLHw

Czc

PLHb

Czc

PLHj

Qw

Czc

AHm

AHs

PLHbCzc

AFj

Czp

Czc

Qa

Czc

Qw

Czc

Czc

Czk

Czc

Czc

Czp

AFjl

PLHb

AFu

Czc

PLHb

Czc

PLHb

AFj

Czc

PLHj

Qw

Czp

Czc

AFjl

Qw

PLHb

PLHw

AFu

Czp

AHdCzcf

Qw

Czc

Czc

Czrf

Qao

AHm

AHs

PLHb

Czc

Czc

AHs

PLHb

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Qc

Qw

AHs

Czk

PLHb

PLHj

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czcf

Qc

Czcf

Czcf

AFj

Czc

Qc

AHs

CzcCzc

Czc

PLHb

Czrf

PLHb

Czp

PLHj

PLHw

Qa

Czc

Czc

Czc

AFu

Czrf

Czc

Czrf

Czcf

AHd

AHm

Qc

Czp

Czk

AHs

Czc

AHs

Czc

Czrf

PLHt

PLHt

AHd

Czp

Czcf

AHdQaa

Czcf

AHs

Czc

Qaa

Czc

Qaa

Czc

AFj

PLHt

Qc

PLHb

PLHt

PLHt

Czc

Czcf

PLHt

PLHt

Czc

PLHt

PLHb

PLHb

Czrf

Czc

Czc

AHs

PLHb

Czc

PLHw Czc

Czc

AFd

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czrf

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHb

Qa

Czcf

PLHt

AHd

AHs

AFj

Czc

AFjlCzc

Czc

Qc

Czrf

PLHj

Czc

Czc

Qaa

Qc

Qc

Qaa

PLHb

AFu

CzrfCzrf

PLHb

AFd

Czrf

Czc

Czp

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Qaa

AFd

PLHt

Czc

AHd

Czrf

AHd

AFd

Qaa

PLHb

Czcf

Czp

PLHt

AFj

Czc

Czrf

CzcAHs

Qaa

Qaa

AHd

Czc

Czc

Czcf

Qa

Qc

Czc

Czc

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czp

PLHb

AHd

AFj

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qaa

Qc

PLHb

PLHb

AFd

CzrfCzrf

Qc

Czc

QcAHm

Czc

Qc

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHt

Qc

Czrf

Qa

Czc

Qa

Czc

Czp

AHd

Czc

Czcf

Czk

PLHb

PLHb

Czc

AHs

PLHt

Eer

AHs

Czc

Czcf

Czrf

Qc

Qaa

Czc

Qw

Czc

Czp

Czc

AHm

Qa

Czrf

Qwf

PLHbPLHb

AFd

PLHb

Qa

Qa

Qa

Czcf

PLHt

PLHtCzc

Czp

Czcf

Qc

AHs

Czc

Czp

Czc

Qaa

Czp

Czrf

Czp

PLHt

Czk

AHd

Czk

Czc

PLHb

AFjl

Czc

Czc

Czrf

AHs

Czp

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

AHs

PLHt

Czc

Czr

Czp

Czc

PLHt

AHs

CzrfPLHb

AHm

Czc

Qa

PLHb

AFjl

Czc

AFj

PLHb

AHd

AHd

Czrf

Czcf

PLHb

AFjl

Czcf

PLHw

Czk

Qc

AHd

PLHb

PLHj

Czc

Qaa

Czrf

CzpAFjl

PLHb

Czrf

AHd

PLHb

AHdCzcf

Czc

AFjl

AHs

PLHb

Qa

Qa

Czrf

Czk

Czrf

Czk

PLHt

PLHb

CzcAHs

PLHt

Qaa

PLHb

Qc

Czcf

PLHb

AHs

Qc

Qc

Czrf

CzcfCzcf

AHs

Qc

PLHt

Czrf

Czc

Czrf

PLHt

Czc

Qaa

Qc

Qa

Czcf

Czp

Czc

Czk

Qc

Czrf

Czr

PLHb

Czcf

Czrf

PLHb

Czrf

Czc

Czcf

PLHt

Czrf

Czc

Czc

PLHj

Czrf

Czc

AHs

PLHb

Czc

AHm

Qaa

Qc

AHs

Czrf

AFd

Czk

Czp

AHs

AFj

Czrf

Czc

AHd

Czcf

PLHt

Czrf

Czc

Czcf

AFd

PLHb

Czk

PLHt

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

PLHo

Czp

Czc

Czc

Czrf

CzcfAHs

Czk

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czrf

PLHw

Czrf

Czc

Qw

PLHb

AHd

AHd

Czrf

Czc

Qc

Czc

AHmCzk

PLHw

Czc

Czk PLHtCzk

Czc

PLHj

Czc

PLHb

PLHb

PLHb

PLHj

PLHb

Czk

PLHb

AHs

Czrf

Czp

PLHt

PLHt

AFj

PLHt

AHs

Qw

PLHb

CzcCzc

PLHb

Czcf

PLHb

PLHb

Czrf

PLHb

Czrf

AHm

AHs

PLHt

AHs

AHd

PLHb

AHs

Czc

AHs

PLHt

PLHb

AHs

Czc

AHm

Czc

Czp

AFj

AHd

AHs

PLHt

Czrf

Qw

PLHb

Qc

AHd

PLHbPLHb

AHs

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHb

PLHb

Czrf

PLHb

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

PLHt

PLHw

Czcf

PLHb

Czc

PLHb

PLHb

Qaa

PLHb

Qc

AHs

Czp

PLHb

AHm

Qao

PLHb

AHd

PLHb

AFu

AHs

Czp

AHdAHd

515000

515000

520000

520000

525000

525000

530000

530000

535000

535000

540000

540000

545000

545000

550000

550000

555000

555000

560000

560000

565000

565000

570000

570000

575000

575000

753000

0

753000

0

753500

0

753500

0

754000

0

754000

0

754500

0

754500

0

755000

0

755000

0

755500

0

755500

0

756000

0

756000

0

756500

0

756500

0

757000

0

757000

0

757500

0

757500

0

758000

0

758000

0

!. DoW Well Location

! Drillhole

Tenement Boundary -Exploration License

Fault

FMajor fold, showingtrend and plunge direction

!! !! Dyke

QUATERNARYQa Alluvium - unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel; in drainage channels and

adjacent floodplainsQaa Alluvial sand and gravel in rivers and creeks; clay, silt, and sand in channels on floodplainsQao Alluvial sand, silt, and clay in floodplains adjacent to main drainage channelsQc Colluvium - unconsolidated quartz and rock fragments in soil

Qw Alluvium and colluvium - red-brown sandy and clayey soil; on low slope andsheetwash areas

Qwc Sheetwash sand, silt, and clay in distal outwash fans, with numerous claypansand minor clay-filled drainages

Qwf Ferruginous sheetwash sand, silt, and clay in outwash fans, with clasts of iron formationCAINOZOIC

Czc Colluvium - partly consolidated quartz and rock fragments in silt and sand matris;old valley-fill deposits, locally derived

Czcf Ferruginous colluvium, derived from adjacent iron formation;includes hematite-rich conglomerate (canga) that contains iron ore

Czk Calcrete - sheet carbonate, found along major drainage linesCzp ROBE PISOLITE: pisolitic limonite depositsdeveloped along river channelsCzr Hematite-geothite deposits on banded iron-formation and adjacent scree deposits

Czrf Ferricrete; includes ferruginous and pisolitic ironstone; residual origin;locally includes deposits on the Hamersley Surface, dissected by present-day drainage

Hamersley GroupAHd WITTENOOM FORAMTION: metamorphosed thin- to medium-bedded dolomite,

dolomitic pelite, chert, and volcanic sandstoneAHm MARRA MAMBA IRON FORMATION: chert, banded iron-formation, and pelite

AHs MOUNT McRAE SHALE and MOUNT SYLVIA FORMATION: pelite, chert,and banded iron formation

PLHb BROCKMAN IRON FORMATION: banded iron-formation, chert, and pelite

PLHj WEELI WOLLI FORMATION: banded iron-formation (commonly jaspilitic),pelite, and numerous metadolerite sills

PLHt Medium- to coarse-grained metadolerite sills in Hamersley Group

PLHw WOONGARRA RHYOLITE: metamorphosed rhyolite, rhyodacite, rhyolitic breccia,and banded iron-formation

Fortescue GroupAFd Medium- to coarse-grained metadolerite sills intruded into Fortescue Group

AFj JEERINAH FORMATION: pelite, metasandstone, chert, metabasaltic pillow lava andbreccia, and metamorphosed felsic volcanic rock; intruded by numerous metadolerite sills

AFjl Pillowed and massive metabasaltic flows and metabasaltic breccia

AFuBUNJINAH FORMATION: pillowed and massive metabasaltic flows, metabasaltic breccia,metamorphosed volcanic sandstone, and minor chert; amygdaloidal metabasaltic flowsoccur in upper parts of the formation

DRAFT

File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\R10\097641461_010_R_F000A_REVA.mxd

CLIENT

Flinders Mines LtdPROJECT

Groundwater Investigation Area Delta

Area D extent DRAFT DRAWN GM DATE 24/02/2010 TITLE

Hydraulically tested open hole CHECK JJV DATE 24/02/2010

Hydraulically tested monitoring bore/pumping bore SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. FIGURE No.

B097641461

Hydraulic Test Locations

548500 549000 549500 550000 550500 551000 551500 552000 552500

7550500

7551000

7551500

7552000

7552500

7553000

7553500

HPRC0209

HPRC2117

HPRC2136HPRC2143

HPRC2166

HPRC2167

HPRC2201

HPRC0280

HPRC2083

HPRC2062

HPRC0226

HPRC2175

HPRC2194

Delta Bore

0 250 500 750 1000

HPRC2201

HPRC2175

M:\Jobs409\Mining\097641461_Flinders_PFS\CorrespondenceOut\097641461-010-R-RevA-Draft\097641461-010-Figures B and C.xls

CLIENT

Flinders Mines LtdPROJECT


Area D extent DRAFT DRAWN GM DATE 24/02/2010 TITLE

Open Hole surveyed CHECK JJV DATE 24/02/2010

SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. FIGURE No.

C097641461

Water Level Contours

548500 549000 549500 550000 550500 551000 551500 552000 552500

7550500

7551000

7551500

7552000

7552500

7553000

7553500

HPRC0209

HPRC0226

HPRC0250

HPRC0255

HPRC0273

HPRC0280HPRC2042

HPRC2050

HPRC2062

HPRC2065

HPRC2076

HPRC2083

HPRC2089

HPRC2096

HPRC2103

HPRC2104HPRC2105

HPRC2111

HPRC2116

HPRC2117

HPRC2135

HPRC2136 HPRC2143

HPRC2144

HPRC2150

HPRC2151

HPRC2154

HPRC2155

HPRC2157

HPRC2166

HPRC2167

HPRC2168

HPRC2169

HPRC2170

HPRC2171

HPRC2172

HPRC2173

HPRC2174

HPRC2175

HPRC2188

HPRC2193

HPRC2194

HPRC2196

HPRC2201

HPRC2238

HPRC2239

HPRC2240

HPRC2243

HPRC3021

HPRC3031

HPRC3032

HPRC3033

HPRC3034

HPRC3035

HPRC3036

HPRC3037

HPRC3042

HPRC3044

0 250 500 750 1000

HPRC0255

M:\Jobs409\Mining\097641461_Flinders_PFS\CorrespondenceOut\097641461-010-R-RevA-Draft\097641461-010-Figures B and C.xls

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r A

ssoc

iate

s P

ty. L

td.

Una

utho

rised

use

or

repr

oduc

tion

of th

is p

lan

eith

er w

holly

or

in p

art w

ithou

t writ

ten

perm

issi

on in

fring

es c

opyr

ight

. ©

Gol

der

Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATERDOWNGRADIENT FROM THE

TENEMENT LIMIT IN AREA DELTA

11/03/2010SR

097641461-010-R-REVA

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15




Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


DRAFT ONLY

FIGURE D


!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

E 47/882-I

Qa

PLHb

PLHb

Czc

Czc

AHs

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHt

Qa

PLHb

PLHb

Qa

Czc

Czc

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHt

550000

550000

555000

555000

755000

0

755000

0

755500

0

755500

0


adjacent floodplainsCAINOZOIC


Hamersley GroupAHs MOUNT McRAE SHALE and MOUNT SYLVIA FORMATION: pelite, chert,

and banded iron formationPLHb BROCKMAN IRON FORMATION: banded iron-formation, chert, and pelitePLHt Medium- to coarse-grained metadolerite sills in Hamersley Group

DRAFT

File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\R10\097641461_010_R_F000D_REVA.mxd

!. DoW Well Location

! Drillhole


Fault

FMajor fold, showingtrend and plunge direction

!! !! Dyke



APPENDIX A Department of Water Database

Acknowledgment

This information is supplied on the condition that if used in a study or publication the Department of

Water is acknowledged as the source of the information. Citations may take the following form:

• Water INformation (WIN) database - discrete sample data. [Date provided]. Department of

Water, Water Information Provision section, Perth Western Australia.

• Hydstra database - time-series data. [Date provided]. Department of Water, Water

Information Provision section, Perth Western Australia.

Copyright

State of Western Australia (Department of Water)

Information supplied by the Department of Water is protected by the Copyright Act 1968. That

copyright belongs to the State of Western Australia. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of

private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be

reproduced or reused for any purpose without the written permission of the Department of Water.

Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability

The information contained herein is provided by the Department of Water in good faith as a public

service. However, the Department does not guarantee the accuracy of this information, and it is the

responsibility of recipients to make their own enquiries as to its accuracy, currency and appropriateness.

If any aspect of this information is of significance to you, you should discuss your particular

circumstances with the Department.

In no circumstances will the Department of Water, its servants and agents be liable for any special,

consequential or indirect loss or damage arising from any use of or reliance on the information

supplied. Specifically the Department of Water and its servants and agents make no representations,

guarantees or warranties of any kind either express or implied in relation to the correctness, accuracy,

reliability, currency or any other aspect or characteristic of the information supplied, and expressly

disclaim liability for any act or omission occurring in reliance on this information or for any

consequence of such act or omission.

While the Department of Water is committed to the use of computer virus scanning software, there is no

warranty that the information supplied in digital format will be free from infection by computer viruses.

Disclaimer /Potentially Contaminated Sites

As of 1 December 2006, the Department of Water (DoW) cannot provide SiteLEGACI data, as this

data is no longer held in DoW's databases.

Information on known or suspected contaminated sites in Western Australia is held by the Department

of Environment and Conservation (DEC). Up to date information on confirmed contaminated sites

is available via the Contaminated Sites Database on www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites .

Information on other sites on the DEC's records may be accessed by requesting a summary of records -

please see www.dec.wa.gov.au/or ring the DEC's Contaminated Sites Section on 1300 762 982 for

further information. The majority of the SiteLEGACI data formerly provided by DoW was drawn from

Hirschberg J.-K., 1991. Inventory of known and inferred point sources of groundwater contamination

in the Perth Basin, W.A. GSWA Record 1991/7; this document can be obtained by contacting the

Information Centre, Department of Industry and Resources, 100 Plain Street, East Perth, WA 6004. Ph:

9222 3459.

Additional Notes:

The Department of Health (DOH) considers it an unsafe practice to drink or swim in untreated

groundwater as experience has shown that groundwater may contain microbiological and chemical

contamination. Groundwater should always be tested, assessed by an experienced person, and then

treated appropriately to ensure that it is safe for the intended use.

LEGEND

DR26788 All Bores within 25 km Radius of E550557 N7551958

7524260mN

5178

22m

E

7524048mN

5830

55m

E

7579904mN

5833

52m

E

7580113mN

5178

86m

E

0 ~7.5 km

Scale 1:314489(Approximate when reproduced at Letter)

Geocentric Datum Australia 1994

Note: the data in this map have not beenprojected. This may result in geometric

distortion or measurement inaccuracies.

Prepared by: blickgPrepared for: DR26788Date: 21/12/2009 2:36:24 PM

Information derived from this map should beconfirmed with the data custodian acknowleged

by the agency acronym in the legend.

WA Crown Copyright 2002

Site Details

WIN Site Id AWRC Name Commence Cease Site Purpose Owning Authority Comments

7495 -39B- 26/06/1982 28/09/1990 Observation Water Corporation Geophysical log supplied. Samples stored. TDS RECORDED AS: 175 MG/L AFTER TEST. THE DEEPEST BORE DRILLED IN FORTESCUE PLAIN

SEDIMENTS. B.R. IF RIGHTLY IDENTIFIED IS APPROX 50M BELOW THE TOP OF THE PROTEROZOIC B.R. ELSEWHERE BENEATH THE PLAIN.

THE SE

7496 -40C- 07/07/1982 28/09/1990 Water Corporation Geophysical log supplied. Samples stored. CAVITY DEVELOPED AT TOP OF DOLOMITE B.R. SUBMERSIBLE PUMP RATE 125 M3D.

Drilled 3 - 7 July 1982

�AHD and SLE Water Levels converted to SWL and Datums adjusted - Completed - 27/09/2004 - BLF

7608 40B 16/08/1976 17/08/1976 Observation Water Corporation Samples stored. TO BE COMPLETED, TOO DEEP FOR EDSON RIG. DETAILED LOG APPENDIX 1.

20054610 BLOOMS WELL 00/01/1900 Livestock EDNEY SUPPLY RECORDED AS: 1000+ GPD.

20054611 G 8 8-73 D'VELLE-SMITH REPT QUAL IS GOOD STOCK. NO SALT - WATER AT 65FT.

20054614 CROSSING BORE 14/05/1996 Hamersley Iron BORE OPERATION: AIR LIFT PUMP ON SOLAR POWER. BORE SITUATED ON UPPER FLOOD PLAIN.

20054674 MILLSTREAM NO 39A Project bore Water And Rivers Commission WATER TABLE NOT REACHED RIG BROKE DOWN

20060010 HOUSE WELL 00/01/1900 Domestic/Household IN CALCRETE AND ALLUVIUM. SWL RECORDED AS 30 - FT & ALSO SUPPLY RECORDED AS 1000 + GPD. REPT QUALITY RECORDS

EXCELLENT DOMESTIC.

20060015 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 21 Hamersley Iron 30FT SOFT, 70FT ROCK, PUMPED 585 GPH, PROBABLE OUTPUT 400 GPH, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE.

20060016 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 22 Hamersley Iron 92FT SOFT, 8FT ROCK, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE.

20060018 HOMESTEAD BORE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY PWD 5" BORE.

20060021 GUM POINT WELL 13/05/1996 00/01/1900 Livestock Hamersley Iron ALLUVIUM AND FILL AT FOOT OF RIDGE. AGWA RANGELAND SURVEY 12/5/96: EASTING 555712, NORTHING 7533180; BORE SITUATED AT

BASE OF FOOTSLOPE.

20060022 SYLVIA BORE 00/01/1900 Livestock SWL RECORDED AS 60 - FT & ALSO SUPPLY RECORDED AS 1000 + GPD. SOIL AT FOOT OF RIDGE. PWD STATES TD 100FT. 4" BORE. REPT

QUALITY RECORDS GOOD STOCK.

20060023 NO 3 00/01/1900 Hamersley Iron SUPPLY WAS RECORDED AS AN APPROXIMATION. MT SYLVIA BORE. EQUIVALENT TO DH 843. 23M OF ORE. DATA TAKEN FROM EXTRACT

OF HAMERSLEY EXPLORATION PTY LTD GS 44/71.

20060024 NELSON BORE 13/05/1996 Hamersley Iron

20060025 NO NAME BORE ? YARDS & MILL 18/05/1996 Hamersley Iron BORE OPERATED BY SOLAR AND PETROL PUMPS; BORE LOCATED AT BASE OF IRONSTONE SLOPE.

20060037 MATAPAN WELL REPT QUALITY RECORDS DOMESTIC. ABANDONED. SUPPLY WAS RECORDED AS 1000 + GPD. VISITED BY GEOLOGIST A DAVIDSON JULY

1974 & RECORDED DEPTH AS 8.60M WELL WORKS & ALSO RECORDED SWL AS 3.30M WW, 3.20M NS. UPDATED(13/01/99): AGWA

RANGELAND SURVEY 9/9/96: EAS

20060038 WEELUMERRINA WELL 00/01/1900 Domestic/Household/Livestock REPT QUALITY RECORDS DOMESTIC. UPDATED(6/01/99): AGWA RANGELAND SURVEY 5.9.96 - BORE NAME RECORDED AS WEELAMURRA

WELL, EASTING: 572543, NORTHING: 7556185, LOCATED ON MARGIN OF MAJOR CREEK , BORE NAME RECORDED AS: WEELAMURRA - SEE

BORE 2453-4-NE-0012 , DI

20060039 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 13 Hamersley Iron 35FT SOFT, 35FT ROCK, CONSTRUCTION CAMP DRY BORE.

20060040 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 14 Hamersley Iron 25FT SOFT, RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CAMP DRY BORE.

20060041 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 25 Hamersley Iron 100FT SOFT, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE.


20060043 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 27 Hamersley Iron 70FT SOFT, PUMP TESTED FOR 675 GPH, PROBABLE OUTPUT 500 GPH, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE.

20060044 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 28 Hamersley Iron 50FT SOFT, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE.

20060045 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 29 Hamersley Iron 50FT SOFT, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE, PUMP TESTED FOR 675 GPH, PROBABLE OUTPUT 700 GPH.

20060046 WEELUMURRA 6A PWD Geophysical log supplied. Palaeontological report written. Samples stored. WATER CUT UNKNOWN. BACKFILLED WITH SURFACE GRAVEL 28.0 -

69.0M. CASING CLAMPED AT SURFACE. RODS STUCK AT 23M RETURNS LOST SCREEN PARTED FROM CASING BECAUSE COMPACTION OF

BACK

20060047 NEW WALLINA BORE Samples stored. AGWA RANGELAND SURVEY 9/9/96 - DRILLED 1970, LOCATED ON STONY PLAIN, BEHIND MAJOR CREEK.

20060048 WALLINA WELL WALLANA. SUPPLY WAS RECORDED AS 1000 + GPD. ABANDONED-WATER SOURCE IS SOFT "FILL AND WASH". VISITED BY GEOLOGIST A

DAVIDSON JULY 1974 & RECORDED DEPTH AS 15.3 (FT OR M?) & ALSO RECORDED SWL AS 5.5M NS.

20060049 CABBAGE GUM BORE 01/01/1984 AGWA RANGELAND SURVEY 9/9/96 - DRILLED IN 1984, LOCATED ON MARGIN OF MAJOR CREEK.


20060116 BACON BORE 30/06/1935 Livestock ABANDONED - AS BY J C BARNETT. - RECORDED DEPTH AS 22.9M & ALSO RECORDED SWL AS 16.2M. SUPPLY RECORDED AS 6-7000 GPD

PROVED.

20060117 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 16 Hamersley Iron 20FT SOFT, 74FT ROCK, CONSTRUCTION CAMP DRY BORE.

20060118 HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 17 Hamersley Iron 32FT SOFT, 18FT ROCK, CONSTRUCTION CAMP BORE DRY.

20060127 WEELAMURRA 5A Observation PWD Samples stored. TDS RECORDED AS 793MG/L SUM. WATER CUT UNKNOWN. PUMPED 24 HOURS 196 M3D FINAL D/D AT 16.3M. SALINITIES

WHILE PUMPING 700 MG/L THROUGHOUT TEST BY COND. NOT GEOPHYSICALLY LOGGED.

20060131 WALLINA WELL 27C (OLD WALLANNA) DEPTH ALSO RECORDED AS 3.90M - WAD & RECORDED AS 8.7M - JCB. SWL ALSO RECORD AS 2.80M - WAD & RECORDED AS 4.0M - JCB.

VISITED BY GEOLOGIST A DAVIDSON JULY 1974 DISUSED.

20060133 MILLSTREAM NO 40A Project bore Water And Rivers Commission ABANDONED BECAUSE OF BREAKDOWN OF JACRO RIG.

23031919 WARE25 Exploration Fluor Australia Pty Ltd

23031920 WARE26 Exploration Fluor Australia Pty Ltd

23033385 WARP16 03/08/2000 Production Fluor Australia Pty Ltd

23033386 WARP19 14/08/2000 Production Fluor Australia Pty Ltd

Page 1

Datums

WIN Site Id Numbering System Reference Datum Plane Elevation Datum Elevation Reliability Elevation (m) Margin Of Error (m) Measurement Method Date Established Date Reliability Colloquial Name Comment

7495 AWRC 70818053 Australian Height Datum Ground level = 381.140 (none) 15/06/1982 Estimate

7495 AWRC 70818053 Australian Height Datum Top of casing ~ 381.144 Surveyed 26/06/1982 Unknown

7495 AWRC 70818053 Standard Level Elevation Top of casing ~ 200.000 (none) 26/06/1982 Unknown

7495 AWRC 70818053 Not Applicable (none) ~ 0.000 (none) 26/06/1982 (none) Depth Reference Point added to cater for historical samples with Depth Reference Point of ()

7496 AWRC 70818054 Not Applicable Ground level = 368.250 (none) 07/07/1982 Estimate From report GS 258/76



7608 AWRC 70830007 Not Applicable Ground level = 0.000 (none) 15/08/1976 Estimate



20054610 AWRC 70610887 Not Applicable Ground level = 0.000 (none) 00/01/1900 Unknown



20054674 AWRC 70810743 Australian Height Datum Ground level = 380.020 (none) 15/08/1976 Estimate



















20060046 AWRC 70810186 Australian Height Datum Top of casing = 425.150 (none) 00/01/1900 Unknown









20060127 AWRC 70810247 Australian Height Datum Top of casing = 395.910 (none) 00/01/1900 Unknown




23031919 AWRC 70812542 Not Applicable Ground level = 0.000 (none) 00/01/1900 (none)




Page 1

Construction

WIN Site Id Drilled Depth Drill Method Pump How Test Event Comment Element Comment

7495 165.000 Rotary drill 0-100M X 154MM; 82.5 - 146M X 100MM

7496 98.000 Rotary drill 0 - 97.0M X 100MM

7608 81.700 (none) 0 - 5.86M X 206MM STEEL; +0.38 - 51.09M X 155MM PIPE

20054610 13.410 (none)

20054611 19.810 (none) 5.5" OD

20054614 9.180 Rotary drill

20054674 11.900 (none)

20060010 9.140 (none)

20060015 30.480 Rotary percussion PUMPED TO 97' X 6"

20060016 30.480 Rotary percussion TO 100 FT X 6"

20060018 19.810 (none)

20060021 20.730 Rotary drill DEPTH ORIGINALLY RECORDED AS: 13.72 M. DEPTH 20.73 (68 FT) RECORDED BY AgWA, 13/5/96.

20060022 18.290 Percussion

20060023 47.000 (none) 6"

20060024 Rotary drill

20060025 Rotary drill

20060037 9.140 (none)

20060038 6.200 (none)

20060039 21.340 Rotary percussion

20060040 7.620 (none)

20060041 30.480 Rotary percussion TO 100' X 6"


20060043 21.340 Rotary percussion PUMPED TO 70FT


20060045 15.240 Rotary percussion PUMPED TO 50 X 6"

20060046 69.000 Rotary drill Element added to align Distance to Bottom for last element with Total Drilled Depth.

20060046 69.000 Rotary drill + 0.15 - 16.0 X 155MM W/P PACKER 15.3 - 16.0M: SCREEN - BOTTOM CAP ON SCREEN

20060046 69.000 Rotary drill

20060047 15.240 (none)

20060048 8.690 (none)

20060049 18.290 (none)


20060116 23.160 (none) CAPPED TO .3 - 22.9M BOTTOM LENGTH PERFORATED WITH 97 AND 127MM HOLES



20060127 67.410 Rotary drill PUMPED Element added to align Distance to Bottom for last element with Total Drilled Depth.

20060127 67.410 Rotary drill PUMPED

20060127 67.410 Rotary drill PUMPED 0 - 47.0 X 155MM W/P; PACKER & 76MM PIPE 32.75 - 39.81

20060131 7.750 (none)

20060133 7.020 Rotary drill 6.79M X 155MM PIPE PLASTERED

23031919 90.000 (none) Bore completed with removable concrete plug. 6" open hole to 60m. 155mm Steel surface casing

23031920 48.000 (none) Bore completed with removable concrete plug. 6" open hole to 48m. 155mm Steel surface casing

23033385 60.000 Rotary mud drill Step test and Constant rate 311mm Steel surface casing with lockable steel cap

23033385 60.000 Rotary mud drill Step test and Constant rate

23033385 60.000 Rotary mud drill Step test and Constant rate

23033386 96.000 (none) Step test and Constant rate 393mm Steel surface casing with lockable steel cap

23033386 96.000 (none) Step test and Constant rate 311mm Steel conductor casing

23033386 96.000 (none) Step test and Constant rate

23033386 96.000 (none) Step test and Constant rate

Page 1

Status

WIN Site Id Site Status Start Date End Date Comments

7495 Operating 26/06/1982 28/09/1990 G2#REG READ G/W#G1#LEV+QUAL G/W#

SITE DEEMED INACTIVE. CLOSED ON 21:02:44 30/ 4/1997

7495 Not operating 28/09/1990

7496 Operating 07/07/1982 28/09/1990 G2#REG READ G/W#G1#LEV+QUAL G/W#



7608 Operating 16/08/1976 17/08/1976 G2#REG READ G/W#G0#LEV ONLY G/W#



20054610 Operating 00/01/1900

20054614 Operating 14/05/1996

20054674 Abandoned 15/08/1976

20060010 Operating 00/01/1900

20060021 Operating 13/05/1996

20060021 Not operating 00/01/1900

20060022 Operating 00/01/1900

20060023 Operating 00/01/1900

20060024 Operating 13/05/1996 (Recorded By:AGRICULTURE WA)

20060025 Operating 18/05/1996 (Recorded By:AGRICULTURE WA)

20060038 Operating 00/01/1900

20060046 Abandoned 12/10/1975

20060049 Operating 01/01/1984

20060116 Operating 30/06/1935

20060133 Abandoned 15/08/1976

23033385 Operating 03/08/2000

23033386 Operating 14/08/2000

Page 1

Lithology Log

WIN Site Id Depth From Depth To Stratigraphy

7495 0.000 63.000 GRAVEL UP TO 25MM SUBANG. SUB ROUNDED B.I.F., GREY AND BANDED CHERT LIMONITIC SILTSTONE, MINOR SPERICAL IRONSTONE

(B.I.F.) 2MM, MINOR RED SILT.

7495 63.000 93.000 CLAY, YELLOW, KHAKI AND RED/BROWN, ALSO WHITE BELOW 78M, BRICK RED SILT AT 90-93M.

7495 93.000 117.000 GRAVEL AND CLAY, GRAVEL OR MASSIVE HEMATITE IS IRREGULAR FRAGMENTS (ROBE PISOLITE), PART LIMONITE COATED, WITH

RED/BROWN SILT AND YELLOW/KHAKI CLAY BELOW 99M.

7495 117.000 126.000 CLAY, RED, BROWN AND WHITE, HEMATITE GRAVEL AS 93-117M, SILCRETE, WHITE PORCELLANOUS.

7495 126.000 154.000 CLAY, RED, WHITE, MINOR YELLOW WITH MINOR GRAVEL AND SILCRETE.

7495 154.000 158.000 NO SAMPLE

7495 158.000 165.000 NO SAMPLE RETURN, CIRCULATION LOST IN CAVITY, HARD DRILLLING-PRESUMABLY BEDROCK AT BASE

7496 0.000 12.000 GRAVEL, 20-30MM DIAMETER, ANGULAR BLACK AND BANDED CHERT, RED AND GREY SILTSTONE AND BANDED IRON FORMATION MINOR

RED SILT/CLAY

7496 12.000 24.000 GRAVEL, 10MM DIAMETER AS 0-12M MINOR RED CLAY

7496 24.000 27.000 SILTY/CLAY, RED, ANGULAR BLACK CHERT FRAGMENTS TO 10MM

7496 27.000 30.000 GRAVEL, 5MM DIAMETER, AS 0-12M WITH RED SILT/CLAY

7496 30.000 42.000 GRAVEL, AS 27-30M WITH ROUNDED LIMONITE COATED GRAINS OF MASSIVE HEMATITE

7496 42.000 45.000 GRAVEL, AS 30-42M WITH RATE INDURATED WHITE SILCRETE/CLAYSTONE

7496 45.000 57.000 GRAVEL, LIMONITE COATED, 3MM ANGULAR GRAVEL OF CHERT HEMATITE AND SILTSTONE

7496 57.000 63.000 CLAY, YELLOW KHAKI AND MINOR WHITE, RARE WHITE CLAYSTONE/SILCRETE, GRAVEL AS 45-57M

7496 63.000 81.000 CLAY, RED/BROWN, MINOR WHITE AND YELLOWKHAKI, MINOR FIRE GRAVEL AS 45-57M

7496 81.000 84.000 CLAY, YELLOW/KHAKI AND WHITE

7496 84.000 96.000 CLAY, DARK GREY/BROWN

7496 96.000 98.000 DOLOMITE, GREY CRYSTALLINE, WITH LARGE (60MM) QUARTZ CRYSTALS

7608 0.000 48.000 PEBBLES WITH GRAVEL, SOME SAND SILT AND CLAY. BAND OF SILTY CLAY 39-42M

7608 48.000 60.000 FERRUGINOUS PEBBLES WITH GRAVEL SAND AND SILT

7608 60.000 72.000 AS ABOVE WITH CLAY, WHITE AND CHIPS OF WHITE PALE GREEN AND PALE-GREY CLAY

7608 72.000 75.000 YELLOW CLAY SOME WHITE, PALE GREEN AND GREY CLAY. SOME FERRUGINOUS SAND AND SILT AS FOR 48-72M

7608 75.000 81.700 CLAY, YELLOW WITH FERRUGINOUS PEBBLES AND GRAVEL

20054611 0.000 3.050 RUBBLE

20054611 3.050 6.100 SANDSTONE, SOFT, HARD

20054611 6.100 19.810 HARD SANDSTONE

20054674 0.000 11.900 GRAVEL, CLAYEY 0 -1.2M

20060046 0.000 5.500 CALCRETE WITH SILCRETE BELOW 3M. CALCRETE: BROWN & WHITE WITH A FEW SMALL VUGHS ABOVE 3M. HARD AND CONTAINING

BROWN SILT, CLAY SAND AND SMALL PEBBLES OF HEMATITE AND A LITTLE JASPER ABOVE 3M AND A FEW SMALL RELICT STRINGERS OF

SILT AND SAND BELOW 3M.SI

20060046 5.500 15.000 GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES UP TO 2.5CM. A LITTLE SAND BELOW 9M SOME YELLOW CLAY BELOW 12 MOD TO WELL SORTED ANG TO

ROUNDED, GENERALLY SUB ROUNDED TO ROUNDED. CLASTS:- HEMATITE BANDED CHERT, CHERT (INC BLACK & GREEN) B.I.F., HEMATITE

SHALE, A LITTLE JASPER RARE

20060046 15.000 21.000 GRAVEL WITH SILT, CLAY, CALCRETE, SILCRETE BANDS. 40% GRAVEL:- CONTAINS A LITTLE SAND AND SILT AND A FEW PEBBLES UP TO

0.5CM. FAIRLY WELL SORTED, ANG TO SUB ANG; MOSTLY HEMATITE SOME CHERT, BANDED CHERT, B.I.F. 25% YELLOW-BROWN

SILTSTONE, SOFT CHIPS.20

20060046 21.000 24.000 PEBBLES WITH GRAVEL; PEBBLES TO 2CM, A FEW LARGE FRAGS OF CALCRETE, A FEW CHIPS OF WHITE CLAY. WELL SORTED ANG TO

ROUNDED. CLASTS: HEMATITE, BANDED CHERT, BLACK, GREEN CHERT, B.I.F. A LITTLE JASPER, HEMATITE SHALE. GRAVEL MAY BE

CONTAMINATION

20060046 24.000 29.000 PEBBLES AND CLAY, A LITTLE GRAVEL, SAND. PEBBLES AS 21 - 24M PROBABLY CONTAMINATION. CLAY LIGHT GREY, SLIGHTLY

CALCAREOUS, POSSIBLY INC MINUTE CHIPS OF CALCRETE

20060046 29.000 63.000 CLAY, SOFT, LIGHT GREY, BROWN AND BLACK TO 42M DARK GREY TO BLACK 42 - 63M. A LITTLE PYRITE BELOW 42M. THIN VEINS OR

LAYERS OF WHITE AND CLEAR CRYSTALLINE QUARTZ BELOW 54M.

20060046 63.000 69.000 HARD DARK GREY SAHEL. SAMPLE CONTAMINATED BY CAVING ESPECIALLY IN LOWER PART OF HOLE.

20060127 0.000 3.000 GRAVEL & COARSE SAND; SOME FINE MEDIUM SAND, TRACE CLAY AND SILT. PEBBLES UP TO 2.5CM MAINLY FLAT. MOD SORTED SUB ANG

TO ROUNDED, MOSTLY SUB ROUNDED TO ROUNDED. CLASTS BIF CHERT, BANDED CHERT, HEMATITE SHALE, A LITTLE QUARTZ

20060127 3.000 6.000 MED TO COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES UP TO 1.5CM. SOME FINE SAND TRACE CLAY & SILT. MOD SORTED ANG TO

ROUNDED, MAINLY SUBANG TO SUB ROUNDED. TRACE CLAY AND SILT; CLASTS AS 0-3M WITH GRAINS OF BANDED JASPER & CALCRETE

CHIPS

20060127 6.000 27.000 GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES TO 2CM. A LITTLE SAND AT TOP SOME SAND AT BASE. TRACE CLAY & SILT. MOD WELL SORTED, ANG TO

ROUNDED GENERALLY SUB ANG TO SUB ROUNDED BELOW 18M, SUB ROUNDED TO ROUNDED ABOVE 18M. CLASTS OF CHERT BIF,

BANDED CHERT (SOMETIMES GREEN) HE

20060127 27.000 34.000 COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL, BECOMING COARSER WITH PEBBLES UP TO 2CM. A LITTLE FINE MED SAND, SILT AND CLAY. MOD WELL

SORTED ANG TO ROUNDED, MOSTLY SUB ANG TO SUB ROUNDED. CLASTS OF BIF, CHERT, BANDED CHERT, JASPER, HEMATITE SHALE, A

LITTLE QUARTZ

20060127 34.000 37.000 VERY CLAYEY COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL WITH A FEW PEBBLES TO 1CM; SOME FINE TO MED SAND. CLAY RED BROWN. MOD SORTED

ANG TO ROUNDED, MAINLY SUB ANG AND SUB ROUNDED. CLASTS AS 27-34M

20060127 37.000 43.000 GRAVEL & PEBBLES TO 1CM, SOME FINE COARSE SAND A LITTLE SILT AND CLAY. MOD SORTED ANG TO ROUNDED MOSTLY SUB ANG TO

SUB ROUNDED. CLASTS AS FOR 27.34

20060127 43.000 45.000

GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES, TO 2CM AND CLAY. SOME SAND AND SILT CLASTS AS 34-37M. CLAY WHITE, YELLOW WHITE, SOME HARD CHIPS

20060127 45.000 48.000 PEBBLES WITH CLAY. PEBBLES TO 2CM. TRACE SAND AND SILT. PEBBLES ANG TO ROUNDED, MOSTLY SUB ANG TO SUB ROUNDED.

HEMATITE, HEMATITE SHALE, CHERT, JASPER, BANDED CHERT AND BIF BROWN CLAY

20060127 48.000 51.000 CLAY GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES TO 1CM. TRACE SAND AND SILT. MOD WELL SORTED ANG TO ROUNDED MOSTLY ANG TO SUB ANG CLASTS.

CHERT BANDED CHERT HEMATITE SHALE, HEMATITE BIF RARE QUARTZ CLAY BROWN

20060127 51.000 57.000 GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES TO 3CM, A LITTLE SAND, TRACE SILT; SOME CLAY YELLOW AS FRAGMENTS AND COATING. WELL SORTED ANG TO

ROUNDED, MOSTLY ANG TO SUB ANG, CLASTS OF HEMATITE, CHERT, BANDED CHERT, HEMATITE SHALE, BIF JASPER, GREEN CHERT AND

RARE QUARTZ. A FEWC

20060127 57.000 65.000 YELLOW CLAY, SILT, SAND AND GRAVEL WITH PEBBLES TO 1.5CM. SAND AND GRAVEL AS 51-57M PROBABLY CAVINGS. CALCRETE

ABSENT. CLAY AS COATING & LARGE CHIPS, MOSTLY YELLOW SOME BROWN

20060127 65.000 66.500 DOLOMITE WHITE AND GREY CRYSTALLINE

20060127 66.500 67.410 CORE 0.8M RECOVERED BUT CORE VERY BROKEN. DOLOMITE GREY SOME WHITE; FINELY BEDDED FINE GRAINED, CRYSTALLINE. SOME

DISCORDANT SECONDARY BEINS OF WHITE DOLOMITE WITH CRYSTAL LINED VUGHS, VUGHS NOT INTERCONNECTED. A FEW LIGHT

FRACTURES WITH MANGANESE DEND

23031919 0.000 4.000 ALLUVIUM: Red-brown, silt sand and ironstone gravel up to 50mm, inconsolidated.

23031919 4.000 6.000 SILT: Red-brown, unconsolidated, sandy and gravelly, with pisolites, ironstone and minor cherty material.

23031919 6.000 12.000 CLAY and CALCRETE: Light brown / off-white, some chert (possible contamination). Calcrete with black flecking.

23031919 12.000 18.000 CLAY: Khaki, sticky and plastic.

23031919 18.000 24.000 CLAY: Brown/dark brown, with angular ironstone gravel up to 6mm. Some weathered/oxidised shale.

23031919 24.000 44.000 CLAY and SHALE: Brown/green-brown to black, weathered shale and minor pink soapy clay.

23031919 44.000 90.000 SHALE and DOLOMITE: Brown, banded weathered shale and dolomite (thin bands with crystalline structure). Some minor Quartz veining, brown/yellow-

brown clay 44-90m.

23031920 0.000 6.000 ALLUVIUM: Red-brown, with silt, sand and >50mm ironstone gravel. Very poorly sorted and inconsolidated

23031920 6.000 21.000 CLAY: Red-brown / brown, sandy and gravelly. Angular ironstone up to 10mm, some pisolitic gravels

23031920 21.000 48.000 GRAVEL: Dark brown, haematite and limonitic gravel (Brockman Scree material), with secondary vitreous goethite.

23033385 0.000 4.000 ALLUVIUM: Red, loams and mixed gravels

23033385 4.000 14.000 GRAVEL: Red-brown, hematitic and limonitic gravels with minor BIF

23033385 14.000 60.000 GRAVEL: Red-brown, hematitic gravels with lesser amounts of limonitic gravels, intercallated with limonitic gravels

23033386 0.000 2.000 GRAVELLY CLAY: Red-brown, angular chips of quartz and white calcrete.

23033386 2.000 10.000 CLAY: Yellow clay with angular chips of off-white calcrete. Calcrete has black manganese veining.

Page 1

Lithology Log

23033386 10.000 16.000 CLAY: As above with larger calcrete chips (up to 2cm) and fragments of ironstone.

23033386 16.000 20.000 CLAY: Greenish-yellow soft clay with black clay / shale.

23033386 20.000 24.000

GRAVEL: Red-brown to mauve/grey, angular to sub-angular ironstone. Gravel (generally 2-3mm, up to 5mm) at 20-22m. Vuggy and cemented at 22-24m.

23033386 24.000 26.000 CLAY: Khaki, puggy.

23033386 26.000 34.000 SHALE: Very pale grey, soft, weathered/oxidised shale.

23033386 34.000 44.000 SHALE: Grey (darker), soft shales.

23033386 44.000 50.000 SHALE: Dark grey / black, soft shale. Rare pyrite.

23033386 50.000 56.000 DOLOMITIC SHALE: Grey, with some pyrite and calcite veining.

23033386 56.000 82.000 DOLOMITE / SHALE: Grey / black, dolomite and dolomitic shale. Angular chips, generally 0.5 to 1cm. Broken ground (2 to 3 cm fragments) at 60-62m and

66-68m. Pink, soapy clay / shale at 66-68m and 80-82m.

23033386 82.000 96.000 DOLOMITE: Grey, crystalline, less shale. Some weathered surfaces.

Page 2

Summary Log

WIN Site Id Depth From Depth To Stratigraphy Lithology 1 Lithology 2 Lithology 3

7495 0.000 63.000 Quaternary gravel banded iron fm sandstone

7495 63.000 154.000 Tertiary clay gravel (none)

7495 154.000 165.000 Not Logged (none) (none) (none)

7496 0.000 96.000 Tertiary gravel clay (none)

7496 96.000 98.000 Proterozoic dolomite quartz (none)

7608 0.000 48.000 Possible Quaternary pebbles gravel silt, silty

7608 48.000 81.700 Tertiary pebbles clay sand

20054611 0.000 3.050 Possible Tertiary rubble (none) (none)

20054611 3.050 19.810 Proterozoic sandstone (none) (none)

20054674 0.000 11.900 Quaternary gravel clayey (none)

20060046 0.000 29.000 Tertiary gravel pebbles calcrete

20060046 29.000 69.000 Proterozoic clay shale (none)

20060127 0.000 65.000 Quaternary gravel pebbles coarse sand

20060127 65.000 67.410 Proterozoic dolomite manganese (none)

Page 1

Site Id Win Comment Borehole

water

supply

(m3/day)

Cond comp 25

deg C (in situ)

(µS/cm)

Static

water

level (m)

TDSolids (evap

@180°C) (mg/L)

TDSolids (in

situ) ((none))

TDSolids (in

situ) (mg/L)

Temperature (in

situ) (deg C)

pH

((none))

pH (field)

((none))

7495 63 175

7495 233 7.5

7495 46.76

7496 540

7496 624 7.9

7608 47.23

20054610 4.546 12.19

20054611 9.14

20054614 pH also recorded as: 7.8. 1289.5 9.18 27.9 7.6

20060010 4.546 9.14

20060015 43.6424 15.24

20060016 21.34

20060021 >4.5459 13.72

20060021 956.3 28.1 8.1

20060022 4.546 18.29

20060023 218.212 28

20060024 1126.2 28.8 7.8

20060025 1841.4 16.8 7.7

20060037 4.546 7.62

20060037 3.2 760

20060037 2.85

20060037 FIELD CONDUCTVITY RECORDED AS 1715 uS AT 24.8 C 8.1

20060038 5.49

20060038

20060041 12.19

20060042 9.14

20060043 54.553 8.23

20060044 6.1

20060045 76.3742 4.57

20060046 2.91 515

20060047 5.49

20060047 SAMPLES TAKEN FROM TANK. FIELD CONDUCTIVITY RECORDED AS 1257 uS AT 24.8 C 8.7

20060048 4.546 3.96

20060048 5.5 650

20060049 FIELD CONDUCTIVITY RECORDED AS 361 uS AT 24.7 C. 7.6

20060050 15.24

20060116 16.2

20060116 31.822 16.76

20060127 196 9.77 793

20060127 650 8.4

20060131 3.96

20060131 2.8

20060131 4

20060131 430

WIN SITE ID REFERENCE CONTEXT NAME NAME ZONE EASTING NORTHING COLLECTED DATE READING

RELIABILITY

CONVERTED

LEVEL (mAHD)

UNIT USED OUTPUT

DATUM

STORED

READING

STORED VARIABLE STORED DEPTH

REF. POINT

STORED ELEVATION STORED DATUM USED DEPTH

REF. POINT

USED OUTPUT

ELEVATION

20054611 70610416 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN G 8 8-73 50 546438 7532733 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 9.140 Static water level GL GL

20054614 70610419 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN CROSSING BORE 50 535638 7533795 00:00:00 14/05/1996 = m AHD 9.180 Static water level GL GL

20060021 70610589 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN GUM POINT WELL 50 552123 7531490 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 13.720 Static water level GL GL

20060022 70610590 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN SYLVIA BORE 50 559681 7530663 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 18.290 Static water level GL GL

20060023 70610591 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN NO 3 50 555176 7531235 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 28.000 Static water level GL GL

20054610 70610887 706 - ASHBURTON RIVER BASIN BLOOMS WELL 50 542562 7533825 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 12.190 Static water level GL GL

20060010 70810172 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN HOUSE WELL 50 569968 7536528 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 9.140 Static water level GL GL

20060015 70810174 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN HAMERSLEY RAILWAY BORE 21 50 570778 7537307 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 15.240 Static water level GL GL


20060037 70810178 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN MATAPAN WELL 50 565921 7563898 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 7.620 Static water level GL GL

20060037 70810178 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN MATAPAN WELL 50 565921 7563898 00:00:00 15/07/1974 = m AHD 3.200 Static water level GL GL

20060037 70810178 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN MATAPAN WELL 50 565921 7563898 00:00:00 09/09/1996 = m AHD 2.850 Static water level GL GL

20060038 70810179 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WEELUMERRINA WELL 50 572792 7556383 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 5.490 Static water level GL GL






20060046 70810186 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WEELUMURRA 6A 50 565059 7564558 00:00:00 12/10/1975 = m AHD 2.910 Static water level GL GL

20060047 70810187 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN NEW WALLINA BORE 50 564999 7564785 00:00:00 09/09/1996 = m AHD 5.490 Static water level GL GL

20060048 70810188 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WALLINA WELL 50 563077 7564647 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 3.960 Static water level GL GL

20060048 70810188 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WALLINA WELL 50 563077 7564647 00:00:00 15/07/1974 = m AHD 5.500 Static water level GL GL


20060116 70810237 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN BACON BORE 50 565980 7570026 1000-01-02 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 16.200 Static water level GL GL

20060116 70810237 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN BACON BORE 50 565980 7570026 00:00:00 30/06/1935 = m AHD 16.760 Static water level GL GL

20060127 70810247 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WEELAMURRA 5A 50 565970 7570572 00:00:00 15/05/1975 = m AHD 9.770 Static water level GL GL

20060131 70810249 708 - FORTESCUE RIVER BASIN WALLINA WELL 27C (OLD WALLANNA) 50 563243 7567955 1000-01-01 00:00:00.000 = m AHD 3.960 Static water level GL GL



7495 70818053 MILLSTREAM NWWS -39B- 50 549599 7578194 00:00:00 30/06/1982 = 334.380 m AHD 46.760 Static water level GL 381.140 GL GL 381.140

7608 70830007 MILLSTREAM 40B 50 555355 7576095 00:00:00 20/08/1976 = m AHD 47.230 Static water level GL GL

Page 1

CONSTRUCTION

DEPTH REF

POINT

CONSTRUCTION

DATUM TYPE

REF POINT

ELEVATION

TOPMOST

SCREEN

BOTTOMMOST

SCREEN

INLET

DATUM REF.

READING COMMENT SAMPLE COMMENT BORE_INLET TDS_COND SAMPLE_DATES

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

pH also recorded as: 7.8. Cond comp 25 deg C (in situ) 1289.500 µS/cm on 14-05-1996 14-05-1996 to 14-05-1996

Cond comp 25 deg C (in situ) 956.300 µS/cm on 13-05-1996 01-01-1000 to 13-05-1996

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

TDSolids (in situ) 760.000 mg/L on 15-07-1974 01-01-1000 to 09-09-1996



Cond uncomp (lab) 600.000 µS/cm on 05-09-1996 01-01-1000 to 05-09-1996

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

=16 =28 GL Top of top inlet =16m, Bottom of bottom inlet =28m, from Ground level TDSolids (in situ) 515.000 mg/L on 12-10-1975 12-10-1975 to 12-10-1975

09-09-1996 to 09-09-1996



01-01-1000 to 01-01-1000

02-01-1000 to 30-06-1935

02-01-1000 to 30-06-1935

=39.81 =58.21 GL Top of top inlet =39.81m, Bottom of bottom inlet =58.21m, from Ground level TDSolids (evap @180°C) 650.000 mg/L on 15-05-1975 15-05-1975 to 15-05-1975




GL AHD 381.140 Cond uncomp (lab) 243.000 µS/cm on 27-03-1990 15-06-1982 to 27-09-1990

20-08-1976 to 20-08-1976

Page 2



APPENDIX B Monitoring Well Logs

RC

554.43

534.43

498.43

488.43

470.43

86.90467.53

20.00

56.00

66.00

84.00

RECENT SURFICIAL DEPOSIT

CID

BID

BM

NOT LOGGED

END OF BOREHOLE @ 86.90 m

02/1

2/10

0 - 81.6m 50mm Class 12PVC

0 - 54.4m Backfill

54.4 - 55.4m Bentonite55.4 - 56.0m Fine Sand

56.0 - 86.7m 10mmdiameter filter pack

86.1 - 86.6m 50mmSlotted PVC

End cap0.32

ME

THO

D

Sampling

WA

TER

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

Field Material Description and Instrumentation

RLDEPTH

DE

PTH

(met

res)

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

Drilling

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SHEET: 1 OF 1

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DRILL RIG:

CONTRACTOR: Not Applicable

LOGGED: GM

CHECKED:

GAP gINT FN. F05RL3

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

JOB NO:

DATE: 2/12/10

DATE:

Flinders Mines Ltd


Area D

097641461

COORDS: 550979.4 m E 7552191.1 m N MGA94 50

SURFACE RL: 554.43 m DATUM: AHD

INCLINATION: -90°

HOLE DIA: 140 mm HOLE DEPTH: 86.90 m

This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared forgeotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for

information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.

REPORT OF BOREHOLE: HPRC0226

GA

P 8

_05A

LIB

.GLB

Log

GA

P W

ELL

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S.G

PJ

DW

G97

341.

GD

W 1

0/03

/201

0 19

:26

8.2

.004

CONSTRUCTION

AIR

LIFT

YIE

LD (L

/s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

RC

548.89

532.89

498.89

468.89

90.00458.89

16.00

50.00

80.00


CID

BID

BIF


02/0

9/10


0 - 46.7m Backfill

46.7 - 47.4m Bentonite

47.4 - 49.3m Fine Sand

49.3 - 74.3m 1.6 to3.2mm diameter filter pack

74.3 - 80.3m 50mmSlotted PVC

80.3 - 86.3m 50mm Class12 PVC

End cap

86.3 - 90.0m HoleCollapsed

0.54

ME

THO

D

Sampling

WA

TER

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST


RLDEPTH

DE

PTH

(met

res)

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

Drilling


SHEET: 1 OF 1

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DRILL RIG:


LOGGED: GM

CHECKED:

GAP gINT FN. F05RL3

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

JOB NO:

DATE: 2/7/10

DATE:

Flinders Mines Ltd


Area D

097641461

COORDS: 551012.6 m E 7553378.2 m N MGA94 50


INCLINATION: -90°





GA

P 8

_05A

LIB

.GLB

Log

GA

P W

ELL

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S.G

PJ

DW

G97

341.

GD

W 1

0/03

/201

0 19

:26

8.2

.004

CONSTRUCTION

AIR

LIFT

YIE

LD (L

/s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

RC

542.59

534.59

482.59

464.59

96.00446.59

8.00

60.00

78.00


CID

BID

BM


02/1

1/10


0 - 37.2m Backfill

37.2 - 37.8m Bentonite37.8 - 39.0m Fine Sand

39.0 - 46.0m 10mmdiameter filter pack

45.3 - 47.5m 50mmSlotted PVC46.0 - 51.4m << 1.6 to3.2mm diameter filter pack End cap

51.4 - 96.00m HoleCollapsed

ME

THO

D

Sampling

WA

TER

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST


RLDEPTH

DE

PTH

(met

res)

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

Drilling


SHEET: 1 OF 1

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

DRILL RIG:


LOGGED: GM

CHECKED:

GAP gINT FN. F05RL3

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

JOB NO:

DATE: 2/10/10

DATE:

Flinders Mines Ltd


Area D

097641461

COORDS: 551181.2 m E 7552884.2 m N MGA94 50


INCLINATION: -90°





GA

P 8

_05A

LIB

.GLB

Log

GA

P W

ELL

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S.G

PJ

DW

G97

341.

GD

W 1

0/03

/201

0 19

:26

8.2

.004

CONSTRUCTION

AIR

LIFT

YIE

LD (L

/s)

0

20

40

60

80

100



APPENDIX C Aquifer Test Analyses

Zone Storativity1 3.82E-01

CLIENT Flinders Mines Ltd PROJECT Groundwater Investigation Area Delta

DRAWN GM DATE 24/02/2010 TITLE


SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. FIGURE No. C-1

184.73 kPa 9.024e-07 m³/Pa2Skin Effect

-2.8624

097641461

Slug Test Analysis HPRC2194

TransmissivityStatic Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)Flow Dimension3.664e-03 m²/s

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 hrsTime

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01kPa

PressureHPRC2194 / Slug Test / Slug In Recovery: LogLog Plot

M:\Jobs409\Mining\097641461_Flinders_PFS\CorrespondenceOut\097641461-010-R-RevA-Draft\Appendix C\097641461-010-Figures Appendix C

Zone Storativity1 5.22E-012 3.37E-01





Transmissivity

138.06 kPa 2.049e-04 m²/s 3

Static Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)138.06 kPa 2.895e-07 m³/Pa25.543e-03 m²/s

2.895e-07 m³/Pa

Flow Dimension

097641461

Slug Injection Test Analysis HPRC2194

Skin Effect-3.8301-3.8301

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 hrsTime

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00kPa

PressureHPRC2194 / Injection Slug / Slug Recovery: LogLog Plot






Slug Test Responses in HPRC0280

Static Level

Sinusoidal Response

Second Response


CLIENT Flinders Mines Ltd PROJECT Groundwater Investigation Area DeltaDRAWN GM DATE 24/02/2010 TITLE

CHECK JJV DATE 24/02/2010SCALE Not To Scale A4 PROJECT No. FIGURE No. C-4097641461




CLIENT Flinders Mines Ltd PROJECT




SCALE Not To Scale A4PROJECT No. FIGURE No.

C-6

Skin Effect-4.9194

097641461


TransmissivityStatic Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)Flow Dimension1.387e-03 m²/s162.93 kPa 6.944e-07 m³/Pa2

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 hrsTime

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01kPa

PressureHPRC2167 / Slug Test / Slug In 2 Recovery: LogLog Plot







Airlift Recovery Test Analysis HPRC0226

Skin Effect-4.7839

Flow DimensionStatic Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)54.00 kPa 7.747e-8 m³/Pa23.841e-03 m²/s

Transmissivity

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 hrsTime

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03kPa

PressureHPRC0226 / Airlift Recovery / recovery: LogLog Plot




Airlift Recovery Analysis HPRC2175


Zone Storativity1 9.45E-032 9.51E-03





Transmissivity

161.39 kPa 9.96e-03 m²/s 2

Static Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)161.39 kPa 1.674e-06 m³/Pa25.822e-04 m²/s

1.674e-06 m³/Pa

Flow Dimension

097641461

Pumping Test and Recovery Test Analysis Delta Bore

Skin Effect6.4026.402

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 hrsTime

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02kPa

PressureDelta Bore / Pumping test and Recovery / Pumping: LogLog Plot


Zone Storativity1 0.103





Skin Effect0.3556

097641461


TransmissivityStatic Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)Flow Dimension3.027e-04 m²/s133.85 kPa 7.000e-07 m³/Pa2

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 hrsTime

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01kPa

PressureHPRC2136 / Slug Test / Slug In recovery: LogLog Plot







132.27 kPa 9.991e-07 m³/Pa2Skin Effect

2

097641461


TransmissivityStatic Pressure C (Well Bore Storage)Flow Dimension3.621e-04 m²/s

1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 hrsTime

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00kPa

PressureHPRC2062 / Test 1 / Slug In Recovery: LogLog Plot




APPENDIX D Groundwater Sample Analytical Results

ANALYTICAL REPORTANALYTICAL REPORT 23 February 201023 February 2010

Client DetailsClient Details Job DetailsJob Details

ClientClient :: Golder Associates Pty LtdGolder Associates Pty Ltd Client ReferenceClient Reference :: 097641461097641461ContactContact :: G. HarchandG. Harchand Report NoReport No :: PE028645PE028645AddressAddress :: PO Box 1914PO Box 1914 Report VersionReport Version :: 0000

WEST PERTHWEST PERTH SamplesSamples :: WatersWatersWEST PERTH WA 6872WEST PERTH WA 6872 ReceivedReceived :: 15/02/201015/02/2010

Comments:Comments:

This report cancels and supercedes any preliminary results providedThis report cancels and supercedes any preliminary results provided

For and on Behalf of SGS Environmental ServicesFor and on Behalf of SGS Environmental Services

Client Services Manager:Client Services Manager: Matthew DeavesMatthew Deaves [email protected]@sgs.comSample Receipt:Sample Receipt: Cecilia TadenaCecilia Tadena [email protected]@sgs.comLaboratory Manager:Laboratory Manager: Said HiradSaid Hirad [email protected]@sgs.com

Results Approved and/or Authorised by:Results Approved and/or Authorised by:

Page 1 of 12Page 1 of 12

Project:Project: 097641461097641461 Report No:Report No:PE028645PE028645

Sample Preparation Client Reference Units Q00326-01 Q00326-02 Q00326-03Sample No PE028645-1 PE028645-2 PE028645-3Date Sampled 12/02/2010 9/02/2010 10/02/2010Type of Sample Water Water Water

Subcontracted (Sydney) - Water FG 18/2 FG 18/2 FG 18/2



Miscellaneous Waters 1 Client Reference Units Q00326-01 Q00326-02 Q00326-03Sample No PE028645-1 PE028645-2 PE028645-3Date Sampled 12/02/2010 9/02/2010 10/02/2010Type of Sample Water Water Water

Date Extracted 16/02/2010 16/02/2010 16/02/2010

Date Analysed 16/02/2010 16/02/2010 16/02/2010

Sodium, Na mg/L 35 35 35

Magnesium, Mg mg/L 28 23 29

Potassium, K mg/L 8.9 8.4 9.4

Calcium, Ca mg/L 27 25 27

Chloride, Cl mg/L 38 41 34

Fluoride, F mg/L 0.4 0.3 0.4

Total Suspended Solids @103oC mg/L 5 10 <5

Total Dissolved Solids @ 180oC mg/L 260 240 230

Conductivity @25oC µS/cm 410 380 400

Turbidity NTU 7 31 3

Acidity as CaCO3 (pH=8.3) mg/L <5 6 21

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 150 120 160

Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 14 11 13

Sulphite, SO3 mg/L <2 <2 <2



Metals Suite Client Reference Units Q00326-01 Q00326-02 Q00326-03Sample No PE028645-1 PE028645-2 PE028645-3Date Sampled 12/02/2010 9/02/2010 10/02/2010Type of Sample Water Water Water

Date Extracted 20/02/2010 20/02/2010 20/02/2010

Date Analysed 20/02/2010 20/02/2010 20/02/2010

Soluble Aluminium, Al mg/L 0.004 0.009 0.003

Soluble Silver, Ag mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Arsenic, As mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Boron, B mg/L 0.20 0.17 0.24

Soluble Barium, Ba mg/L 0.033 0.023 0.021

Bismuth, Bi mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Cadmium, Cd mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Soluble Cobalt, Co mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Chromium, Cr mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Copper, Cu mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Lithium,Li mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Soluble Iron, Fe mg/L 0.023 0.013 0.045

Soluble Manganese, Mn mg/L 0.084 0.007 0.039

Soluble Molybdenum, Mo mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Nickel, Ni mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Lead, Pb mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Tellerium, Te mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thorium, Th mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thallium, Tl mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Antimony, Sb mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Selenium, Se mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Soluble Tin, Sn mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Strontium, Sr mg/L 0.084 0.085 0.079

Vanadium,V mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Uranium,U mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Soluble Zinc, Zn mg/L 0.10 0.052 0.052

Soluble Rhubidium, Rb * mg/L 0.03 0.02 0.03



Mercury Client Reference Units Q00326-01 Q00326-02 Q00326-03Sample No PE028645-1 PE028645-2 PE028645-3Date Sampled 12/02/2010 9/02/2010 10/02/2010Type of Sample Water Water Water

Date Extracted 17/02/2010 17/02/2010 17/02/2010

Date Analysed 17/02/2010 17/02/2010 17/02/2010

Soluble Mercury, Hg mg/L 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001



Nutrient Suite Client Reference Units Q00326-01 Q00326-02 Q00326-03Sample No PE028645-1 PE028645-2 PE028645-3Date Sampled 12/02/2010 9/02/2010 10/02/2010Type of Sample Water Water Water

Date Extracted 17/02/2010 17/02/2010 17/02/2010

Date Analysed 17/02/2010 17/02/2010 17/02/2010

Nitrate, NO3 mg/L 1.1 4.1 0.17

Nitrite, NO2 mg/L 0.09 0.08 0.23

Ammonia Nitrogen NH3-N mg/L 0.02 0.3 0.04

Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.83 1.7 0.62

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.02 0.04 0.02



QUALTY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Sample || Dup || %RPD

Spike Spike % Recovery

Miscellaneous Waters 1

Date Extracted 16/2/10 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 16/2/10

Date Analysed 16/2/10 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 16/2/10

Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 AN020-AN321

<0.5 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 101%

Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 AN020-AN321


Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 AN020-AN321


Calcium, Ca mg/L 0.2 AN020-AN321


Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 AN274 <1 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 108%

Fluoride, F mg/L 0.1 AN141 <0.1 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 102%

Total Suspended Solids @103oC

mg/L 5 AN114 <5 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 88%

Total Dissolved Solids @ 180oC


Conductivity @25oC µS/cm 2 AN106 <2 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 100%

Turbidity NTU 1 AN119 <1 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 101%

Acidity as CaCO3 (pH=8.3)


Total Alkalinity as CaCO3


Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 AN275 <1 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 103%

Sulphite, SO3 mg/L 2 AN150 <2 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]





Metals Suite



Soluble Aluminium, Al mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 94%

Soluble Silver, Ag mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 91%

Soluble Arsenic, As mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 96%

Soluble Boron, B mg/L 0.005 AN020-AN318

<0.005 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 90%

Soluble Barium, Ba mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 101%

Bismuth, Bi mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 90%

Soluble Cadmium, Cd mg/L 0.0001 AN020-AN318

<0.0001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 102%

Soluble Cobalt, Co mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 89%

Soluble Chromium, Cr mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 93%

Soluble Copper, Cu mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 101%

Lithium,Li mg/L 0.01 AN020-AN318


Soluble Iron, Fe mg/L 0.005 AN020-AN318

<0.005 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 97%

Soluble Manganese, Mn mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 92%

Soluble Molybdenum, Mo

mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 98%

Soluble Nickel, Ni mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 102%

Soluble Lead, Pb mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 98%

Tellerium, Te mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 93%

Thorium, Th mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 79%

Thallium, Tl mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 89%

Antimony, Sb mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 96%





Metals Suite

Soluble Selenium, Se mg/L 0.002 AN020-AN318

<0.002 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 96%

Soluble Tin, Sn mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 99%

Soluble Strontium, Sr mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 93%

Vanadium,V mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 94%

Soluble Uranium,U mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 89%

Soluble Zinc, Zn mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 95%

Soluble Rhubidium, Rb * mg/L 0.001 AN020-AN318

<0.001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 88%



Mercury



Soluble Mercury, Hg mg/L 0.0001 AN311 <0.0001 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 106%



Nutrient Suite



Nitrate, NO3 mg/L 0.05 AN258 <0.05 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 103%

Nitrite, NO2 mg/L 0.05 AN258 <0.05 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 94%

Ammonia Nitrogen NH3-N

mg/L 0.005 AN261 <0.005 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 103%

Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.05 AN209 <0.05 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 94%

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 AN210 <0.01 [NT] [NT] CONTROL 105%



Method ID Methodology Summary

AN020-AN321 After preservation with 10% nitric acid, a wide range of metals and some non-metals in solution can be measured by ICP. Solutions are aspirated into an argon plasma at 8000-10000K and emit characteristic energy or light as a result of electron transitions through unique energy levels. The emitted light is focused onto a diffraction grating where it is separated into components. Photomultipliers or CCDs are used to measure the light intensity at specific wavelengths. This intensity is directly proportional to concentration. Corrections are required to compensate for spectral overlap between elements. Reference APHA 3120 B

AN274 Chloride reacts with mercuric thiocyanate forming a mercuric chloride complex. In the presence of ferric iron, highly coloured ferric thiocyanate is formed which is proportional to the chloride concentration. Reference APHA 4500Cl-

AN141 A fluoride ion selective electrode and reference electrode combination, in the presence of a pH/complexation buffer, is used to determine the fluoride concentration. The electrode millivolt response is measured logarithmically against fluoride concentration. Reference APHA F- C.

AN114 The sample is homogenised by shaking and a known volume is filtered through a pre-weighed GF/C filter paper and washed well with deionised water. The filter paper is dried and reweighed. The TSS is the residue retained by the filter per unit volume of sample. Reference APHA 2540 D. Internal Reference AN114

AN113 A well-mixed filtered sample of known volume is evaporated to dryness at 180°C and the residue weighed. Approximate methods for correlating chemical analysis with dissolved solids are available. Reference APHA 2540 C.

AN106 Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos/cm or µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on the extract, or calculated back to the as-received sample. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2520 B.

AN119 Small particles in a light beam scatter light at a range of angles. A turbidimeter measures this scatter and reports results compared to turbidity standards, in NTU. This procedure is not suitable for very dark coloured liquids or samples with high solids because light absorption causes artificially low light scatter and low turbidity. Reference APHA 2130B.

AN140 The water sample is titrated with sodium hydroxide to designated pH end point.In a sample containing only carbon dioxide, bicarbonates and carbonates, titration to pH 8.3 at 25°C corresponds to stoichiometric neutralisation of carbonic acid to bicarbonate.Method reference APHA 2310 B.

AN135 The sample is titrated with standard acid to pH 8.3 (P titre) and pH 4.5 (T titre) and permanent and/or total alkalinity calculated. The results are expressed as equivalents of calcium carbonate or recalculated as bicarbonate, carbonate and hydroxide. Reference APHA 2320. Internal Reference AN135

AN275 Sulphate is precipitated in an acidic medium with barium chloride. The resulting turbidity is measured photometrically at 405nm and compared with standard calibration solutions to determine the sulphate concentration in the sample. Reference APHA 4500-SO42-. Internal reference AN275.

AN150 An acidified sample is titrated with standardised potassium iodide - iodatesolution. The free iodine liberated reacts with the sulphite present.



Method ID Methodology Summary

Method reference APHA 4500 - SO32- B

AN020-AN318 After filtration through a 0.45µ filter, a wide range of metals and some non-metals in solution can be measured by ICP. Solutions are aspirated into an argon plasma at 8000-10000K and emit characteristic energy or light as a result of electron transitions through unique energy levels. The emitted light is focused onto a diffraction grating where it is separated into components. Photomultipliers or CCDs are used to measure the light intensity at specific wavelengths. This intensity is directly proportional to concentration. Corrections are required to compensate for spectral overlap between elements. Reference APHA 3120 B

AN311 Mercury ions are reduced by stannous chloride reagent in acidic solution to elemental mercury. This mercury vapour is purged by nitrogen into a cold cell in an atomic absorption spectrometer or mercury analyser. Quantification is made by comparing absorbances to those of the calibration standards. Reference APHA 3112/3500.

AN258 In an acidic medium, nitrate is reduced quantitatively to nitrite by cadmium metal. This nitrite plus any original nitrite is determined as an intense red-pink azo dye at 540 nm following diazotisation with sulphanilamide and subsequent coupling with N-(1-naphthyl) ethylenediamine dihydrochloride. Without the cadmium reduction only the original nitrite is determined. Reference APHA 4500-NO3- F.

AN261 Ammonium in a basic medium forms ammonia gas, which is separated from the sample matrix by diffusion through a polypropylene membrane. The ammonia is reacted with phenol and hypochlorite to form indophenol blue at an intensity proportional to the ammonia concentration. The blue colour is intensified with sodium nitroprusside and the absorbance measured at 630 nm. The sensitivity of the automated method is 10-20 times that of the macro method. Reference APHA 4500-NH3 H.

AN209 Prior to analysis samples are digested with alkaline persulphate to oxidise ammonia and other nitrogen compounds to nitrate. The resultant acid digestate is diluted and analysed as per the total oxidised nitrogen method. Reference APHA 4500-Norg/4500-NO3- F.

AN210 Prior to analysis samples are digested with acid persulphate to hydrolyse phosphorus compounds to orthophosphate. The acid digestate is diluted and analysed as per the soluble reactive phosphorus method. Reference APHA 4500-Norg/APHA 4500-P B/F



Result CodesResult Codes

[INS][INS] :: Insufficient Sample for this TestInsufficient Sample for this Test [RPD][RPD] :: Relative Percentage DifferenceRelative Percentage Difference[NR][NR] :: Not RequiredNot Required ** :: Not part of NATA AccreditationNot part of NATA Accreditation[NT][NT] :: Not TestedNot Tested [N/A][N/A] :: Not ApplicableNot ApplicableLORLOR :: Limit of ReportingLimit of Reporting [ND][ND] :: Not DetectedNot Detected

Report CommentsReport Comments

Samples analysed as received.Samples analysed as received.Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm. Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability,http://www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm. Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability,indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company'sAny holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company'sfindings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to aThe Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to atransaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Anytransaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Anyunauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document isunauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document isunlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Quality Control KeyQuality Control Key

Method Blank (MB): An analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volume or proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. A method blank is prepared every The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. A method blank is prepared every 20 samples. 20 samples. Duplicate (D): A separate portion of a sample being analysed that is treated the same as the other samples in the batch. One duplicate is processed at least every 10 samples. processed at least every 10 samples. Surrogate Spike (SS): An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behaviour in the analytical process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. Surrogates are added to samples before extraction to monitor extraction process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. Surrogates are added to samples before extraction to monitor extraction efficiency and percent recovery in each sample.efficiency and percent recovery in each sample.Internal Standard (IS): Added to all samples requiring analysis for organics (where relevant) or metals by ICP after the extraction/digestion process; the compounds/elements serve to give a standard instrument retention time and /or response, which is invariant from run-to-run. process; the compounds/elements serve to give a standard instrument retention time and /or response, which is invariant from run-to-run. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS): A known matrix spiked with compound(s) representative of the target analytes. The LCS is used to document laboratory performance. When the results of the marix spike analysis indicates a potential problem due to the sample matrix itself, the LCS results laboratory performance. When the results of the marix spike analysis indicates a potential problem due to the sample matrix itself, the LCS results are used to verify that the laboratory can perform the analysis in a clean matrix. are used to verify that the laboratory can perform the analysis in a clean matrix. Matrix Spike (MS): An aliquot of sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix. and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix. Relative Percentage Difference (RPD): The difference between an original and a duplicate result divided by the average of the original and duplicate results, expressed as a percentage. duplicate results, expressed as a percentage.

Quality Acceptance CriteriaQuality Acceptance Criteria

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be foundThe QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be foundhere: http://www.au.sgs.com/sgs-mp-au-env-qu-022-qa-qc-plan-en-09.pdfhere: http://www.au.sgs.com/sgs-mp-au-env-qu-022-qa-qc-plan-en-09.pdf




APPENDIX E Limitations

LIMITATIONS

This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Pty Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following limitations: This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose. The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder to provide Services for the benefit of Golder. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD GAP Form No. LEG 04 RL 1

Golder Associates Pty Ltd Level 2, 1 Havelock Street West Perth, Western Australia 6005 Australia T: +61 8 9213 7600





This memorandum is in response to the groundwater aspects discussed during the 14 April meeting. The Area D pit outline and mine schedule are now available and Golder was requested to provide outline of the work required to preliminary estimate the groundwater inflow and drawdown cone around the proposed open pits.

During this meeting, Golder was also asked to prepare an outline of work required to have a higher confidence of dewatering requirements and drawdown cone, i.e. to carry out work suitable at a Definitive Feasibility Study level. This work will include pumping tests from 12” to 14” test dewatering wells. We are preparing this work programme and will present this in a later memorandum.

During the meeting, we discussed options for estimating inflows and the drawdown cone using analytical methods. However, after considering the hydrogeological setting (the open pits are located in a valley) it is our opinion that it will be easier to estimate inflows and drawdown using a simple numerical model.

Golder proposes to use Modflow, a numerical groundwater flow model, to estimate the groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements. The model will provide a preliminary indication of the groundwater drawdown cone, required for stygofauna studies and impacts on third party users/GDE’s.

SCOPE OF WORK It is proposed to carry out the following:

Construction of the Area D model using Modflow;

Calibration of the steady-state model;

Transient-state model with dewatering bores; and

Reporting of details and conclusion.

Construction of Area D Model The model domain will extend to the top of the catchment area in the West, North and South direction and to the main valley in the Eastern direction. The Modflow model will have 2 layers, one for the CID/BID deposits and the other for the BIF. The top layer will follow topography, whilst the top of the second layer will follow the base of the BID deposit, as modelled in the Vulcan resource model. The second layer will have a thickness of approximately 100 m.

The hydraulic conductivity of each unit will be based on the data collected to date (presented in report no 097641461-010-R-RevB, March 2010). The model will be updated when more accurate estimates of the

DATE 22 April 2010 PROJECT No. 097641461-011-TM-Rev0

TO Nick Corlis Flinders Mines Ltd

CC Stephen Godfrey, Peter Hairsine


PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER INFLOW AND DRAWDOWN CONE ESTIMATES – AREA D, FLINDERS MINE PILBARA PROSPECT

Nick Corlis 097641461-011-TM-Rev0Flinders Mines Ltd 22 April 2010

2/3

hydraulic conductivity and storage will be available following the additional groundwater field program, discussed later.

Rainfall recharge will be based on literature and historical rainfall from a rain gauge located Tom Price (data presented in 097641461-010 report).

Calibration of Steady-State Model The steady-state model will be calibrated using the most recent groundwater level monitoring (February 2010), the possible range of hydraulic parameters for each unit and rainfall recharge in the area.

Transient-State Model Dewatering bores will be modelled in the eastern corner of the valley, where most of the groundwater inflow is expected, and will be targeting the CID/BID aquifer.

The transient-state model cannot, at this stage, be calibrated, since no transient data is available for the site. For this reason, we propose carry out a sensitivity analysis, i.e. we will develop the model for a range of reasonable hydraulic conductivity and storage values. The model results will comprise a range of groundwater inflow rates or dewatering requirements and a range of drawdown cones around the open pit. Using this approach, we can present Flinders with “worst case” and “best case” scenarios, reflecting the uncertainties of the model and identifying data gaps.

The groundwater inflow estimates can be revisited when results from the test dewatering wells are available, thereby enabling us to calibrate the transient-state model. This step will be part of a later scope of work following the next groundwater field program as discussed earlier.

Reporting Golder will prepare a report which will include:

A description of the hydrogeological setting of the Modflow model, include a description of the model domain, the model geometry (layers), the boundary conditions, the hydraulic parameters, the recharge.

Description of the steady-state calibration.

Presenting a range of groundwater inflow in the pit and dewatering estimates.

Presenting a range of groundwater drawdown cones around the open pit.

Recommendations.

Fee Estimate Table 1 shows the fee estimate (exclusive of GST) for the groundwater modelling work. Any expenses incurred by Golder will attract a 10% handling fee.

Table 1: Fee Estimate (Excluding GST) Description Fee Estimate

Modelling 8,000 Analysis and Reporting 2,700 Total (Excluding GST) 10,700

Schedule Golder proposes to begin the work within two weeks of approval and preliminary results will be available two weeks later. The report will be available the following week and will give details of the work and recommendation.

Nick Corlis 097641461-011-TM-Rev0Flinders Mines Ltd 22 April 2010

3/3

Concluding Remarks This work will be carried out under the existing terms and conditions in place between Golder and Flinders Mines Ltd.

We trust that this memorandum meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Jan Vermaak or Geneviève Marchand at 08 9213 7000 if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

Geneviève Marchand Jan Vermaak Hydrogeologist Associate GM/JJV/sp \\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-011-tm-rev0.docx

Golder was requested to provide preliminary estimate of the drawdown cone around the proposed open pit resulting from pit dewatering. The method of assessment of the cone of depression was a 3D numerical groundwater flow model with a steady-state model calibrated with the data presented in the report 097641461-010-R-RevB. The result from the simulation is to be used to provide a preliminary indication of the groundwater drawdown cone required for stygofauna studies and impacts on third party users/GDE’s.

The model domain extends to the top of the catchment area in the West, North and South direction and to the main valley in the Eastern direction. The model had two hydrogeological units, the BID/CID and the basement. The steady-state model was calibrated using the water level data from February 2009 and hydraulic parameters presented in report 097641461-010-R-RevB and average rainfall from Tom Price weather station. A more comprehensive report inclusive of the model parameters will be submitted at a later date.

The results from the numerical model were compared to the analytical solution and adjusted for pit depth in certain areas. Figure 1 shows the preliminary cone of depression resulting from the numerical and analytical models. The 1 m drawdown contour extends approximately 2 km outsides the tenement.

A more detailed assessment will be carried out following the more extensive hydrogeological field program, which will provide sufficient information to calibrate the transient model.

If further information is required to obtain the program of work, do not hesitate to contact Jan Vermaak or Geneviève Marchand at 08 9213 7600.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

DATE 14 June 2010 PROJECT No. 097641461-015-TM-Rev0

TO Peter Hairsine Worley Parsons

CC Jon Hanna and Danielle Page


PIT DEWATERING PRELIMINARY DRAWDOWN EXTENT

Geneviève Marchand Jan Vermaak Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist, Associates GM/JJV/sp ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 - Preliminary Drawdown Extent m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-015-tm-rev0.docx





Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r A

ssoc

iate

s P

ty. L

td.

Una

utho

rised

use

or

repr

oduc

tion

of th

is p

lan

eith

er w

holly

or

in p

art w

ithou

t writ

ten

perm

issi

on in

fring

es c

opyr

ight

. ©

Gol

der

Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

PRELIMINARYDRAWDOWN EXTENT

28/05/2010SR

097641461-015-TM-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60.2




Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 1


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

20060049

E 47/882-IE 47/882-I

1

5

10

20

30

40

50

PLHb

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qa

Czc

PLHb

AHs

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHt

Czc

AHs

PLHtCzc

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

Czc

545000545

000550000

550000 555000

555000

560000

560000

755000

0

7550000

7555000

755500

0

7560000

756000

0

Fault

F Major fold, showing trend and plunge direction

!! !! Dyke






doir_geology_250k_merge_pgnQUATERNARY

QaAlluvium - unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel; in drainage channels andadjacent floodplains

Qaa Alluvial sand and gravel in rivers and creeks; clay, silt, and sand in channels on floodplainsQao Alluvial sand, silt, and clay in floodplains adjacent to main drainage channelsQc Colluvium - unconsolidated quartz and rock fragments in soilQw

Alluvium and colluvium - red-brown sandy and clayey soil; on low slope andsheetwash areas

QwcSheetwash sand, silt, and clay in distal outwash fans, with numerous claypansand minor clay-fil led drainages

Qwf Ferruginous sheetwash sand, silt, and clay in outwash fans, with clasts of iron formationCAINOZOIC

CzcColluvium - partly consolidated quartz and rock fragments in silt and sand matris;old valley-fill deposits, locally derived

CzcfFerruginous colluvium, derived from adjacent iron formation;includes hematite-rich conglomerate (canga) that contains iron ore

Czk Calcrete - sheet carbonate, found along major drainage linesCzp ROBE PISOLITE: pisolitic limonite depositsdeveloped along river channelsCzr Hematite-geothite deposits on banded iron-formation and adjacent scree deposits

CzrfFerricrete; includes ferruginous and pisolitic ironstone; residual origin;locally includes deposits on the Hamersley Surface, dissected by present-day drainage

Hamersley GroupAHd

WITTENOOM FORAMTION: metamorphosed thin- to medium-bedded dolomite,dolomitic pelite, chert, and volcanic sandstone

AHm MARRA MAMBA IRON FORMATION: chert, banded iron-formation, and pelite

AHsMOUNT McRAE SHALE and MOUNT SYLVIA FORMATION: pelite, chert,and banded iron formation

PLHb BROCKMAN IRON FORMATION: banded iron-formation, chert, and pelite

PLHjWEELI WOLLI FORMATION: banded iron-formation (commonly jaspilitic),pelite, and numerous metadolerite sil ls

PLHt Medium- to coarse-grained metadolerite sills in Hamersley Group

PLHwWOONGARRA RHYOLITE: metamorphosed rhyolite, rhyodacite, rhyolitic breccia,and banded iron-formation

Fortescue GroupAFd Medium- to coarse-grained metadolerite sills intruded into Fortescue GroupAFj

JEERINAH FORMATION: pelite, metasandstone, chert, metabasaltic pillow lava andbreccia, and metamorphosed felsic volcanic rock; intruded by numerous metadolerite sills

AFjl Pillowed and massive metabasaltic flows and metabasaltic breccia

AFuBUNJINAH FORMATION: pillowed and massive metabasaltic flows, metabasaltic breccia,metamorphosed volcanic sandstone, and minor chert; amygdaloidal metabasaltic flowsoccur in upper parts of the formation

File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\TM15\097641461_015_TM_F0001_REV0.mxd

Drawdown (m)

! Drillhole


DATE 13 August 2010 PROJECT No. 097641461-016-TM-Rev1


CC Jon Hanna


FURTHER GROUNDWATER WORK - AREA D

INTRODUCTION Following discussions with Peter Hairsine from Worley Parsons, Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) is pleased to provide recommendations for a more extensive hydrogeological investigation in Area D. The program proposed will eventually form part of the feasibility study related to mining in Area D. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the information necessary for the Program of Works (POW) for the groundwater field work program.

We carried out field work in February 2010, comprising monitoring bore installation, air-lift test and slug tests. The purpose of this work was to obtain preliminary hydraulic parameters of the CID, BID and BIF aquifers. These tests were designed for a pre-feasibility study. More detailed investigations, including pumping tests and more sophisticated analysis are required for a feasibility level investigation.

The preliminary hydrogeological work presented in document 097641461-010-R-RevB assumed high storage within the CID/BID aquifer as well as the potential for groundwater inflow from outside the tenement, based on analytical calculations. The further hydrogeological work described in this document for the feasibility study, is aimed at providing a more accurate estimate of the water supply and dewatering designs.

WATER REQUIREMENTS The current proposed throughput is 5 Mtpa for the first 5 years of mining, then, as we understand it, increasing to 15 Mtpa. Processing will include beneficiation. This proposed program for further groundwater work has been based on this information.

Table 1 shows the water requirement per processing option for the 5 and 15 Mtpa cases, all options with beneficiation.

Table 1: Water Requirement as Flow Rate (L/s and ML/day) Throughput Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

5 Mtpa 121 L/s or 10 ML/day 121 L/s or 10 ML/day 121 L/s or 10 ML/day 15 Mtpa 348 or 30 ML/day 348 or 30 ML/day 348 or 30 ML/day

Option 3: All fines wet processing (natural fines);

Option 4: Lump and fines wet processing natural fines only;

Option 5: All fines (all material scrubbed, wet screened and all natural fines treated).





Peter Hairsine 097641461-016-TM-Rev1Worley Parsons 13 August 2010

As shown on Table 1, we understand that regardless of the processing option eventually adopted, the water requirements will be 121 L/s (10 ML/day) in the first 2 to 5 years of mining (5 Mtpa) and will increase to 348 L/s (30 ML/day) when the mining and processing rate increases to 15 Mtpa.

PROPOSED APPROACH The proposed groundwater assessment program will first address the processing water requirement for the first 5 years, as well as the pit dewatering.

Our judgement is that the aquifers targeted for the 10 ML/day water supply (5 years of mining at 5 Mtpa) are not likely to be adequate for the later 15 Mtpa mining rate nor would they be sufficient for 10 or 20 years of mining at 5 Mtpa. We propose to carry out enough work in this program to demonstrate (at least to conceptual level, with limited testing and analysis) how the additional water could be supplied. Then detailed work, including analysis of the results of early dewatering and water supply abstractions, would be carried out in the first few years of mining to provide a design for the later water supply development.

Proposed Groundwater Study for Pit Dewatering and 5 Mtpa Water Supply Based on preliminary groundwater modelling results, it appears that the storage in Area D may not be sufficient to accommodate for the 5 Mtpa water demand. Therefore, in order to obtain enough information for feasibility level, Golder proposes to carry out investigations in both Area D and in Area E. Both areas will be investigated following the same approach.

The proposed program comprises the installation of a test production well and four observation wells, carrying out a 7-day pumping and recovery test, analysing the results and preparing a technical report to feasibility level. The test results will be used to estimate the source of water supply for the first five years of operations and estimated pumping rates for dewatering purposes in Area D.

The pumping test data will be used to calibrate the Area D transient-state model, which will then provide a more accurate estimate of the water resource and extent of the cone of depression.

Furthermore, a 3D groundwater flow model will be developed for Area E and calibrated using the pumping test data for the transient-state model.

Permitting and Access In order to perform a pumping test, it is required to have a 26D licence for both trial production wells.

As discussed below (see “Groundwater Discharge”) it may be necessary to seek approval to discharge abstracted water directly into the environment in the neighbouring tenement, downgradient from the test location or over a nearby ridge within Flinders Mines’ tenement.

Test Production Well Both proposed test production wells will be located near the tenement boundary, in the assumed thickest CID/BID interval encountered in the valley, based on the exploration drilling data (Figure 1 for Area D and Figure 2 for Area E). We propose to drill a 350 mm (14 inch) diameter hole with nominal 250 mm casing, as we believe a smaller diameter might not allow us to use a pump of sufficient capacity to test the aquifer properly. The test production well will be drilled to an approximate depth of 80 m, or 6 m into the basement rock and completed with 250 mm (10 inch) nominal diameter Class 18 uPVC or steel casing (6 mm wall). PVC casing might be cheaper in the short term and does not require welding, however, if the intention is to use the test production well for dewatering purposes during mining, steel casing is recommended.

Details of the test production well are presented in Table 2 for Area D and Table 3 for Area E.

Observation Wells A total of 4 observation wells will be installed at various distances (50 m to 200 m) from the test production well. The observation wells will be located as shown on Figure 1 for Area D and Figure 2 for Area E and will be used to monitor drawdown during test pumping and recovery. The observation wells will be drilled through the CID/BID and 6 m into the basement. The observation wells will be drilled at 150mm (6 inch) diameter and completed with 80 mm nominal diameter Class 18 uPVC casing. Details are presented in

2/2


Table 2. Should any exploration holes be accessible for groundwater level monitoring, they will be opportunistically utilised.

Table 2: Proposed Production and Observation Well Details – Area D

Well ID Easting GDA94

NorthingGDA94

Depth(m bgl)

Borehole Diameter

(mm)

Nominal Casing

Diameter (mm)

Distance from Production

Well (m)

Production well 551530 7553122 80 350 254 NA Observation well 1 551459 7553193 80 150 80 100 Observation well 2 551566 7553087 80 150 80 50 Observation well 3 551389 7552981 80 150 80 200 Observation well 4 551601 7553193 80 150 80 100

Table 3: Proposed Production and Observation Well Details – Area E

Well ID Easting GDA94

NorthingGDA94

Depth(m bgl)

Borehole Diameter

(mm)

Nominal Casing

Diameter (mm)

Distance from Production

Well (m)

Production well 551610 7547014 80 350 254 NA Observation well 1 551667 7547016 80 150 80 50 Observation well 2 551612 7546958 80 150 80 50 Observation well 3 551414 7547014 80 150 80 200 Observation well 4 551607 7547117 80 150 80 100

Development Following installation, the test production well and observation wells will be developed by airlifting using the drill rig. In the case where the drill rig cannot develop the observation wells, a portable air compressor will be used. All bores will be developed until the water is free of sediments. The groundwater will be discharged into a sump at each drill site.

Groundwater Discharge Due to the potentially large volume of groundwater to be extracted during the proposed pumping test, the abstracted water should be discharged into a sump no less than 1 km away from the test production well (Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the 1km discharge location) to avoid recirculation. The sump should be able to retain 36,000 m3 of abstracted groundwater (approximately 100 m × 100 m × 4 m).

However, due to the large size of sump required, the terrain and the off-tenement locations, it may be more appropriate to discharge in a creek bed downgradient from the site, if permission is granted by the regulators (DoE for example) or the neighbouring tenement owner. This matter should be addressed during the PoW process.

Hydraulic Testing Pumping Test

Depending on the capability of the drilling form engaged, Golder recommends hiring an independent pumping test contractor to carry out the pumping test. The contractor would take care of all required equipment, fuel and staff to carry out the pumping test. A Golder hydrogeologist would be required for full-time supervision. The pumping test should be carried out following stabilisation (recovery) of the groundwater level after drilling. Prior to carrying out the pumping test, a groundwater level monitoring round should be completed.

3/3


1) Step-Test

A step-test will be performed on the test production well. The step test will consist of increasing the pumping rate in three to four steps. Each step will have a duration of approximately 30 minutes or until sufficient drawdown is measured in the test production well. Following the last step, the pump will be stopped and a recovery will be monitored. The step-test results will be analysed to determine the pumping rate for the long-term pumping test.

2) Long-term Pumping Test

Following full recovery of the test production well, a 7-day pumping test will be performed. The test production well will be pumped and the groundwater level will be monitored in all wells during 7 days or until recirculation has clearly affected the drawdown rate. After 7 days, the pump will be stopped and the recovery of the water levels will be recorded.

Pumping Rate At this stage, we believe that the pumping rate might be between 20 and 60 L/s. The submersible pump will be used, powered by a generator. The pumping test will need to be continuous (constant-rate), without interruption, for the entire duration. Therefore, the pump and generator should be supervised at all time and sufficient fuel should be provided to ensure timely refilling of the generator fuel tank.

Monitoring of Groundwater Levels The groundwater levels will be monitored using pressure transducers with direct reading cables to ensure that the data is properly recorded. It may be necessary to download the data prior to recovery, depending on the memory capacity of the datalogger.

Proposed Groundwater Study for 15 Mtpa Water Demand In order to obtain adequate information for the feasibility level study, for the case where the higher processing water requirement option is selected, Golder recommends carrying out additional groundwater investigations in other areas. This work would also aim to provide feasibility level information for the increased water demand expected after 5 years of mining.

In addition to this preliminary groundwater supply study, provision of groundwater supplies to meet the later water requirement of 30 ML/day for the 15 Mtpa option, would be evaluated in greater detail during the first years of mining.

The proposed option is to acquire a miscellaneous lease in the area downgradient from Area D. This option is preferred due to the proximity of the area to Area D, and shorter pipeline requirement, as well as being a potentially larger water resource. The proposed program will be provided at a later stage, if Flinders decides to pursue this option.

Development of a 3-D Groundwater Flow Model – Area E Golder proposes to use Feflow, a 3D-groundwater flow model package using the finite element technique for the Area E groundwater model. Feflow will be used to estimate the groundwater supply potential in Area E. The geology outside the tenement will be inferred, based on geological map of the area.

Construction of Area E Model The model domain will extend to the top of the catchment area to the west of the project area and to the main valley in the south and east direction. The model will have layers representing the CID/BID deposits, the upper weathered portion of the basement and the lower fresh rock portion of the basement. The base of the last layer will be a set depth with an approximate thickness of 100 m. The top layer will follow topography, whilst the other layers will follow the resource model presented in the draft report 097641461-015-R-RevA.

The hydraulic conductivity of each lithology will be based on the data collected during the proposed field program.

Rainfall recharge will be based on literature and historical rainfall from a rain gauge located at Tom Price (data presented in 097641461-010-R-Rev0 report).

4/4


5/5

Calibration of Steady-State Model The steady-state model will be calibrated using the most recent groundwater level monitoring data or the data collected during the exploration drilling program (May 2009), the possible range of hydraulic parameters for each lithology, and rainfall recharge in the area.

Transient-State Model The transient-state model will be calibrated using the pumping test data. Dewatering bores will be modelled in the most appropriate location in order to reach the Area D water supply requirements. All dewatering bores will be targeting the CID/BID aquifer.

Calibration of the Transient-State 3-D Groundwater Flow Model – Area D The Feflow 3D groundwater model developed for Area D will be calibrated using the results from the pumping test. Following calibration, Golder proposes to carry out several scenarios for optimisation of the pit dewatering and water supply requirements.

Analysis and Reporting Golder will carry out analysis of the pumping test and prepare a report which can be incorporated in the feasibility study report. The report will include the following items:

Description of hydrogeology.

Description of hydrogeological fieldwork program.

Description of the updated groundwater model – Area D.

Proposed dewatering design to allow dry mining conditions.

tpa scenario).

er supply investigations, if required.

timate includes the field program to assess the groundwater supply potential of Area D and

Table 4: Fee Estimate (Excluding

Description Fee Estimate AUD

Mine dewatering estimates.

Description of the Area E groundwater model.

Feasibility level water supply design for 5 years at 10 ML/day (5 Mtpa scenario).

Conceptual level water supply design for further years at 30 ML/day (15 M

Recommendations for additional wat

Cost Estimate of Field Program The cost esArea E.

GST)

$

Field work preparation 22,000Field work – Drilling supervision, installation, development Area D 40,000Field work – Pumping Test Area D 20,000Field work - Drilling supervision, installation, development and airlift recovery tests Area E 40,000

Field work – Pumping Test Area E 20,000Groundwater Modelling – Updating and Transient state calibration 10,000Groundwater Modelling – Area E 22,000Analysis and Reporting 45,000Total (Excluding GST) 219,000


6/6

Table 4 shows the fee estimate (exclusive of GST) for the proposed groundwater fieldwork. The fee estimate excludes all expenses related to this work, including flights, accommodation and meals, vehicle

nd pump testing contractor, and material costs. We have assumed that all expenses will be rs. Any expenses incurred by Golder will attract a 10% handling fee.

x weeks. The pumping test

roundwater model and report writing can be carried out directly after the fieldwork programme inary draft report available within ten weeks after completion of the field programme.

uired to obtain the program of work, do not hesitate to contact Dave Thomson or 9213 7600.

OLDER ASSOCIATES

eneviève Marchand Dave Thomson ist Principal Hydrogeologist

M/DMT/sp

ttachments: Figure 1 - Proposed Hydrogeological Field Work – Area D Figure 2 - Proposed Hydrogeological Field Work – Area E

m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-016-tm-rev1.docx

hire, drilling amet by Flinde

Schedule Golder proposes to carry out the fieldwork component in November, depending on driller’s availability and mobilisation time. The drilling program can be completed within approximately sican be carried out 1 to 2 weeks following the installation and the development of all bores. Each pumpingtest will be completed within approximately two weeks.

Analysis, gwith a prelim

Closing If further information is reqGeneviève Marchand at 08

G

GHydrogeolog G A

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

PROPOSED HYDROGEOLOGICALFIELD WORK - AREA D

12/08/2010BPH

097641461-016-TM-REV1

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 200 400 600 800

metres1:20,000SCALEA3



Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 1

COPYRIGHT:Geology data sourced from the Departmentof Industry and Resources (DoIR) online datacentre, 1:250,000 digital mapseries: Mount Bruce, SF5011, 1996 &Pyramid, SF5007, 2004WIN Site data sourced from theDepartment of WaterTenement and drilhole data supplied by Client

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

E 47/882-IPLHb

Qa

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

AHs

PLHt

Qa

PLHb

Qa

Czc

Czc

550000

550000

552000

552000

554000

554000

755200

0

755200

0

755400

0

755400

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke







LegendProposed Wells

Observation WellTest Production Well

1 km Discharge Location

! Drillhole


Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

PROPOSED HYDROGEOLOGICALFIELD WORK - AREA E

12/08/2010BPH

097641461-016-TM-REV1

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 200 400 600 800

metres1:20,000SCALEA3



Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 2


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!Qa

PLHb

Czc

PLHb

PLHbCzc

Czc

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHt

Czc

PLHb

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

548000

548000

550000

550000

552000

552000

554000

554000

754600

0

754600

0

754800

0

754800

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke







LegendProposed Wells

Observation WellTest Production Well

1 km Discharge Location

! Drillhole






Following discussion with Peter Hairsine, we were informed that Area D was now in the process of going through feasibility level. Preceding the feasibility study report is the Environmental Management Plan Report (EMPR). Part of the EMRP is associated with potential impacts on groundwater resources. In particular, the potential risks of the project on groundwater including seepage, contribution to local groundwater, change of groundwater quality, disposal of dewatering water (which may or may not be impacted due to acid rock drainage) and adverse effects on local groundwater and downstream surface water quality.

This letter outlines the different potential impacts that could be associated with mining of Area D on the groundwater resources and seeks to document 097641461-016-TM-Rev0. Review of the potential impacts should be done when the processing technique has been decided.

Some potential impacts on the groundwater and surface water systems identified so far are listed below:

Pit Dewatering and Groundwater Supply:

Impact on groundwater dependant ecosystems;

Impact on third-party groundwater users;

Impact on stygofauna/troglofauna;

Impact on stream baseflow.

Waste Rock and Ore Stockpile Management:

Contamination of groundwater due to acid rock drainage from waste rock dumps and ore stockpiles;

Contamination of surface water due to potential overflow of poor quality pit water from pit lakes formed during post-closure, and potential impacts on surface water users.

Contamination of groundwater due to potential seepage of poor quality pit water from pit lakes formed during post-closure, and potential impacts on groundwater users.

Hydrocarbon Management:

Contamination of groundwater from the spill of chemicals or fuels and oils.

In order to assess all of the potential impact, Golder recommends to:

Assess the volumes of water that will be generated from site activities;

DATE 28 July 2010 PROJECT No. 097641461-018-TM-Rev0


CC Jon Hanna


POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER RESOURCES - AREA D

Peter Hairsine 097641461-018-TM-Rev0Worley Parsons 28 July 2010

2/2

Identify groundwater monitoring requirements during operations and post closure;

Identify measures to avoid, minimise and mitigate potential adverse impacts on groundwater and surface water resources during both the operational and post-closure phases, such as:

Manage discharge of surface water and groundwater inflow into the open pit, including significant storm event;

Separate potentially impacted water from non-impacted water;

Limit discharges of poor quality water into the environment.

Estimate the waste dump seepage into groundwater;

Estimate the ore stockpile seepage potential into groundwater;

Carry out an assessment of the acid rock drainage of the waste rock and ore stockpile;

Assess the residual groundwater impacts after implementation of mitigation and management measures.

Closing If further information is required to obtain the program of work, do not hesitate to contact Jan Vermaak or Geneviève Marchand at 08 9213 7600.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

Geneviève Marchand Hydrogeologist GM/DMT/sp \\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-018-tm-rev0.docx

July 2010

FLINDERS MINES IRON ORE PROJECT

Extent of Cone of Depression from Pit Dewatering - Area Delta

REPO

RT

Report Number. 097641461-020-R-Rev0 Distribution:1 Copy - Worley Parsons (Electronic Copy) 1 Copy - Flinders Mines Ltd (Electronic Copy) 1 Copy - Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Electronic Copy)

Submitted to:Nick Corlis Flinders Mines Ltd 62 Beulah Road NORWOOD SA 5067

EXTENT OF CONE OF DEPRESSION FROM PIT DEWATERING, AREA DELTA

July 2010 Report No. 097641461-020-R-Rev0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ............................................................................................................................................ 4

5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Model Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Model Domain .............................................................................................................................................. 6

5.3 Layers ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.4 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 MODEL CALIBRATION ............................................................................................................................................. 8

6.1 Parameters ................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 Recharge and Constant Head Boundaries ................................................................................................... 9

6.3 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................... 10

6.4 Results of Steady-State Model Calibration ................................................................................................. 10

7.0 MODELLED SCENARIOS ....................................................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12

7.2 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 12

7.3 Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 12

7.4 Scenario 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 13

8.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................ 14

TABLES Table 1: Range of Hydraulic Conductivities......................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Model Aquifer Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3: Recharge Values ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 4: Error Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 5: Pumping Rates Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................. 12

Table 6: Pumping Rates Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................. 12


July 2010 Report No. 097641461-020-R-Rev0 ii

FIGURES Figure 1: Resource Areas within the E47/882 Lease Outline .............................................................................................. 3

Figure 2: Conceptual geological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x) ................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Conceptual hydrogeological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x) ................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Catchment Boundary – Conceptual Groundwater Divide ..................................................................................... 6

Figure 5: A plan view of the groundwater model mesh with an origin located at Zone 50, 549509 mE, 7547604 mN, and showing constant head boundary locations ......................................................................................... 7

Figure 6: Groundwater model layers - A south-west to north-east section along the main valley (vertical exaggeration 5x) ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 7: Rainfall Recharge Distribution through the site .................................................................................................... 9

Figure 8: Results of Model Calibration .............................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 9: Proposed Pit Outline .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 10: Extent of the cone of depression associated with dry mining conditions .......................................................... 13

Figure 11: Area of Pit Inflow per Aquifer ........................................................................................................................... 14

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Limitations


July 2010 Report No. 097641461-020-R-Rev0 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) was commissioned by Flinders Mine Limited (Flinders) (reference document 097641461-011-TM-Rev0) to develop a numerical groundwater model for the purpose of estimating groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements for the proposed iron ore pit at Area Delta (Area D) of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project.

2.0 OBJECTIVE The main objective of this study was to provide a preliminary indication of the groundwater drawdown cone, required for stygofauna studies and impacts on third party users/GDE’s, as a result of pit dewatering. The estimation of drawdown cone was to be based on a numerical groundwater model. The numerical model was developed by Golder using Visual Modflow software with the GMS interface.

3.0 BACKGROUND The site is located within the Hamersley Ranges in the Central Pilbara, approximately 50 km North-West of Tom Price and Area D is located within the exploration lease E47/882 (Figure 1).

The deposit is comprised of Channel Iron Deposits (CID) and Bedded Iron Deposits (BID). The CID formations in the Pilbara area are mined at several other locations, and are known to have a high hydraulic conductivity and hence, high groundwater inflows are usually expected into the open pit once mining below the water table commences. There is no information in the literature concerning the hydrogeology of the BID formations. At this stage, the only data available are the results from the preliminary hydrogeological investigation (097641461-010-R-RevB). The preliminary work suggests high hydraulic conductivity values and from their known vuggy nature, high storage is expected.




The preliminary hydrogeological investigation included the installation of monitoring bores, aquifer testing (airlift recovery and slug tests) as well as water level monitoring in order to assess the hydraulic properties of the CID and BIC aquifers at Area D. The results from the preliminary investigation are summarised in Table 1. The investigation was preliminary and was only intended to provide preliminary assessment of the hydraulic conductivity of each of the lithological units encountered during the resource drilling campaign.

Table 1: Range of Hydraulic Conductivities

Lithological Unit Minimum K (m/s)

Maximum K (m/s)

CID 1.65×10-5 4.47×10-4 BID 9.49×10-5 9.59×10-4 BM (Basement) 2.30×10-6 3.39×10-4

4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL A schematic of the conceptual hydrogeological model is shown in Figure 2. The conceptual groundwater model was developed based on the geological information available from the resource modelling (097641461-015-R-RevA Draft) as well as from the hydrogeological information from the hydrogeological site investigation work. The conceptual model is of a four–layer geological system (Figure 2) consisting broadly of:

1) Recent Surficial deposits consisting of recent semi-consolidated alluvium or colluvium of BIF, chert and shale fragments with fine silty/clay matrix;

2) CID;

3) BID; and

4) Basement consisting of rocks such Chert, Shale, and fresh BIF, all within this one unit.

Figure 2: Conceptual geological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x)

The recent surficial deposit unit was dry in all areas of the site, therefore, no hydraulic conductivity data was available for this unit. They were assumed to have the same hydraulic properties as the CID/BID. Furthermore, the CID and the BID show similar characteristics, and were assumed to be part of the same hydraulic system.

The conceptual hydrogeological system therefore comprised 3 layers:



1) Recent Surficial deposit, CID and BID;

2) Upper basement – consisting of the upper weathered zone of the basement;

3) Lower basement – consisting of the lower more fresh rock zone of the basement.

Figure 3: Conceptual hydrogeological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x)

Because of the topography of the site and the lower hydraulic conductivity of the basement rock, we have assumed that all groundwater flows towards the valley, and then downgradient towards the north-east.

Recharge is likely to vary across the site, given the topography and geology. At the edge of the valley, downgradient from the outcropping basement rock, we have considered higher recharge due to surface runoff and assumed low infiltration within the outcropping basement rock. The average rainfall in the area is 406 mm per year based on the Tom Price weather station.

The crest of the hills surrounding the deposit were considered to be the catchment boundary, and therefore are assumed to be groundwater divides as shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4. The groundwater outside of the catchment boundary was assumed not to participate in the modelled hydrogeological system.

No geological and hydrogeological data was available for the area outside of the tenement. Therefore, the geology at the edge of the tenement was considered to continue basinwards with a similar profile, beyond the tenement boundary, following the topographic profile from the Landgate data. Each unit was considered to have the same hydrogeological characteristics as it did in the Area D valley.

Evaporation was not considered in the model because the depth to groundwater measured on site varied between 36 to 62 m below ground surface, with an average of 48 m below ground surface.

Other possible losses of groundwater from the system are transpiration via vegetation and groundwater abstraction for irrigation. Based on the DoW database, there are no groundwater users in the area modelled, and the transpiration was not considered to impact significantly on groundwater levels due to the depth of groundwater below ground.

Steeper hydraulic gradients were assumed in the upper part of the valley, and gentler gradient in the lower portion of the valleys, based on groundwater level measured in February 2010 (report 097641461-010-R-RevB).

For the purpose of modelling, we have assumed that all lithological units assigned within the model are homogeneous.



Figure 4: Catchment Boundary – Conceptual Groundwater Divide

5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT The numerical groundwater flow model was developed using a finite difference based groundwater flow model called Groundwater Modelling System (GMS) Version 6.0. The flow component of the software is MODFLOW which is a three-dimensional block-centred finite-difference code developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to simulate groundwater flow in the saturated subsurface. GMS. from Environmental Modelling Systems, was used as the pre- and post- processor.

5.1 Model Assumptions The following is a list of assumptions used in the design of the model:

The BID, CID and the upper (weathered) portion of the BIF act as one aquifer;

The BIF constitutes the basement rock, and continues to the depth of the model;

The aquifer is unconfined;

There are no other sources to groundwater other than infiltrated rainfall recharge applied to the model domain.

5.2 Model Domain The model domain extends from the top of the catchment area in the west, north and south of Area D, and easterly into the main valley. The total area is 8 km by 5.25 km, and the model mesh was rotated 40.5º to align with the groundwater flow direction. The model extent was selected primarily to encompass an area large enough to model the extent of the cone of depression from dewatering and water supply, without encountering boundary effects.

The model mesh is shown on Figure 5 and contains 210 rows, 320 columns and 8 layers. The mesh was uniform around the site with grid cells dimensions of 25 m×25 m. The geological model was based on the

Flow direction within the valley Flow direction towards the valley Catchment boundary



resource modelling presented in Golder report 097641461-015-R-RevA Draft and, in the portion of the model domain outside of the tenement boundaries; the geological model was extended by extrapolating the profile following the Landgate raw digital elevation grid data. The resulting shape files were then imported into the groundwater model.

Figure 5: A plan view of the groundwater model mesh with an origin located at Zone 50, 549509 mE, 7547604 mN, and showing constant head boundary locations

5.3 Layers The model has 8 layers to facilitate the convergence of the model, which was unstable due to the high variation in topography on the site and the presence of dry cells.

The elevation of the cells in Layer 1 were interpolated from Landgate supplied raw digital elevation grid data (Figure 4).

In the valley, layers 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent the recent surficial deposits, the CID, and the BID lithologies. The top of Layer 1 was based on the topography, as described above, whilst the bottom of Layer 4 was based on the resource model for the base of the CID/BID. The elevations of the transitional Layers 2 and 3 were adjusted to facilitate convergence.

In the area where the CID/BID were not present, such as in the upper section of the valley, Layers 1 to 4 represent the basement rock.

Layer 5, 6 and 7 represent the upper basement and thicknesses and elevations were adjusted to facilitate the convergence.

Layer 8 was represents the lower basement. The base of the layer was assigned at 350 m RL, considered to be a sufficient depth for boundary effects not to interfere with the groundwater flows within the model.



Figure 6 shows a south-west to north-east cross-section along the main valley of the model through the Site, which shows eight layers of the developed numerical model.

Figure 6: Groundwater model layers - A south-west to north-east section along the main valley (vertical exaggeration 5x)

5.4 Boundary Conditions Constant head boundaries were assigned at northern and southern ends of the main valley, for Layers 3 to 8 (Figure 5). Due to the nature of the topography, the constant head values varied along the boundary with higher values along the edge of the valley. Constant head values ranging between 457 m to 525 m were assigned to the northern end of the main valley while values ranging from 502 m to 530 m were assigned to the southern end of the main valley. The constant head values were adjusted during calibration. Boundary conditions were not assigned at the northern, southern and eastern extents of the model. Therefore, by default, Modflow assigned these model domain borders as no-flow boundaries.

Recharge as a percentage of annual rainfall is considered to vary across the model domain as a result of topography, geology and land use. Rainfall recharge rates used for the model are shown on Figure 7 and were adjusted during the calibration stage.

6.0 MODEL CALIBRATION Calibration of a groundwater model entails adjusting input parameters so that modelled water levels are similar to actual (observed) water levels measured in the field. Groundwater monitoring data collected by Flinders in February 2010 formed the basis for the groundwater modelling. The model was calibrated to reproduce as closely as possible the observed water levels at all of the Site and DOW bores.

The rainfall recharge rates were used as a calibration parameter, along with hydraulic conductivity and recharge.

6.1 Parameters Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity for the modelled 8-layer system was initially based on the hydraulic testing carried out by Golder. A geometric mean of the resulting hydraulic conductivities was calculated for the BID/CID and the basement. These parameters were then adjusted within the range of parameter uncertainty as part of the calibration process. The adopted aquifer parameters are presented in Table 2. Hydraulic conductivities varied with the upper reaches and edges of the valley having lower values. The Kx and Ky (horizontal hydraulic conductivity) values were assumed to be the same, whilst Kz (vertical hydraulic conductivity) value was assumed to be 10% of the Kx and Ky values in the basement lithologies due to the nature of the basement rock material.

Specific storage and specific yield values are only required for transient state simulations and therefore were not included in the calibration of the steady state model.



Figure 7: Rainfall Recharge Distribution through the site

Table 2: Model Aquifer Properties

Groundwater Model Layers

Lithological Unit

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

Kx Ky Kz 1 2 3 4

Recent Deposits/CID/BID 2.1E-04 2.1E-04 2.1E-04

1 2 3 4

Outcropping Basement 9.3E-06 9.3E-06 9.3E-06

5 6 7

Upper Basement (weathered) 5.1E-06 5.1E-06 5.1E-07

8 Lower Basement (fresh) 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 2.5E-07

6.2 Recharge and Constant Head Boundaries The recharge rates were based on a realistic recharge as percentage of the annual rainfall of 406 mm per year and were then adjusted during the calibration stage. The recharge zones and rates are presented in Figure 7 and in Table 3.



Table 3: Recharge Values Coloured Area on Figure 7

Description Percentage of rainfall as recharge Annual Recharge

Blue Basement outcrop 0.5% 2 mm/year Red Edge of the valley 44% 178 mm/year Green Valley 4% 16 mm/year

The groundwater levels outside the tenement are unknown, and therefore the constant head boundaries were adjusted during the stead-state model calibration, with values within the BID/CID unit and with a downward gradient from south-west to north-east.

6.3 Assumptions The key assumptions for the calibration are outlined below.

1) The modelled lithological units located outside of the tenement boundaries have the same hydraulic characteristics or properties as the equivalent lithological units within the tenement;

2) The groundwater level at each end of the main valley is within the BID/CID aquifer and are not affected by the pit dewatering;

4) The adopted groundwater aquifer parameters are representative of the average condition over the larger extent of the modelled area;

5) The estimated recharge as a percentage of annual rainfall were as follows for the current condition:

Basement outcrop area (0.5%);

Edge of the valley (4%);

Valley (44%).

6.4 Results of Steady-State Model Calibration Figure 8 shows the correlation of simulated and observed groundwater levels. The figure shows that the model was able to accurately reproduce the observed groundwater level. A summary of the model errors is included in Table 4.

The values showing the largest error are from the upper reaches of the valley. The modelled groundwater levels in the upper reaches of the valley were low. Some water levels in the upper reaches of the valley were below the basement unit and were therefore not considered for calibration purposes.

Table 4: Error Summary

Mean Error (m) Mean Absolute Error (m) Root Mean Square Error (m)

CID/BID 1.5 3.05 4.15 Basement 0.45 2.75 3.3



Figure 8: Results of Model Calibration

7.0 MODELLED SCENARIOS The modelled scenarios were carried to obtain the full dewatering of the proposed pit shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Proposed Pit Outline

Three dewatering scenarios were modelled to evaluate the potential extent of the cone of depression associated with dry mining conditions whilst the fourth scenario was an adaptation of one of the scenarios. The four dewatering scenarios were as follows:

Scenario 1: One dewatering well located hydraulically down gradient of the proposed mine pit area;

500

505

510

515

520

525

530

500 505 510 515 520 525 530

Calculated

(m)

Observed (m)

BID/CID

Basement



Scenario 2: Four dewatering wells located both hydraulically down gradient and within the proposed mine area;

Scenario 3: A line of dewatering wells located hydraulically down gradient of the proposed mine pit area; and

Scenario 4: A modified Scenario 2 with additional dewatering of the deepest portion of the pit.

7.1 Scenario 1 For Scenario 1, one dewatering well was placed in the Basement (Layer 5) hydraulically downgradient of the proposed mine pit near the tenement boundary. The hydraulic conductivity of the pumping well cell was set to that of the CID/BID layer to ensure connectivity between formations. The dewatering well was giving a pumping rate of 4000 m3/d to achieve quick dewatering of the pit. This dewatering rate was the highest rate achievable without causing drying-up of the well due to the steep cone of depression around the dewatering well. With this rate, the dewatering of the pit was not achievable.

7.2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 consisted of four pumping wells placed in the Basement (Layer 5) below the mine pit area. The dewatering well pump rates are summarised in Table 5. The hydraulic conductivity of the pumping well cell was set to that of the CID/BID layer to ensure connectivity between formations.

Table 5: Pumping Rates Scenario 2 Locations Pumping Rate m3/d

Pumping Well #1 1405 Pumping Well #2 1755 Pumping Well #3 700 Pumping Well #4 700

The dewatering rates were the highest achievable without drying up one or more of the wells. Drying up of the well causes the dewatering to stop at that well, resulting in a rebound in the water level. The drawdown achieved with this scenario was not sufficient to fully dewater the pit.

7.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 consisted of a line of dewatering wells hydraulically downgradient of the mine pit area. The dewatering well pumping rates are summarised in Table 6. All dewatering wells were set in layer 5 with hydraulic conductivity of the pumping well cell set to that of the CID/BID layer to ensure connectivity between formations.

Table 6: Pumping Rates Scenario 3 Locations Pumping Rate m3/d

Pumping Well #1 2500 Pumping Well #2 1400 Pumping Well #3 600 Pumping Well #4 400 Pumping Well #5 250

The dewatering rates were the highest achievable without drying up one or more of the wells. Drying up of the well would cause the same problem as Scenario 2. The drawdown achieved with this scenario was not sufficient within the pit shell, and was less than Scenario 3.



7.4 Scenario 4 Scenario 4 was a modification of Scenario 3, which provided the most effective pit dewatering. The results were modified to allow dewatering of the deepest portion of the pit, which could not effectively be modelled. The cone of depression from the dewatering of the pit is shown on Figure 10.

Figure 10: Extent of the cone of depression associated with dry mining conditions

8.0 DISCUSSION Based on the cone of depression, the range of inflow rate in the pit was calculated analytically using the following equation:

Qw = PI * K (H2 – hw2)

Ln R0/rw

Where:

Qw = Inflow rate (m3/s)

PI = 3.1416

K = Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

H = Head difference between the static water level and the water level in the pit (assumed to be zero) in m



h = Height of water in the pit (assumed to be zero) in m

R0 = Radius of Influence in m based on model simulation

rw = Radius of the pit in m

The inflow will be coming in part from the CID/BID aquifer in the north-east portion of the valley, and from the basement aquifer in the remaining portion of the site. Both aquifers have different hydraulic characteristics, and therefore, for the case where the pit and surrounding CID/BID aquifer has already been dewatered, we have assumed that the BID/CID aquifer was only supplying 20% of the inflow whilst the basement aquifer was supplying 80% of the inflow as shown on Figure 11.

Figure 11: Area of Pit Inflow per Aquifer

The hydraulic conductivity values used in the calculation were the lower end of the hydraulic conductivity of the basement aquifer, and the range of hydraulic conductivities in the CID/BID aquifer.

Based on the range of hydraulic conductivities in the CID/BID aquifer, the estimated range of inflow rate in the pit would be between 50 and 500 L/s (4,320 to 43,200 m3/day). This does not take into account early dewatering for processing plant water supply purposes.

9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Although the steady-state model calibrated, the transient-state model was highly unstable and a reliable preliminary estimate of the cone of depression could not be achieved. Therefore, Golder recommends the use of another groundwater flow model package using the finite element method (as opposed to the finite difference method) to allow a more stable model. However, regardless of the package used to model the aquifer, the transient-state model should only be calibrated following the collection and analysis of data to be acquired during the hydrogeological field program described in Golder Technical Memorandum 097641461-016-TM-Rev0 (“Further Groundwater Work – Area D”, dated 28 July 2010).

Basement Aquifer Radius of InfluenceBasement Aquifer

Area of Influence

CID/BID Aquifer Radius of Influence

CID/BID Aquifer Area of Influence


July 2010 Report No. 097641461-020-R-Rev0


GOLDER ASSOCIATES

Geneviève Marchand Dr Jan Vermaak Senior Hydrogeologist Associate, Principal Hydrogeologist

GM/JJV/sp

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-020-r-rev0 groundwater model.docx


July 2010 Report No. 097641461-020-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A Limitations

LIMITATIONS



Golder Associates Pty Ltd Level 2, 1 Havelock Street West Perth Western Australia 6005 Australia T: +61 8 9213 7600





This memorandum is in response to the discussion concerning the modelling during the 6 July meeting. During this meeting, Golder mentioned the convergence problem with the 3D groundwater flow model package used to carry out the modelling scope outlined in the technical memorandum 097641461-011-TM-Rev0. Due to the instability of the model, the transient-state results are not considered to be representative of the groundwater flow on site. The results from the modelling are presented in the report 097641461-020-R-Rev0.

In order to overcome the instability problem, and therefore get more reliable results, Golder propose to use Feflow, a 3D-groundwater flow model package using the finite element technique as oppose to finite difference technique, which was used previously.

Feflow will be used to estimate the groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements. The model will also provide a preliminary indication of the groundwater drawdown cone, required for stygofauna studies and impacts on third party users/groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDE’s).

SCOPE OF WORK It is proposed to carry out the following:

Construction of the Area D model using Feflow;

Calibration of the steady-state model;

Transient-state model simulations with dewatering bores; and

Reporting of details and conclusions.

Construction of Area D Model The model domain will extend to the top of the catchment area to the west, north and south of the project area and to the main valley in an easterly direction. The model will have layers representing the CID/BID deposits, the upper weathered portion of the basement and the lower fresh rock portion of the basement. The base of the last layer will be a set depth with an approximate thickness of 100 m. The top layer will follow topography, whilst the other layers will follow the resource model presented in the draft report 097641461-015-R-RevA.

The hydraulic conductivity of each unit will be based on the data collected to date (presented in report no 097641461-010-R-RevB, March 2010). The model will be updated when more accurate estimates of the hydraulic conductivity and storage will be available following the additional groundwater field program, discussed later.

DATE 29 July 2010 PROJECT No. 097641461-021-TM-Rev0


CC Jon Hanna


PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER INFLOW AND DRAWDOWN CONE ESTIMATES – AREA D, FLINDERS MINE PILBARA PROSPECT


2/3

Rainfall recharge will be based on literature and historical rainfall from a rain gauge located at Tom Price (data presented in 097641461-010 report).

Calibration of Steady-State Model The steady-state model will be calibrated using the most recent groundwater level monitoring data (February 2010), the possible range of hydraulic parameters for each unit, and rainfall recharge in the area.

Transient-State Model Dewatering bores will be modelled in the most appropriate location in order to dewater the pit at its deepest point as well as in the upper reach of the valley. Further dewatering bores might be modelled to consider water supply options for water supply, depending on the results. All dewatering bores will be targeting the CID/BID aquifer.

The transient-state model cannot, at this stage, be calibrated, since no transient data is available for the site. However, following discussion during the 6 July meeting, a range of dewatering rates as per water supply requirements will be modelled using a range of reasonable hydraulic conductivity and storage values, as part of a sensibility analysis.

The different rates to be modelled will be:



The groundwater supply requirements for processing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation (10 ML/day).

The groundwater supply requirement for processing 15 Mtpa with beneficiation (30 ML/day).

The groundwater supply requirement for processing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation for 5 years (10ML/day) and 15 Mtpa for 5 years (30 ML/day).

Each scenario will be run using a range of storage, and will provide an estimate of groundwater inflow for the first two scenarios, and an estimate of the surplus or deficit for each of the other three scenarios.

The groundwater inflow estimates can be revisited when results from the test dewatering wells are available, thereby enabling us to calibrate the transient-state model. This step will be part of a later scope of work following the next groundwater field program as discussed in document 097641461-016-TM-Rev0.

Reporting Golder will prepare a report which will include:

A description of the hydrogeological setting of the Feflow model, include a description of the model domain, the model geometry (layers), the boundary conditions, the hydraulic parameters, the recharge.

Description of the steady-state calibration.

Presentation of the results for the 3 scenarios with groundwater drawdown cone around the pit.

Recommendations.

Fee Estimate Table 1 shows the fee estimate (exclusive of GST) for the groundwater modelling work. Any expenses incurred by Golder will attract a 10% handling fee.


3/3

Table 1: Fee Estimate (Excluding GST) Description Fee Estimate

Modelling 18.000 Analysis and Reporting 4,000 Total (Excluding GST) 22,000 Schedule Golder proposes to begin the work within two weeks of approval and preliminary results will be available three weeks later. The report will be available two weeks later and will give details of the work and recommendation.

Concluding Remarks This work will be carried out under the existing terms and conditions in place between Golder and Flinders Mines Ltd.

We trust that this memorandum meets your requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Jan Vermaak or Geneviève Marchand at 08 9213 7000 if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES

Geneviève Marchand Dr Jan Vermaak Senior Hydrogeologist Associate, Principal Hydrogeologist GM/JJV/sp m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-021-tm-rev0.docx

Date: 28 July 2010 Project No. 097641461-022-M-Rev0 To: Brendan Purcell 1/2

MEMORANDUM

In this memorandum, Golder provides the information requested by Worley Parsons in order to allow them to progress the design and estimation of the water supply & distribution infrastructure. The information requested is:

Proposed dewatering bore locations and additional target areas (if required) for the water supply bores; and

An indication of the volumes we would be able to extract from each bore (to determine the total number of bores we would require to meet the demand water usage).

The information requested can only be preliminary as it depends on several issues such as:

The mining rate;

The location of the processing plant;

The results from the groundwater modelling;

The results from the additional hydrogeological investigation;

Access and permission to proceed to the work outside the tenement; and

The geology and hydrogeology of the valley outside the tenement.

In order to provide Worley Parsons with preliminary locations, Golder has assumed the following:

Mining rates of either 5 Mtpa or 15 Mtpa;

Processing plant will include beneficiation;

Production wells will be 200 mm nominal casing diameter;

The pumping capacity of each well will be 40 L/s;

The hydraulic conductivity of the formation 1 x 10-4 m/s;

The aquifer has a thickness of 40 m;

The formation is homogeneous;

Recharge was not taken into account; and

Water supply rates will be sufficient to dewater the pit.

TO Brendan Purcell DATE 28 July 2010

CC Peter Hairsine

FROM Geneviève Marchand PROJECT No. 097641461-022-M-Rev0

PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF PRODUCTION WELLS

Date: 28 July 2010 Project No. 097641461-022-M-Rev0 To: Brendan Purcell 2/2

MEMORANDUM

Figure 1 shows the preliminary proposed locations of the production wells. A total of 5 wells will be required for a mining rate of 5 Mtpa. In the case the mining rate increases to 15 Mtpa, an additional 5 wells are required (i.e. 10 wells).

GOLDER ASSOCIATES


Attachments: Figure 1 - Preliminary Location of Production Wells \\pth1-s-file02\JOBS-MINING\Jobs409\Mining\097641461_Flinders_PFS\CorrespondenceOut\097641461-022-M-Rev0.docx

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r A

ssoc

iate

s P

ty. L

td.

Una

utho

rised

use

or r

epro

duct

ion

of th

is p

lan

eith

er w

holly

or

in p

art w

ithou

t writ

ten

perm

issi

on in

frin

ges

copy

right

. ©

Gol

der A

ssoc

iate

s P

ty. L

td.

APPROVED

PRELIMINARY LOCATION OFPRODUCTION WELLS

28/05/2010SR

097641461-022-M-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05




Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 1


E 47/882-I

PLHb

Qa

Czc

Czc

PLHt

AHs

Czc

Qa

PLHb

Qa Czc

PLHt Czc

Czc

550000

550000

755500

0

755500

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke






File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\M22\097641461_022_M_F0001_REV0.mxd

Production Well,5 MtpaProduction Well,15 MtpaTenement Boundary -Exploration License

Dear Peter

Following discussion with Jon Hanna on Monday 9 August 2010, it is understood that Flinders Mines Ltd (Flinders) do not wish to pursue drilling off tenement at this stage. Therefore, the scope of work for the further groundwater investigation field work, detailed in 097641461-016-TM-Rev0, was revised. The revised scope of work was presented in 097641461-016-TM-Rev1. In this revised scope of work, Golder has focused further hydrogeological investigation in Area E.

Based on preliminary information from the modelling exercise, Area D groundwater storage may not be sufficient to supply water for the processing options including beneficiation for the 5 Mtpa production rate. Therefore, since the Area D groundwater investigation requires a water well drill rig, we have modified the proposed approach for Area E from a preliminary investigation to a full scale groundwater investigation.

We would like to highlight to Worley Parsons and Flinders the implications of the absence of geological and hydrogeological knowledge outside the tenement. At this stage, the groundwater model boundary extends more than 2 km off tenement in order to include the main palaeochannel, which is believed to provide a groundwater recharge to Area D. The geology and hydrogeology of this main feature has been inferred in the current model. Since a large portion of the model is located in an area with inferred geology and hydrogeology, it is possible that the inflow rates, storage and cone of depression might be over or under estimated.

While it is yet to be established whether Area E has sufficient yield capacity to accommodate the 5 Mtpa water demand, investigation outside the tenement for water supply should be prioritised to accommodate the potential higher water demand for the 15 Mtpa production scenario, or the case where if Area D and Area E prove unable to supply enough water for the 5 Mtpa.

Kind regards

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD +-

13 August 2010 Project No. 097641461-023-L-Rev0

Peter Hairsine Worley Parsons Manager - Select , the Front-end Division of Worley Parsons Worley Parsons – Minerals and Metals – Western Australia

OFF TENEMENT DRILLING LIMITATIONS – AREA D

Geneviève Marchand Senior Hydrogeologist GM/DMT/sp \\pth1-s-file02\jobs-mining\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-023-l-rev0.docx





August 2010

FLINDERS MINES LIMITED PILBARA IRON PROJECT

Preliminary Groundwater Drawdown Estimates - Area Delta

REPO

RT

Report Number. 09741461-026-R-Rev0 Distribution:1 Copy - Worley Parsons (Electronic Copy) 1 Copy - Golder Associates (Electronic Copy)

Submitted to:Jon Hanna WorleyParsons Level 4 QV1 Building, 250 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000

PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN ESTIMATES - AREA DELTA

August 2010 Report No. 09741461-026-R-Rev0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

5.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ............................................................................................................................................ 2

6.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 5

6.1 Model Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 5

6.2 Model Domain .............................................................................................................................................. 5

6.3 Calibration of the Steady-State Model .......................................................................................................... 6

6.3.1 Hydraulic Properties ................................................................................................................................ 6

6.3.2 Rainfall Recharge ................................................................................................................................... 7

6.3.3 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.3.4 Result of Steady-state Model Calibration ................................................................................................ 8

6.4 Transient-State Model .................................................................................................................................. 8

6.4.1 Hydraulic Properties ................................................................................................................................ 9

6.4.2 Modelled Scenarios................................................................................................................................. 9

7.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

7.1 Scenarios 1 and 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 10

7.2 Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 ................................................................................................................................... 11

8.0 CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 12

TABLES Table 1: Range of Hydraulic Conductivities......................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Hydraulic Conductivity values ............................................................................................................................... 7

Table 3: Recharge Values ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 4: Specific Yield Values ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 5: Summary of Dewatering Scenarios 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 10

Table 6: Summary of Dewatering Scenarios 3 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 11


August 2010 Report No. 09741461-026-R-Rev0 ii

FIGURES (WITHIN TEXT) Figure 1: Resource Areas within the E47/882 Lease Outline .............................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Conceptual geological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x) ................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Conceptual hydrogeological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x) ................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 4: Catchment Boundary – Conceptual Groundwater Divide ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 5: A Plan View of Groundwater Model Grid .............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 6: Groundwater Model Layers-A South West to North East Section through the main valley (vertical exaggeration 2x) ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 7: Rainfall Distribution .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 8: Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 9: Calibration Results ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 10: Proposed Pit Outline ........................................................................................................................................ 10

FIGURES (OUTSIDE OF TEXT)

Figure 11: Extent of the Cone of Depression Associated with Dry Mining Conditions After 10 Years (Scenario 1)

Figure 12: Extent of the Cone of Depression Associated with Dry Mining Conditions After 20 Years (Scenario 2)

Figure 13: Extend of Drawdown at 7 Years

Figure 14: Extent of the Drawdown After 1.2 Years

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Limitations


August 2010 Report No. 09741461-026-R-Rev0 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Flinders Mines Limited (Flinders) engaged Golder Associates (Golder) to develop a 3D numerical groundwater model for the purpose of estimating groundwater inflow and dewatering requirements for the proposed iron ore pit at Area Delta (Area D) of their Pilbara Iron Ore Project.

2.0 OBJECTIVE The main objective of this study was to provide a preliminary indication of the extent of groundwater drawdown, required for stygofauna studies and impacts on third party users/GDE’s, as a result of pit dewatering. The estimation of drawdown cone was to be based on a numerical groundwater model. The numerical model was developed by Golder using FEFLOW (DHI-WASY), a 3D groundwater flow model package using finite element technique.

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK The 3D groundwater flow model was previously developed using Visual MODFLOW, a finite difference 3D groundwater flow model, with the GMS interface. The results from the MODFLOW model were presented in 097641461-020-R-Rev0. Although the model calibrated in a steady-state, the transient state was highly unstable and therefore, the results were not considered to be representative of the groundwater flow on site.

In order to overcome the instability issues, the groundwater flow model was redeveloped using FEFLOW, a finite element 3D groundwater flow model. The scope of work carried out by Golder is as follows:

Develop a 3D groundwater model of the Area D model using the FEFLOW package;

Calibrate the steady-state model;

Run a transient-state model with dewatering bores;

To dewater the pit within 10 years;

To dewater the pit within 20 years;

Run a transient-state model to supply water for the:

Processing of 5 Mtpa with beneficiation (10 ML/day);

Processing of 15 Mtpa with beneficiation (30 ML/day); and

Processing of 5 Mtpa with beneficiation for 5 years (10ML/day) and 15 Mtpa for 5 years (30 ML/day).

4.0 BACKGROUND The site is located within the Hamersley Ranges in the Central Pilbara, approximately 50 km north-west of Tom Price and Area D is located within exploration lease E47/882 (Figure 1).

The deposit consists of Channel Iron Deposits (CID) and Bedded Iron Deposits (BID). The CID formations in the Pilbara area are mined at several other locations, and are known to have a high hydraulic conductivity and hence, high groundwater inflows are usually expected into the open pit once mining below the water table commences. There is no information in the literature concerning the hydrogeology of the BID formations. At this stage, the only data available are the results from the preliminary hydrogeological investigation (097641461-010-R-RevB). The preliminary work suggests high hydraulic conductivity values and from their known vuggy nature, high storage is expected.




The preliminary hydrogeological investigation included the installation of monitoring bores, aquifer testing (airlift recovery and slug tests) as well as water level monitoring in order to assess the hydraulic properties of the CID and BIC aquifers at Area D. The results from the preliminary investigation are summarised in Table 1. The investigation was preliminary and was only intended to provide a preliminary assessment of the hydraulic conductivity of each of the lithological units encountered during the resource drilling campaign.

Table 1: Range of Hydraulic Conductivities

Lithological Unit Minimum K (m/s)

Maximum K (m/s)

CID 1.6×10-5 4.5×10-4 BID 9.5×10-5 9.6×10-4 BM (Basement) 2.3×10-6 3.4×10-4

5.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL A schematic of the conceptual hydrogeological model is shown in Figure 2. The conceptual groundwater model was developed based on the geological information available from the resource modelling (097641461-015-R-RevA Draft) as well as from the hydrogeological information from the hydrogeological site investigation work. The conceptual model is of a four–layer geological system consisting broadly of:

1) Recent Surficial deposits consisting of recent semi-consolidated alluvium or colluvium of BIF, chert and shale fragments with fine silty/clay matrix;

2) CID;

3) BID; and

4) Basement consisting of rocks such Chert, Shale, and fresh BIF, all within this one unit.



Figure 2: Conceptual geological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x)

The recent surficial deposit unit was dry in all areas of the site, therefore no hydraulic conductivity data was available for this unit. The surficial deposits were therefore assumed to have the same hydraulic properties as the CID/BID. Furthermore, the CID and the BID show similar characteristics, and were assumed to be part of the same hydraulic system.

The conceptual hydrogeological system therefore comprised 3 layers:

1) Recent Surficial deposit, CID and BID;

2) Weathered basement – consisting of the upper weathered zone of the basement;

3) Fresh basement – consisting of the lower more fresh rock zone of the basement.

Figure 3 presents a schematic of the conceptual model.

Figure 3: Conceptual hydrogeological model extending from the crest of the hill to the north-east corner of the tenement (vertical exaggeration 3x)



Because of the topography of the site and the lower hydraulic conductivity of the basement rock, it has been assumed that all groundwater flows towards the valley, and then downgradient towards the north-east.

Recharge is likely to vary across the site, given the topography and geology. At the edge of the valley, downgradient from the outcropping basement rock, we have considered higher recharge due to surface runoff and assumed low infiltration within the outcropping basement rock. The average rainfall in the area is 406 mm per year based on the Tom Price weather station.

The crest of the hills surrounding the deposit were considered to be the catchment boundary, and therefore are assumed to be groundwater divides as shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4. The groundwater outside of the catchment boundary was assumed not to participate in the modelled hydrogeological system.

No geological and hydrogeological data was available for the area outside of the tenement. Therefore, the geology at the edge of the tenement was considered to continue basinwards with a similar profile, beyond the tenement boundary, following the topographic profile from the Landgate data. Each unit was considered to have the same hydrogeological characteristics as it did in the Area D valley.

Evaporation was not considered in the model because the depth to groundwater measured on site varied between 36 to 62 m below ground surface, with an average of 48 m below ground surface.

Other possible losses of groundwater from the system are transpiration via vegetation and groundwater abstraction for irrigation. Based on the DoW database, there are no groundwater users in the area modelled, and the transpiration was not considered to impact significantly on groundwater levels due to the depth of groundwater below ground.

Steeper hydraulic gradients were assumed in the upper part of the valley, and gentler gradient in the lower portion of the valleys, based on groundwater level measured in February 2010 (report 097641461-010-R-RevB).

For the purpose of modelling, it has been assumed that all lithological units assigned within the model are homogeneous.

Figure 4: Catchment Boundary – Conceptual Groundwater Divide

Flow direction within the valley Flow direction towards the valley Catchment boundary



6.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Model Assumptions The model has been developed using the following assumptions:

The CID, BID and the upper portion of the BIF (weathered basement) act as one aquifer;

The aquifer is unconfined;

The BIF constitutes the basement rock, and continue to the depth of the model; and

There are no other sources to groundwater other than infiltrated rainfall recharge applied to the model domain.

6.2 Model Domain The model domain extends to the top of the catchment area in the West, North and South direction and to the main valley in the Eastern direction. The model is approximately 8 km long and 5.5 km wide (Figure 5), and comprises 87,291 elements and 59,169 nodes. The surface area of the elements vary from 420 to 1,500 m2 with the more refined triangulation located around the bore locations.

Figure 5: A Plan View of Groundwater Model Grid

E 555606 N 7552802

E 547027 N 7550637



The model has three layers representing:

Layer 1: CID/BID deposits or Outcropping basement (considered weathered) in areas where no CID/BID was encountered.

Layer 2: Weathered basement or Fresh basement in area where no CID/BID was encountered.

Layer 3: Fresh basement.

The top of Layer 1 follows topography which was interpolated from Landgate supplied raw digital elevation grid data. The top of Layer 2 represents the contact between the CID/BID with the weathered basement. In the upper reach where CID/BID was not present, a thickness of 10 m was assumed for Layer 2. The top of Layer 3 represents the surface of the fresh basement and was assumed to be approximately 10 m below Layer 2. The bottom of Layer 3 was set at an elevation of 0 m AHD.

In the portion of the model domain outside of the tenement boundaries, the geological model was extended by extrapolating the profile following the Landgate raw digital elevation grid data. The resulting shape files were then imported into the groundwater model.

A cross section of the model can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Groundwater Model Layers-A South West to North East Section through the main valley (vertical exaggeration 2x)

6.3 Calibration of the Steady-State Model Calibration of a groundwater model entails adjusting input parameters so that modelled water levels are similar to observed water levels measured in the field. Groundwater monitoring data collected by Flinders in February 2010 formed the basis for the groundwater modelling. The model was calibrated to reproduce as closely as possible the observed water levels at the site. The rainfall, hydraulic conductivity, recharge rates and the boundary condition values were used as calibration parameters.

6.3.1 Hydraulic Properties The hydraulic conductivity of each unit was initially based on the hydraulic testing carried out by Golder and was then adjusted within an acceptable range during calibration. The adopted aquifer parameters are presented in Table 2.

The Kx and Ky (horizontal hydraulic conductivities) were assumed to be the same for all units. The Kz (vertical hydraulic conductivity) was assumed to be 10% of the Kx in the fresh basement due to the nature of the basement rock material. The Kz was assumed to be 100% of the Kx in all other units.

Specific storage and specific yield values are only required for transient state simulations and therefore were not included in the calibration of the steady state model.

618 m AHD

0 m AHD

5,940 m



Table 2: Hydraulic Conductivity values

Model Layer Unit Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

Kx Ky Kz

1 Recent Deposit/CID/BID 1×10-4 1×10-4 1×10-4

Outcropping Basement 3×0-6 3×10-6 3×10-6

2

Weathered Basement below CID/BID 1×0-6 1×10-6 1×10-6

Fresh Basement below Outcropping basement 5×0-7 5×10-7 5×10-8

3 Fresh Basement 5×0-7 5×10-7 5×10-8

6.3.2 Rainfall Recharge Recharge as a percentage of annual rainfall is considered to vary across the model domain as a result of topography, geology and land use. The recharge rates were based on a realistic recharge as percentage of the annual rainfall of 406 mm per year (Tom Price Rainfall Station); rainfall recharge values used for the model are shown in Table 3 and the different zones are shown on Figure 7 . The extent of the zones and the rainfall recharge were adjusted during the calibration stage.

Table 3: Recharge Values Coloured Area on

Figure 3 Description Rainfall as Recharge Annual Recharge

Green Base of the Valley 4.5% 18.2 mm/year Brown Basement outcrop 5.4% 21.9 mm/year

Turquoise Edge of the Valley 3.6% 14.5 mm/year

Figure 7: Rainfall Distribution



6.3.3 Boundary Conditions The groundwater levels outside the tenement are unknown. Constant head boundaries were introduced where the main valley meets the model extent. The constant head boundaries were adjusted during the steady-state model calibration.

Constant head boundaries were assigned at each end of the valley with values within the CID/BID unit and with a hydraulic gradient from South to North. Due to the nature of the topography, the constant head values varied along the boundary with higher values along the edge of the valley. Constant head values ranging between 475 m to 485 m were assigned to the northern end and values ranging 480 m to 490 m were assigned to the southern end as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Boundary Conditions

6.3.4 Result of Steady-State Model Calibration The steady-state model has been calibrated using the most recent groundwater levels (February 2010). Figure 9, below, shows a plot of the measured groundwater levels versus the simulated groundwater levels. The green line indicates 100% accuracy. The model was able to recreate an accurate estimation of the water level across the model extent.

Four bores located in the upper section of the valley have not been taken into consideration during the calibration process. These bores were showing a steep hydraulic gradient that could not be replicated accurately with either MODLFOW nor with FEFLOW. Since the upper reach of the valley does not affect significantly the groundwater storage, this was judged not to be a problem with the model.

6.4 Transient-State Model The transient-state model could not, at this stage, be calibrated, since no transient data was available for the site. However, the groundwater levels extracted from the calibrated steady-state model were used as the initial head in the Transient-State predictive runs.

495m

475m

485m

490m

482m

480m



Figure 9: Calibration Results

6.4.1 Hydraulic Properties No storativity data were available at the time of the modelling; therefore typical literature values of specific yield were used in the model. The selected values are shown in Table 4 and are representative of the upper end of specific yield expected for such units. It was originally proposed to model the scenarios using different specific yield. Following the results using high specific yield showing low storage, it was decided not to carry out further modelling using different specific yield. Details are provided Section 7.

Table 4: Specific Yield Values Model Layer Unit Specific Yield Value

1 Recent Deposit/CID/BID 0.1

1 Outcropping Basement 0.1

2 Weathered Basement below CID/BID 0.08

2 Fresh Basement below Outcropping basement 0.08

3 Fresh Basement 0.001

6.4.2 Modelled Scenarios The modelled scenarios were carried to obtain the full dewatering of the proposed pit shown in Figure 10.

Two dewatering scenarios were modelled to evaluate the potential extent of the cone of depression associated with dry mining conditions.

Scenario 1: Dewatering wells located within the proposed mine pit area aiming at dewatering the full pit within 10 years;

Scenario 2: Dewatering wells located within the proposed mine pit area aiming at dewatering the full pit within 20 years;



Figure 10: Proposed Pit Outline

Two other scenarios were also modelled in order to assess the capacity of the site to supply enough water to process the ore.

Scenario 3: The groundwater supply requirements for processing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation (10 ML/day).

Scenario 4: The groundwater supply requirement for processing 15 Mtpa with beneficiation (30 ML/day).

Scenario 5 which combined 5 Mtpa and 15 Mtpa was not modelled following the results from the Scenarios 3 and 4, as explained in the results section.

7.0 RESULTS It was assumed that the maximum pumping rate for each bore was 40 L/s (3.5 ML/day), which is the maximum pumping rate achievable based on the current proposed construction of dewatering/production wells and pumping equipment.

7.1 Scenarios 1 and 2 Table 5 below describes the dewatering set-up for both scenarios. Each scenario had three dewatering wells, and their pumping rates were adjusted in order to achieve full dewatering of the pit within the time frame. The bores were assumed to pump from Layer 1 and 2 in order to achieve full dewatering.

Table 5: Summary of Dewatering Scenarios 1 and 2

Dewatering Well ID Easting Northing Pumping Rate (L/s : ML/day)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Dewatering Well 1 551265 7553018 19 : 1.6 13.9 : 1.2 Dewatering Well 2 551168 7552823 11.5 : 1.0 9.3 : 0.8 Dewatering Well 3 550875 7552531 12.8 : 1.1 9.8 : 0.9

TOTAL 43.3 : 3.7 33 : 2.9



Figure 11 shows the extent of the cone of depression associated with dry mining conditions after 10 years whilst Figure 12 shows the results for the 20 years of mining scenario.

The cones of depression are similar, but extend slightly further in the 20 years scenario. Note that the cones of depression appear to be influenced by the constant head boundaries (described in Section 6.3.3). This shows that the geology and hydrogeology of the main valley does influence the groundwater regime and the potential storage. At this stage, since there is no data available for the area outside the tenement, the model was not extended further away from the current boundaries.

7.2 Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 The aim of Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 was to assess the capacity of the site to supply water for the processing plant. The water supply requirements for each scenario are:

Scenario 3: The groundwater supply requirements for processing 5 Mtpa with beneficiation (10 ML/day).

Scenario 4: The groundwater supply requirement for processing 15 Mtpa with beneficiation (30 ML/day).

Scenario 5: The groundwater supply requirement for processing 5 Mtpa (10 ML/day) for 5 years then 15 Mtpa (30 ML/day).

The maximum flow rates for each pumping well modelled was set at 40 L/s for the reason described previously.

Table 6: Summary of Dewatering Scenarios 3 and 4

Easting Northing Pumping Rate (L/s : ML/day)

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Production Well 1 550872 7552366 11.6 : 1.0 23.1 : 2.0 Production Well 2 551203 7552775 11.6 : 1.0 28.9 : 2.5 Production Well 3 551680 7553299 14.5 : 1.2 28.9 : 2.5 Production Well 4 552371 7553801 39.4 : 3.4 39.9 : 3.5 Production Well 5 552533 7554438 38.8 : 3.4 39.9 : 3.5 Production Well 6 550797 7553472 - 17.4 : 1.5 Production Well 7 552136 7554951 - 39.9 : 3.5 Production Well 8 551852 7555489 - 26.0 : 2.3 Production Well 9 553050 7554030 - 23.1 : 2.0 Production Well 10 553331 7553472 - 39.4 : 3.4 Production Well 11 553934 7553044 - 23.1 : 2.0 Production Well 12 552893 7552968 - 17.4 : 1.5

115.9 : 10.0 350 : 30

The results of Scenario 3 show that, by positioning production wells outside the tenement, it may be possible to obtain 10 ML/day only for a period of 7 years with the modelled production wells (Figure 13). As seen in Scenarios 1 and 2, the cone of depression extends to the model constant head boundaries.

The modelling of Scenario 4 show that, even with positioning several production wells outside the tenement, 30 ML/day could only be supplied for a period of 1.2 years or 440 days. Again, the cone of depression extends to the constant head boundary (Figure 14).

Considering that the model could not supply 30 ML/day for a period of greater than 1.2 years, Scenario 5 was not modelled.



8.0 CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the available data, hydraulic parameters, the assumed geology and hydrogeology of the main valley and all assumptions cited previously, it appears that:

Pit dewatering for a 10 years period could be achieved with a dewatering rate of 3.7 ML/day;

Pit dewatering for a 20 years period could be achieved with a dewatering rate of 2.9 ML/day;

The Area D deposit in conjunction with 2 production wells outside the tenement could supply 10 ML/day for a 7 year period; and

The Area D deposit in conjunction with 8 production wells outside the tenement could supply 30 ML/day for 400 days.

Based on the results it is recommended to gather information on the main valley’s geology, width and hydrogeological properties. More reliable results will be achievable when the transient state model can be calibrated following further hydrogeological investigation in Area D described in document 097641461-016-TM-Rev1.

Furthermore, it is recommended to investigate at other potential sources of groundwater in the case the calibrated transient scenario do not provide optimistic results in terms of water demand.


August 2010 Report No. 09741461-026-R-Rev0



Aymeric Beaulavon Geneviève Marchand Modeller Senior Hydrogeologist

AB/GM/sp


m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-026-r-rev0.docx

PP

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

EXTENT OF THE CONE OFDEPRESSION ASSOCIATED WITHDRY MINING CONDITIONS AFTER

10 YEARS (SCENARIO 1)

26/08/2010BPH

097641461-026-R-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


1:40,000SCALEA3



Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 11


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

@A@A

@A

20060049

E 47/882-IE 47/882-I

5

1

10

15

20

30

40 60

50

1

PLHb

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qa

Czc

PLHb

AHs

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHt

Czc

AHs

PLHtCzc

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

Czc

50

545000545

000550000

550000 555000

555000

560000

560000

755000

0

7550000

7555000

755500

0

7560000

756000

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke






File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\Working\097641461_026_R_F011_REV0.mxd

Legend@A Production Bore

Drawdown(m) for pitdewatering in 10 years

! DrillholeTenement Boundary -Exploration License

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

kilometres

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

EXTENT OF THE CONE OFDEPRESSION ASSOCIATED WITHDRY MINING CONDITIONS AFTER

20 YEARS (SCENARIO 2)

18/08/2010BPH

097641461-026-R-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


1:40,000SCALEA3



Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 12


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

@A@A

@A

20060049

E 47/882-IE 47/882-I

5

1

10

1520

25

30

3545

55

1

10

5

PLHb

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qa

Czc

PLHb

AHs

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHt

Czc

AHs

PLHtCzc

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

Czc

45

545000545

000550000

550000 555000

555000

560000

560000

755000

0

7550000

7555000

755500

0

7560000

756000

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke






File Location: G:\Spatial_Information_Group\GIS_WORKSPACE_AUSTRALIA\01_WA\SF5011_MOUNT_BRUCE\097641461\Projects\Working\097641461_0XX_R_F000Z_REV0.mxd


Drawdown(m) for pit dewateringin 20 years


0 0.5 1 1.5 2

kilometers

Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

EXTENT OF DRAWDOWNAT 7 YEARS

18/08/2010BPH

097641461-026-R-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


0 0.5 1 1.5 2




Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 13


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

20060049

E 47/882-IE 47/882-I

5

1

10

15

25

20 35

11

PLHb

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qa

Czc

PLHb

AHs

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHt

Czc

AHs

PLHtCzc

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

Czc

545000545

000550000

550000 555000

555000

560000

560000

755000

0

7550000

7555000

755500

0

7560000

756000

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke








Drawdown(m) after 7yrs ofpumping at 10ML/day


Info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d on

this

dra

win

g is

the

copy

right

of G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

. U

naut

horis

ed u

se o

r re

prod

uctio

n of

this

pla

n ei

ther

who

lly o

r in

part

with

out w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

infri

nges

cop

yrig

ht.

© G

olde

r Ass

ocia

tes

Pty

. Ltd

.

APPROVED

EXTENT OF THE DRAWDOWNAFTER 1.2 YEARS

18/08/2010BPH

097641461-026-R-REV0

COMPILEDDATEPROJECT


1:40,000SCALEA3



Ph: +618 9213 7600Fx: +618 9213 7611


GM

FIGURE 14


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

@A

@A

@A@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

20060049

E 47/882-IE 47/882-I

5

1

15

10

20

10

15

15

1

20

PLHb

Qa

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Qa

Qa

Czc

PLHb

AHs

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

Czc

PLHb

Czc

Czc

PLHb

PLHt

Czc

Czc

Czc

Qa

Czc

PLHt

Czc

AHs

PLHtCzc

AHs

AHs

PLHt

PLHt

PLHt

PLHb

Czc

Czc

545000545

000550000

550000 555000

555000

560000

560000

755000

0

7550000

7555000

755500

0

7560000

756000

0

Fault


!! !! Dyke








Drawdown(m) after 1.2 yrs ofpumping at 30ML/day


0 0.5 1 1.5

kilometers


August 2010 Report No. 09741461-026-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A Limitations

LIMITATIONS



DATE 22 October 2010 REFERENCE No. 097641461-029-TM-Rev0

TO Brendan Purcell Worley Parsons

CC


PFS COSTING – AREA D

In this memorandum, Golder Associates provide the information requested by Worley Parsons concerning the cost estimate for the Dewatering and Water Supply at Area D. As discussed, the cost estimate is based on a battery limit located at the surface flange immediately downstream of headwork. All equipment upstream of that flange will be captured in Golder’s cost estimate and will be inclusive of power and communication.

A total of 6 wells will be required, as shown in Table 1. The six production wells will provide the daily requirement for the processing plant.

Table 1: Production wells description

Production Well ID Easting Northing Pumping

Rate (L/s)

Period (Production

years)

Pumping Rate (L/s)

Period (Production

Years) PW1 550872 7552366 5 0 - 5 3 5 - 10 PW2 551203 7552775 5 0 - 5 3 5 - 10 PW3 551680 7553299 5 0 - 5 3 5 - 10 PW4 552371 7553801 18.5 0 - 5 18.5 5 - 10 PW5 552533 7554438 18.5 0 - 5 18.5 5 - 10 PW6 553019 7553336 15.6 0 - 5 18.5 5 - 10

The six dewatering/production wells will be installed using 195 mm diameter PVC casing. The pump capacity allows for 130 m head loss. Based on the water level and depth of pit, approximately 80 m are required within the well. If more than 50 m of head losses are expected between the headwork and the processing plant, booster pumps could be installed. Booster pumps have not been costed since they are downstream of the battery limit.

The pumps will be operated with a diesel generator. The fuel tank on the generator will required to be filled up twice daily. No additional fuel tanks were included in the cost estimate.

The cost estimate provided in Table 2 includes the drilling and installation of 6 dewatering/production wells, appropriate pumps, generator and telemetry. Furthermore, the cost estimate includes operation and maintenance for a 5 year period.

The detailed costs are presented in Attachment A. A 30% contingency was applied onto the cost to cover delivery, installation and supervision.





Brendan Purcell 097641461-029-TM-Rev0Worley Parsons 22 October 2010

Table 2: Cost Summary Task Cost (AUS $)

Drilling Cost $ 1,380,000.00 Generator & Concrete slab $ 176,815.00 Pump, associated parts and installation $ 740,827.00 Telemetry $ 49,652.00 5 years - Operation cost (Fuel) $ 580,000.00

5 years - Maintenance cost $ 230,000.00 Total $ 3,157,294.00

No additional well, pump or generator were included in the cost estimate. In the case Worley Parsons requires an additional well, pump or generator in case of break downs, the unit costs are presented in Attachment A.

Kind Regards,


Geneviève Marchand Hydrogeologist GM/CC/lgs Attachments: Attachment A – Detailed Costs m:\jobs409\mining\097641461_flinders_pfs\correspondenceout\097641461-029-tm-rev0.docx

2/2

October 2010 Attachment A - DETAILED COSTS 097641461-029-TM-Rev0

Item Qty PART DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EX PRICE CONTINGENCY1

1 6 Mobilization / Demobilization 5,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$

2 6 195mm PVC Drilling operation 200,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$

3 6 Consumables 25,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$

1,380,000$ 1,380,000$

Item Qty PART DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EX PRICE CONTINGENCY

4 3 75 kW Diesel Generator FGWILSON P100P2 26,237$ 78,711$ 102,325$

5 3 50 kW Diesel Generator FGWILSON P27P1 16,900$ 50,700$ 65,910$

129,411$ 168,235$


6 3 SP17-18 Grundfos pump 8,000$ 24,000$ 31,200$

7 3 Stainless steel pump centraliser (Cooling Aid) 250$ 750$ 975$

8 3 PT100 kit with PR5714 Display to suit fitted to control panel 2,360$ 7,080$ 9,204$

9 3 Probes, probe conduit and extra conduit 360$ 1,080$ 1,404$

10 3 Cable join including ECRM diode to motor frame 430$ 1,290$ 1,677$

11 402 10mmsq 5 core non screened submersible cable 34$ 13,668$ 17,769$

12 6 Permaglass column adaptor 1,020$ 6,120$ 7,956$

13 3 Permaglass column bottom 5m x 100mm 930$ 2,790$ 3,627$

14 75 Permaglass column standard 5m x 100mm 894$ 67,050$ 87,165$

15 3 Control panel, pump plug top, telemetry, checking and tagging 35,000$ 105,000$ 136,500$

16 3 Control panel stand - Galvanised 650$ 1,950$ 2,535$

17 3 60mm Headworks with meter 6,800$ 20,400$ 26,520$

18 3 SP77-60R Grundfos Pump unit 22,000$ 66,000$ 85,800$

19 3 Stainless steel shroud 1,800$ 5,400$ 7,020$

20 3 PT100 kit with PR5714 Display to suit fitted to control panel 2,360$ 7,080$ 9,204$

21 3 Probes, probe conduit and extra conduit 360$ 1,080$ 1,404$

22 3 Cable join including ECRM diode to motor frame 430$ 1,290$ 1,677$

23 402 6mmsq 5 core non screened submersible cable 24$ 9,648$ 12,543$

24 6 Permaglass column adaptor 730$ 4,380$ 5,694$

25 3 Permaglass column bottom 5m x 80mm 870$ 2,610$ 3,393$

26 75 Permaglass column standard 5m x 80mm 846$ 63,450$ 82,485$

27 3 Control panel, pump plug top, telemetry, checking and tagging 33,000$ 99,000$ 128,700$

28 3 Control panel stand - Galvanised 650$ 1,950$ 2,535$

29 3 125mm Headworks with meter 5,600$ 16,800$ 21,840$

30 Mobilization/ installation/commission 40,000$ 40,000$ 52,000$

569,866$ 740,827$


31 1 100.850.053 A850-LE Base Station % RTU (A850,A440, 30m cable 3,199$ 3,199$ 4,159$

32 1 300.405.225 ADVANTAGE Pro 6.0 Single User 5 RTYs 1,518$ 1,518$ 1,974$

33 6 100.723.102 A723 addIT Series 4 RTU 430-470 MHz 1,366$ 8,196$ 10,655$

34 6 200.723.520 Solar Set (9VDC,220mA, 2W) for addIT 216$ 1,296$ 1,685$

35 6 900.000.014 Nylon dolly for installing pole sets 15$ 90$ 117$

36 6 200.730.501 Reinforced Poleset, 3.6m, w/o dolly 146$ 876$ 1,139$

37 6 200.733.917 A917 AcquaSpy Power Booster 239$ 1,434$ 1,865$

38 6 200.720.530 LED-Tool for addIT, addWAVE 43$ 258$ 336$

39 6 200.720.540 Serial Communications Cable for add IT, addWAVE 119$ 714$ 929$

40 6 3C363Ti Titanium Pressure/Temp Vented/Cabled 20PSIA 1,950$ 11,700$ 15,210$

41 6 3C900 PT2X-BV Barometric/Vacuum Sensors 615$ 3,690$ 4,797$

42 100 6E540 Submersible 9-conductor PU cable ($/m) 10$ 960$ 1,248$

43 100 6E543 Submersible 9-conductor FEP cable ($/m) 16$ 1,608$ 2,091$

44 100 6E544 Submersible 9-conductor Tefzel cable ($/m) 20$ 2,016$ 2,621$

45 6 SPX-038 3/8" Inline Low Flow Meter 635$ 635$ 826$

38,190$ 49,652$


46 3 Concrete slab P100P2 Generator 1,200$ 3,600$ 4,680$

47 3 Concrete slab P27P1 Generator 1,000$ 3,000$ 3,900$

2,200$ 6,600$ 8,580$

2,347,294$


48 230,000$

49 580,000$

3,157,294$

Note:

1

TOTAL for Equipment

TOTAL

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

No contigency was applied to the drilling cost, since it is incluse of mobilisation, installation and supervision

PFS Cost Estimate Sheet

DRILLING

GENERATOR

Maintenance 10% capital cost

Fuel [comsuption Lt/h*24*365*years*cost diesel*growfactor]

CIVIL

PUMP

TELEMETRY

BASE STATION

REMOTE OPERATING UNIT (RTU)

INW SDI-12 Pressure Transducer

FLOW METER

INW SDI-12 Pressure Transducer Cable Option

GRUNDFOS PUMP SP77-60R

GRUNDFOS PUMP SP17-18

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

J:\Golder Projects\2010\097641461 PFS\

PFS STUDY_GM.xlsx Golder Associates Page 1 of 1


APPENDIX B Limitations

LIMITATIONS

