179
APPENDIX 4-2 Hydrogeological Assessment II: Fractured Rock Aquifers
T: (+61 8) 9433 2222 F: (+61 8) 9433 2322 ABN: 97 107 493 292 A: 15 Harborne St, Wembley, WA 6162 P: Po Box 442, Bayswater, WA 6933
Prepared for
Hastings Technology Metals Limited
c/o Wave International
306 Murray Street
Perth WA 6000
Report Distribution
No. Copies
1 Hastings Technology Metals Limited (electronic)
1 Groundwater Resource Management Pty Ltd (electronic)
Report J1709R01 April 2018
STAGE II FRACTURED ROCK
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
YANGIBANA RARE EARTHS PROJECT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
J1709R01 April 2018
i
Hastings Technology Metals Limited (Hastings) owns the Yangibana Rare Earths Project (the Project),
located in the Upper Gascoyne region of Western Australia. Hastings has undertaken a Definitive
Feasibility Study (DFS) on the basis of initially developing two proposed pits, i.e. Fraser’s and Bald
Hill, with subsequent pits to follow (including Yangibana North and Yangibana West). The Project
will include on‐site processing, a FIFO/DIDO village and an airstrip. The life of mine is approximately
10 years.
The Public Environmental Review (PER) document states that the project may require a raw water
demand of up to 2.5 GL/annum. The current DFS level water balance for the process plant and
associated infrastructure indicates that the raw water demand is likely to be approximately 1.84
GL/annum (58.5 L/s), for the purposes of mineral processing, dust suppression and camp / potable
supply (via reverse osmosis treatment). The difference between this and the 2.5 GL stated in the PER
document is considered to be a “reserve” that will be continuously refined as the plant detail design
matures through to construction and ultimately, operations. Whilst the current estimates includes a
20% contingency, there are invariably uncertainties associated with plant scale‐up and process
optimisation that will only be confirmed once the plant is commissioned to full capacity.
A Stage I assessment was undertaken in 2016 (GRM, 2017). The Stage II study comprised a fractured
rock and palaeochannel study, aimed at providing supporting documentation to:
the formal Environmental Impact Assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection
Act 1986 (WA);
a 5C licence to abstract groundwater under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
a Mining Proposal under the Mining Act 1978 (WA);
a works approval for pit dewatering under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986
(WA) .
The fractured rock component of the Stage II study is the focus of this report, and comprises a pit
dewatering and water supply assessment.
The dewatering assessment of the Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and Yangibana West pits
included field investigations comprising exploration drilling, airlift recovery testing, the installation of
three test production bores and test pumping of four bores. The results indicate that permeability is
associated with ironstone veins, further enhanced by cross cutting structures. The groundwater is
slightly alkaline, fresh to brackish and of sodium chloride type. Chloride mass balance calculations
indicate recharge rates of about 1.3 to 2.4 mm per year, and the isotope analysis indicates that the
groundwater is not modern (i.e. greater than 60 years old). Given the small surface water
catchment sizes (150 to 200 km2), low average rainfall, low recharge rates and the isotope results;
recharge to the fractured rock aquifer is expected to be limited. The storage of the
hydrostratigraphic units may also be limited, based on test pumping results.
Average combined dewatering rates for the four pits have been estimated to range from 2.9 L/s in
year three to 54.8 L/s in year seven. Short‐term higher groundwater inflows may occur if water
bearing geological structures are encountered. Dewatering rates may also be lower than
anticipated, particularly during the latter stages of the Project, due to the limited storage of the
hydrostratigraphic units. Dewatering will likely be best achieved by sump pumping, possibly
supplemented by dewatering bores.
J1709R01 April 2018
ii
The three test bores are not considered dewatering bores as they were constructed for testing
purposes only. However, the test bores can be utilised during the construction phase of the Project
(to a combined yield of 16 L/s) and will facilitate dewatering ahead of mining to some degree. It is
recommended that the performance of the test bores is closely monitored during the construction
phase to re‐assess the requirement for dewatering bores. A groundwater monitoring programme
will likely be required, and a preliminary monitoring schedule has been provided in this report.
Pit lake modelling indicates that the four pits act as groundwater sinks (i.e. no groundwater through
flow) under average and wet conditions, and also indicate a rise in salinity over 500 years to about
34,000 mg/L TDS. The modelling indicates that the risk of discharge of lake water to the
groundwater environment post closure is low under the simulated climate conditions.
A fractured rock water supply investigation was undertaken to target fractured rock aquifers away
from the pit areas, at Auer North and the Western Belt. One potential bore location was identified.
The focus of the water supply investigation was shifted to target palaeochannel aquifers, which is
discussed in a separate report.
An addendum to the existing fractured rock groundwater licence, to increase the annual allocation
to 820,000 kL/annum (to cover the first three to five years of mining), is expected to be submitted to
the DWER Water Division by the end of April 2018, with the required supporting documentation.
J1709R01 April 2018
iii
GLOSSARY OF HYDROGEOLOGICAL TERMS
Aquifer A saturated geological unit that is permeable enough to yield economic
quantities of water.
Aquitard A geological unit that is permeable enough to transmit water but not sufficient
to yield economic quantities.
Aquiclude A geological unit that is impermeable, i.e. cannot transmit water.
Confined Aquifer An aquifer bounded above and below by an aquiclude, where the water level in
the aquifer extends above the aquifer top and is represented by a pressure
head, i.e. the aquifer is completely saturated.
Drawdown The change in hydraulic head observed at a well in an aquifer, typically due to
pumping.
Leaky Aquifer or Semi‐Confined Aquifer
An aquifer with upper and/or lower boundaries as an aquitard, where the water
level in the aquifer extends above the aquifer top and is represented by a
pressure head. Pumping from the aquifer induces leakage from the
neighbouring aquitard units.
Unconfined or Watertable Aquifer
An aquifer that is bounded below by an aquiclude, but is not restricted on its
upper boundary, which is represented by the water table.
Hydraulic Conductivity (K)
[Permeability]
The volume of water that will flow in a unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient
through a unit area. Analogous to the permeability with respect to fresh water
(units commonly m/d or m/s).
Transmissivity (T) The product of the hydraulic conductivity and the saturated aquifer thickness
(units commonly m3/d/m or m2/d)
Specific Storage (Ss) The volume of water released from a unit volume of aquifer under a unit
decline in hydraulic head, assuming confined aquifer conditions. Water is
released because of compaction of the aquifer under effective stress and
expansion of the water due to decreasing pressure (units commonly m‐1).
Storativity (S) The volume of water released from a unit area of aquifer, i.e the aquifer
column, per unit decline in hydraulic head (dimensionless parameter).
Specific Yield (Sy) The volume of water released from an unconfined aquifer per unit decline in
the water table. The release of water is mostly from aquifer draining.
Contributions from aquifer compaction are generally small. Analogous with
effective porosity (dimensionless parameter).
Terms referenced from Kruseman GP and de Ridder NA (1994) 2nd edition, Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data.
ILRI Publication 47 The Netherlands.
J1709R01 April 2018
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Geology ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Regional Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Other Groundwater Users ...................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Department of Water Register ............................................................................................... 8
2.7 Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems .................................................................................... 8
3.0 Dewatering Assessment ............................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Field Investigations ............................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Exploration Drilling ........................................................................................................ 10
3.1.2 Hydraulic Testing ........................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Test Bore Installation .................................................................................................... 16
3.1.4 Test Pumping ................................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................ 23
3.3 Chloride Mass Balance .......................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Isotope Analysis .................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Recharge and Storage ........................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Dewatering Requirements .................................................................................................... 26
3.6.1 Mining Schedule ............................................................................................................ 26
3.6.2 Estimated Dewatering Rates ......................................................................................... 28
3.7 Dewatering Strategy ............................................................................................................. 29
3.8 Monitoring Programme ........................................................................................................ 30
4.0 Pit Lake Modelling ..................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Water Balance Set‐Up ........................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1 Pit Lake Storage Volume ............................................................................................... 33
4.1.2 Groundwater Inflows and Outflows ............................................................................. 33
4.1.3 Rainfall and Runoff ........................................................................................................ 34
4.1.4 Evaporative Outflows .................................................................................................... 34
4.1.5 Pit Geometry ................................................................................................................. 35
4.1.6 Solute Balance Set‐Up ................................................................................................... 38
J1709R01 April 2018
v
4.2 Water Balance Modelling Results ......................................................................................... 38
5.0 Water Supply Investigation ....................................................................................................... 41
5.1 Groundwater Targets ............................................................................................................ 41
5.2 Exploration Drilling ................................................................................................................ 41
5.3 Monitoring Bore Installation ................................................................................................. 43
6.0 Water Supply Discussion ........................................................................................................... 44
7.0 Groundwater Licensing ............................................................................................................. 45
7.1 Resource Area and Current Allocation .................................................................................. 45
7.2 Licence Application ............................................................................................................... 46
7.3 Regulatory Reporting Requirements .................................................................................... 46
7.4 Requirement for Operating Strategies.................................................................................. 47
8.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 49
TABLES
Table 1 Long Term Average Rainfall and Evaporation Data
Table 2 WIR Bores Within 20 Km
Table 3 Nearby Groundwater Well Licences
Table 4 Exploration Drilling Results
Table 5 Hydraulic Testing Data
Table 6 Hydraulic Test Results
Table 7 Test Production and Monitoring Bore Details
Table 8 Test Pumping Summary
Table 9 Test Pumping Results
Table 10 Bore Details and Pumping Rates
Table 11 Groundwater Quality
Table 12 Chloride Mass Balance
Table 13 Isotope Analysis Results
Table 14 Mining Schedule
Table 15 Dewatering Estimates
Table 16 Dewatering Monitoring Schedule
Table 17 Baseline Groundwater Flow Parameters
Table 18 Pit Catchments
Table 19 Pit Geometry Data
Table 20 Model Runs
J1709R01 April 2018
vi
Table 21 Predicted Lake Levels and Residual Drawdowns
Table 22 Water Supply Exploration Drilling Results
Table 23 Water Supply Monitoring Bores
Table 24 Current Resource Allocation
Table 25 DWER Decision Matrix for Hydrogeological Assessments
Table 26 DWER Decision Matrix for Operating Strategies
FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Plan
Figure 2 Project Tenements
Figure 3 Regional Geology
Figure 4 Surface Water Catchments
Figure 5 Other Groundwater Users
Figure 6 Fraser’s Drilling Results
Figure 7 Bald Hill Drilling Results
Figure 8 Yangibana North and West Drilling Results
Figure 9 Fraser’s Model Simulated Post Closure Pit Lake
Figure 10 Bald Hill Model Simulated Post Closure Pit Lake
Figure 11 Yangibana North Simulated Post Closure Pit Lake
Figure 12 Yangibana West Simulated Post Closure Pit Lake
Figure 13 Fractured Rock Aquifer Drilling Target Areas
Figure 14 Fractured Rock Aquifer Drill Hole Location Plan
Figure 15 Fractured Rock Production and Monitoring Bores
APPENDICES
Appendix A Regional Water Quality
Appendix B GDE Atlas
Appendix C CAW183123 & CAW183464
Appendix D Test Pumping Analysis
Appendix E Fraser’s and Bald Hill Bore Logs
Appendix F Laboratory Certificates
Appendix G Isotope Analysis
Appendix H Revised Pit Modelling Report
Appendix I GWL
J1709R01 April 2018
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION Hastings Technology Metals Limited (Hastings) owns the Yangibana Rare Earths Project (the Project),
located approximately 150 km north east of Gascoyne Junction, in the Upper Gascoyne region of
Western Australia (Figure 1).
The Project’s tenements (Figure 2) cover approximately 650 km2, and hosts extensive rare earths‐
bearing ferrocarbonatite/ironstone veins containing neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium in
a monazite ore. The elements are of interest to the rare earths magnet market, and the advancing
technologies in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics and digital services.
Hastings has undertaken a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on the basis of initially developing two
pits, i.e. Fraser’s and Bald Hill (Figure 3) with other pits following to the south and north‐west of the
plant site. Mineralisation also occurs at several other deposits including Yangibana West, Yangibana
North, Yangibana South, Yangibana, Gossan, Lions Ear, Hook, Kane’s Gossan, Spider Hill, Tongue, and
Auer and Auer North (Figure 3). Yangibana West, Auer, Auer North and Yangibana are the
immediate prospective pits following completion of the Fraser’s and Bald Hill mining.
To date, mining schedules have been prepared by Hastings’ mining consultant (Snowden Group) for
four proposed pits; Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and Yangibana West. Project infrastructure
includes on‐site processing, a FIFO / DIDO mine accommodation village and an airstrip.
Hastings is currently preparing documentation for project approval, including and relevant to
groundwater are;
the formal Environmental Impact Assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection
Act 1986 (WA);
a 5C licence to abstract groundwater under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
a Mining Proposal under the Mining Act 1978 (WA);
a works approval for pit dewatering under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986
(WA).
The proposed pits will be developed using conventional open cut methods to depths of 120 m below
ground level at Fraser’s and Bald Hill and 95 m below ground level at Yangibana North and
Yangibana West. The four pits extend well below the ambient groundwater level and will require pit
dewatering to maintain dry mining conditions.
On‐site processing will produce a Mixed Rare Earth Carbonate (MREC), via a crushing, grinding,
flotation and hydrometallurgy circuit. The plant has a proposed annual throughput of 1 Mtpa,
producing approximately 12,000 to 13,000 tpa of MREC concentrate. The Project’s proposed Life of
Mine (LoM) is 10 years.
The Public Environmental Review (PER) document states that the project may require a raw water
demand of up to 2.5 GL/annum. The current DFS level water balance for the process plant and
associated infrastructure indicates that the raw water demand is likely to be approximately 1.84
GL/annum (58.5 L/s), for the purposes of mineral processing, dust suppression and camp / potable
supply (via reverse osmosis treatment). The difference between this and the 2.5 GL stated in the PER
document is considered to be a “reserve” that will be continuously refined as the plant detail design
matures through to construction and ultimately, operations. Whilst the current estimates includes a
INTRODUCTION
J1709R01 April 2018
2
20% contingency, there are invariably uncertainties associated with plant scale‐up and process
optimisation that will only be confirmed once the plant is commissioned to full capacity.
A desktop hydrogeological report for the Project was completed by Global Groundwater in 2016.
Hastings then commissioned Groundwater Resource Management Pty Ltd (GRM) to assist it with
identifying a water source for the Project. A Stage I hydrogeological assessment was completed in
February 2017 (GRM 2017), which included preliminary assessments of dewatering requirements,
water supply options, post closure conditions and a water balance.
Hastings subsequently engaged GRM in mid‐2017 to undertake the Stage II study. The study
comprised revising pit dewatering estimates based on the revised mine schedules, revised post
closure conditions and identifying a suitable water supply for the project. The Stage II water supply
search was initially focussed on fractured rock targets, in the vicinity of the proposed pits. However,
the focus changed to palaeochannel targets towards the end of 2017, once the investigations
identified limited capacity in the fractured rock aquifers.
This report presents the Stage II fractured rock component of the study, which includes revised
dewatering assessment, pit closure assessment and the initial (fractured rock) water supply search.
The palaeochannel water supply assessment will be reported in a separate document. A water
balance for the Project’s LoM will be included in the palaeochannel assessment, along with licensing
requirements to abstract from the palaeochannel aquifer.
J1709R01 April 2018
3
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is situated approximately 270 east north‐east of Carnarvon, and 150 km north east of
Gascoyne Junction (Figure 1). The Mount Augustus National Park is approximately 80 km east of the
project and the Kennedy Range National Park is approximately 100 km to the south west.
The Project is located within tenure covering an area of some 650 km2, with long term mining
activities proposed across six mining tenements and associated infrastructure across numerous
general purpose and miscellaneous tenements. The project also lists numerous exploration licences.
The tenements comprise 100% ownership and 70% joint venture ownership. A plan showing the
project tenements and ownership is provided in Figure 2.
The tenements comprising the Project are within the Gifford Creek and Wanna pastoral stations.
There are no other mining developments in the local Shire of Upper Gascoyne, with the nearest
mining operation being at Useless Loop (in the Shire of Shark Bay) and Lake Macleod (north of
Carnarvon).
The topography in the Project area has been influenced by the Lyons River to the south, to a lesser
extent by the Edmund River to the east, and a small range of hills to the north of Fraser’s and Bald
Hill (Figure 2). The remainder of the area is characterised by subdued topography, with rounded
granitic hills and open flat areas, cross cut by small dendritic drainages.
The Project is situated within several smaller catchments, which form part of the larger Lyons River
catchment. The Lyons River itself is located about 10 km south of the Project and flows south‐
westward, ultimately discharging to the Gascoyne River. Several smaller creeks, including Fraser
Creek and Yangibana Creek cross the Project site in a roughly north to south direction, discharging
into the Lyons River. The creeks and rivers in the region are ephemeral, only flowing following large
rainfall events.
2.2 CLIMATE The Gascoyne region is semi‐arid to arid, characterised by cool daytime temperatures in winter and
hot daytime temperatures in summer. Rainfall is typically bi‐modal, whereby intense summer
rainfall can result from the passage of tropical cyclones from the north west, whilst winter rainfall is
typically less intense, and associated with cold winter fronts from the south west.
The nearest registered Bureau of Meteorological (BoM) weather station with long‐term data is
Wanna (station number 7028), located approximately 12 km south of the Project. The station has a
98% complete data set for the 63 year period between the 1st of January 1946 and the 31st of
October 2009. Mean monthly rainfall data from Wanna is provided in Table 1. The data from
Wanna indicates that the average annual rainfall is around 240 mm, with the highest rainfall
occurring from January to March, closely followed by May and June rainfall events.
Evaporation data is recorded at Paraburdoo (station number 7178), located 160 km north east of the
Project, and Learmonth Airport (station number 5007), 290 km north west of the Project. The data
from Paraburdoo and Learmonth has been scaled, based upon distance, to develop an estimate of
average monthly evaporation for Yangibana (Table 1).
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
4
The evaporation data indicates that the pan evaporation exceeds mean monthly rainfall in all
months of the year, with the total annual evaporation is well over an order of magnitude higher than
the annual rainfall.
Table 1: Long Term Average Rainfall and Evaporation Data
Month
Wanna
(BoM station 7028) Yangibana Project
Mean Monthly Rainfall
(mm)
Mean Monthly Pan
Evaporation (mm)
January 32.5 411
February 59.0 365
March 32.3 335
April 18.1 272
May 25.3 187
June 32.0 137
July 18.9 147
August 10.1 191
September 2.7 261
October 3.0 346
November 3.3 396
December 7.7 427
Annual Total 240.2 3,475
2.3 GEOLOGY The description of the geological conditions associated with the project is derived from the
1:100,000 Edmund Sheet and explanatory notes (Martin et al. 1994), and information provided by
Hastings and Global Groundwater (2016). Figure 3 provides the regional geological conditions in the
immediate area of the Project.
The Project is located within the Gascoyne Province of the Capricorn Orogen, bounded by the
Archean Yilgarn Craton to the south, the Archean Pilbara Craton to the north, and the Phanerozoic
Carnarvon Basin to the west.
The predominant lithology in the area is the Durlacher Supersuite granites, which comprise the
Pimbyana Granite, the Dingo Creek Granite, the Yangibana Granite and several other un‐named
units. The suite mainly consists of monzogranite and granodiorite, with lesser syenogranite and
minor amounts of tonalite and rare gabbro.
Within the Project area, the granites contain rafts of older sedimentary rocks, and intrusive dykes.
The primary mineralisation occurs in narrow, regionally extensive ferrocarbonatitie/ironstone veins.
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
5
The dykes carry anomalous rare earths within the monazite mineralisation. The dykes are
understood to be a younger intrusive phase which has cross cut slightly older ferrocarbonatite
dykes, possibly leaching and upgrading rare earths minerals (and base metals). The carbonatite
dykes (which form the Gifford Creek Carbonatite Complex), along with associated fenitic alteration,
are considered to be sourced from (an as yet undiscovered) carbonatite intrusion at depth, which
could potentially host significant rare earths and base metals.
2.4 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY The description of the regional hydrogeological conditions is derived from publicly available
information, the desktop study completed by Global Groundwater (2016) and information collected
during field investigations.
The Project is located within the Bangemall/Capricorn Groundwater subarea of the Gascoyne
Groundwater area. Groundwater resources within the subarea comprise alluvium, calcrete,
palaeochannel and fractured rock aquifers.
The hydrogeology of the area is characterised by a south westerly draining system, coincident with
the Lyons River surface water catchment. Alluvial cover is typically thin or absent across the
majority of the area but thickens near creeks and major drainages.
Groundwater occurrences in the fractured bedrock occur where permeability in the natural rock is
enhanced by fracturing, dissolution and chemical weathering. Away from the fractures permeability
in the bedrock is typically low. In the Project are the extensive ironstone veins (the target
mineralisation) forms a locally significant fractured rock aquifer. The ironstone aquifer is discussed
in more detail later in this report.
Tertiary palaeochannel aquifers in the general area are associated with the Lyons palaeodrainage
system. Palaeochannel aquifers in the region have the potential to provide large groundwater
supplies, although salinity is typically higher than in fractured rock. Very little is known about the
Lyons palaeodrainage system and forms the focus of the Stage II palaeochannel study (which will be
reported in a separate document).
Groundwater occurrences are also known to occur in calcrete aquifers in the area. Calcrete is
thought to extend up to 30 m in depth within the Edmund and Lyons Rivers, and likely extends over
large areas beneath the alluvial cover (Global Groundwater, 2016). This network of shallow calcretes
also forms the habitat of the Gifford Creek Calcrete Priority Ecological Community (discussed further
in section 2.7), one of the larger stygofauna communities in Western Australia. Due to the ecological
conservation values of the calcrete aquifer system, they have not been the focus of water source
investigations other than to ensure drawdown in the target palaeochannel aquifers (deep confined)
do not indirectly impact the calcrete aquifers (shallow unconfined).
Small amounts of groundwater can occur in alluvium associated with the larger drainage systems.
However, away from the larger drainage systems the alluvium is typically absent or situated above
the water table.
Groundwater is recharged by direct rainfall infiltration or by stream flow during episodic rainfall
events. Recharge is expected to be highest following streamflow events, in locations where the
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
6
alluvium overlies more permeable units (such as calcrete or fractured basement). Groundwater
recharge by direct infiltration of rainfall is likely to be minor.
The surface water catchments within the Project area (as provided by JDA 2016) are presented in
Figure 4. These catchments are relatively small, drain to the south towards the Lyons River, forming
part of the larger Lyons River Catchment. The proposed Fraser’s and Bald Hill pits are located within
the Fraser Creek Catchment, which covers an area of just over 150 km2. The proposed Yangibana
North and Yangibana West pits are located within the Yangibana Creek Catchment (to the west of
the Fraser Creek Catchment) which is slightly larger, covering an area of almost 200 km2.
Groundwater quality in the area is typically fresh to brackish, with reported salinities ranging from
about 900 to 4,000 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The lowest salinity groundwater would be
expected to occur closest to the areas of recharge, with salinity increasing away from the recharge
areas.
2.5 OTHER GROUNDWATER USERS A search of bore records within a 20 km radius of Bald Hill was carried using the Water Information
Reporting (WIR) database, which is managed by the Water Division of the Department of Water and
Environment Regulation (DWER).
The WIR data indicates that there are 15 registered bores within 20 km of the Project tenements. A
summary of the bore information is provided in Table 2 below, and the bore locations closest to the
Project area are shown in Figure 5.
The WIR data indicates that:
The closest bores to the proposed pits are Yangibana Bore and Fraser Well, located 5 km
south of Yangibana North and 5 km west of the Fraser’s deposit, respectively. The bores are
listed as being of unknown type and status. However, it is believed the bores are
operational livestock bores.
Nine of the 15 bores are listed as livestock bores. The Roadside Bore is listed as an
investigation bore, and the remaining five bores are of unknown type. However, it is
presumed that the bores listed as unknown type are also livestock bores, given the land use
in the area.
Pimbiana Bore is the only bore registered as being installed into a calcrete aquifer, which is
consistent with the 1:100,000 Edmund sheet (Figure 5). Pimbiana Bore is located
approximately 10 km east of Fraser’s (it should be noted the bore is referred to as Pimbiana
Bore in the database, despite the name of the catchment being Pimbyana).
Contessis Well is listed as installed into an alluvial aquifer, and is located approximately 9 km
north of Yangibana North.
The remainder of the listed bores are of unknown aquifer type. However, based upon the
shallow drilled depths it is likely the bores are installed into either alluvial, calcrete or
shallow bedrock aquifers. The Edmund sheet suggests that Dingo Well, Boogardi Bore and
Benbageon Well are likely to be installed into shallow bedrock aquifers, whilst the remainder
(6 bores) are likely to be installed into alluvial (or possibly calcrete) aquifers.
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
7
Table 2: WIR Bores Within 20 Km
Site Name
Coordinates
MGA Zone 50 Purpose Status Aquifer
Type
Depth
(m) Easting Northing
Hart Bore 435,911 7,343,600 Livestock Operational ‐ 33.2
Star Well 422,154 7,339,440 Livestock Operational ‐ 9.5
Benbageon Well 444,249 7,362,723 Livestock Operational ‐ 25.6
Boogardi Bore 441,689 7,366,535 ‐ Operational ‐ 48.77
Dingo Well 438,838 7,371,621 Livestock Operational ‐ ‐
Cardibar Bore 434,984 7,362,312 ‐ Unknown ‐ 26.82
Gap Bore 430,211 7,371,424 Livestock Unknown ‐ 32.92
Pimbiana Bore 439,609 7,350,284 Livestock Unknown Calcrete ‐
Henderson Bore 437,326 7,353,953 Livestock Operational ‐ ‐
Wallaby Bore 440,420 7,354,405 ‐ Unknown ‐ ‐
Roadside Bore 444,679 7,349,061 Investigation Unknown ‐ 33.53
Fraser Well 424,549 7,351,619 ‐ Operational ‐ 23.47
E15 Contessis Well 416,352 7,370,553 Livestock Operational Alluvium 21.34
E16 Red Hill Bore 419,949 7,368,896 Livestock Operational ‐ 16.76
Yangibana Bore 414,879 7,357,752 ‐ Operational ‐ 32.61
Groundwater level and water quality data has been collected from a selection of regional livestock
bores (Figure 5) for the purpose of providing background data prior to the commencement of
mining.
Data was collected initially by ATC Williams (Hastings tailings consultant) as part of the pre‐feasibility
study (PFS) for the Project, and then ongoing data has been collected by Hastings. The data is
provided as Appendix A, and indicates that:
The depth to groundwater ranges from 2.4 m below ground level at Edmund Homestead to
31.9 m at Fraser Well.
The pH is neutral to slightly alkaline, ranging from 7.2 in the Red Hill 2 Bore to 8.6 in the
Edmund Homestead Bore.
The water quality is fresh to brackish, ranging from 530 mg/L TDS in the Contessis Bore to
3,100 mg/L TDS in the Red Hill 2 Bore.
The groundwater reports concentrations above detection limits of arsenic, boron, copper, iron,
molybdenum, silicon, vanadium, tin, strontium, selenium and uranium. However, these values are
below the ANZECC water quality guidelines for stock.
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
8
2.6 DEPARTMENT OF WATER REGISTER The DWER online water register was interrogated to identify the presence of existing licensed
groundwater users in the vicinity of the Project.
The information shows that there are two current groundwater licences within 30 km of the Project,
both of which are held by Mr. James Millar from Cobra Station. Both licences are on the southern
side of the Lyons River, approximately 5 km and 10 km south of the proposed Fraser’s pit.
One licence allows up to 10,000 kL per annum from the Superficial aquifer and the other allows
41,500 kL per annum from the Combined Fractured Rock West aquifer.
Table 3 below provides details of the existing licensees within 30 km of the Project.
Table 3: Nearby Groundwater Well Licences
GWL
Holder GWL
Allocation
(kL/yr) Aquifer Tenements
Location from the
Project
James
Millar,
Cobra
Station
46673 100,000 Carnarvon ‐
Superficial M09/63 5km S
James
Millar,
Cobra
Station
64561 415,000
Combined –
Fractured
Rock West –
Fractured
Rock
M09/79 10km S
2.7 GROUNDWATER DEPENDANT ECOSYSTEMS A review of the BoM’s Groundwater Dependant Ecosystem (GDE) Atlas indicates that the Project
area is classified as having:
No to low potential for groundwater interaction with vegetation reliant on subsurface
groundwater.
No identified vegetation GDE’s reliant on surface expression of groundwater (rivers, springs,
wetlands).
No identified subterranean GDEs (caves or aquifers).
The nearest significant GDE is along the Lyons River (to the south of the Project) and the
Edmund River (to the west of the Project), which both report vegetation GDE’s reliant on
surface water and groundwater.
A copy of the GDE Atlas report, for an area of 25 km from 428,000 mE and 7,356,000 mN (Bald Hill) is
provided as Appendix B.
Ecoscape (Australia) Pty Ltd (2015) completed a flora and vegetation assessment of the broad
Project region, including the proposed development envelope. The assessment reported the
BACKGROUND
J1709R01 April 2018
9
presence of one vegetation type which represents a GDE (presence of Eucalyptus camaldulensis),
and three other vegetation types which represent potential GDEs (including Eucalyptus victrix). GDE
vegetation types are commonly associated with the Lyons River, Fraser Creek and Yangibana Creek
and associated drainage channels.
A Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) listed Priority Ecological
Community (PEC) occurs within the study area, and the development envelope occurs within the
northern portion of this PEC. The PEC is listed as:
Priority 1 (P1) Gifford Creek, Mangaroon, Wanna calcrete groundwater assemblage type on
Lyons palaeodrainage on Gifford Creek, Lyons and Wanna Stations.
The DBCA refer to the PEC as the “Gifford Creek Calcrete PEC”, which comprises unique assemblages
of invertebrates (stygofauna) that have been identified in the groundwater calcretes.
Stygofauna occur within the proposed mineral deposits in the development envelope (Ecoscape
2015; Bennelongia 2017). Stygofauna samples of eight drill holes within the development envelope
initially found 236 stygofauna specimens from four families representing 10 species (Ecoscape 2015).
Additional subterranean fauna surveys within the broader PEC area have found that a greater
diversity and abundance of stygofauna species are represented within the calcretes of the PEC
(Bennelongia 2017). A total of 830 specimens from 57 discrete species of stygofauna were recorded
from the Project and surrounding region during surveys conducted in 2016. Reference sites yielded
730 specimens, including all 57 species, while impact areas yielded 100 specimens from 6
species. Combining results from current and previous studies, the total number of stygofauna
species known from the broader Gifford Creek Calcrete PEC study area is at least 62. Stygofauna
species recorded in impact areas were also collected in reference areas, and are common species
that are known to be widespread outside of the study area (Bennelongia 2017).
J1709R01 April 2018
10
3.0 DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Field investigations to assess the likely dewatering rates for the proposed Fraser’s, Bald Hill,
Yangibana North and Yangibana West pits were undertaken as part of the Stage I assessment (GRM
2017), supplemented by additional drilling during the Stage II assessment.
Likely dewatering rates for additional pits (such as Auer and Auer North) will be estimated once the
mining schedules become available.
The field investigations comprised the following:
Groundwater exploration drilling to collect hydrogeological data, and identify potential test
bore locations.
Airlift recovery testing of groundwater exploration holes and/or from selected existing
mineral exploration drill‐holes to provide a range of estimates of hydraulic conductivity
within the mining area.
Installation of three test bores at each of Fraser’s, Bald Hill and Yangibana West.
Test pumping of four production bores (including the three above‐mentioned test bores plus
testing of an existing bore at Yangibana North) to estimate hydraulic parameters for the
fractured rock aquifer and identify any potential boundary conditions.
Collection of groundwater samples for laboratory analysis from the deposits.
3.1.1 Exploration Drilling Hydrogeological data was collected during the drilling of eleven exploration drill‐holes (two at
Fraser’s, four at Bald Hill, three at Yangibana North and two at Yangibana West), which varied in
depth from 70 to 126 m deep. The selected drill‐holes primarily targeted the ironstone vein on the
down‐dip side of the pit, for the purpose of collecting hydrogeological information as well as locating
suitable test bore locations.
The drilling was undertaken by Three Rivers Drilling between 20 October and 13 November 2016 at
Fraser’s and Bald Hill, and from 23 June to 22 July 2017 at Yangibana North and Yangibana West.
The exploration drill holes were completed using reverse circulation (RC) methods. The programme
was overseen by GRM and Hastings field personnel who were responsible for the collection and field
assessment of geological and hydrogeological data.
The Fraser’s and Bald Hill groundwater exploration holes were drilled under a granted Licence to
Construct or Alter a Well (reference number CAW183123(1)), issued by the DWER on 3 August 2016.
The CAW is provided in Appendix C. The Yangibana North and Yangibana West drill‐holes were
planned as part of the mineral exploration programme, thus not requiring a licence. A summary of
the drilling results is provided in Table 4.
The exploration drilling results indicate the following:
Groundwater inflows were associated with the ironstone veins, and associated fracturing.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
11
Away from the ironstone veins, the granite reported low groundwater inflows.
There were no reported inflows associated with alluvium or calcrete, and the depth of
weathering was minimal.
The most prospective drill‐holes from each proposed pit comprised FRW01 at Fraser’s,
BHW04 at Bald Hill, YGRC094 and 095 at Yangibana North and YWRC075 at Yangibana West.
These most prospective drill‐holes reported modest groundwater inflows, with airlift yields
of between 1.5 and 3.1 L/s.
The exploration drilling results support the presence of a discrete fractured rock aquifer associated
with the ironstone veins and associated fracturing.
It should be noted that RC drilling generally under‐predicts yields, due to the narrow annulus
between the drill rod and the drill‐hole. Higher yields were reported during airlift recovery testing, as
discussed in Section 3.1.2.
Table 4: Exploration Drilling Results
Location Hole mE MGA
Zn50
mN MGA
Zn50
RL
(mAHD) Depth (m)
Max Airlift
Yield During
Drilling (L/s)
Fraser’s FRW1 429,941 7,351,211 350.5 110 1.5
FRW2 429,804 7,351,086 343.0 96 1.2
Bald Hill
BHW1 427,958 7,356,494 355.7 70 <1
BHW2 428,017 7,356,253 353.6 85 <1
BHW3 428,064 7,356,105 350.5 100 <1
BHW4 428,189 7,356,019 346.7 102 2.2
Yangibana
North
YGRC094 416,946 7,362,007 337.3 124 1.9
YGRC095 417,135 7,361,989 339.1 126 1.9
YGRC096 417,212 7,362,161 339.3 108 1.0
Yangibana
West
YWRC075 415,885 7,362,889 336.4 126 3.1
YWRC076 416,190 7,363,026 335.5 102 1.2
3.1.2 Hydraulic Testing Airlift recovery testing of 12 drill‐holes, comprising three locations at Fraser’s, seven locations at
Bald Hill and two locations at Yangibana North and West, was conducted between October and
December 2016.
The test locations comprised both existing resource drill‐holes and the water exploration drill‐holes
completed as part of the Stage I programme. The testing was undertaken by a combination of GRM
and Hastings personnel, using the services of Three Rivers Drilling.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
12
The testing methodology comprised:
i. A water level measurement was collected prior to testing.
ii. Galvanised pipe (50 mm diameter) was run down the existing drill‐hole to about 12 m above
the base of the hole.
iii. The drill‐hole was airlifted until the flow stabilised (around an hour).
iv. During airlifting, yield measurements (using a V Notch weir) and water quality parameters
were recorded at regular intervals.
v. At the completion of airlifting the galvanized pipe was un‐coupled and groundwater
recovery measurements collected through the inner tube using a combination of pressure
transducers and manual measurements, until the recovery came to within 90% of the
standing water level.
The test data was analysed using a combination of standard analytical methods including Theis
(1935) and the Theim (1906) steady state method. The resulting transmissivities from the various
testing methods were then reviewed and an adopted hydraulic conductivity value was assigned for
each test location.
It should be noted that the recovery data for drill‐hole BHRC097 was erroneous and consequently a
slug test was conducted for this drill‐hole. The slug test data was analysed using Hvorslev (1951).
A summary of the test data and results are provided in Tables 5 and 6. The results are presented in
Figures 6 to 8, and the analysis is provided as Appendix D.
The test results indicate the following:
Airlift yields ranged from 0.015 L/s in FFRC098 at Fraser’s deposit to 8 L/s in YGRC057 at the
Yangibana North deposit.
Three test locations reported hydraulic conductivities below 0.1 m/d. These results are
indicative of the expected low permeability conditions of the bedrock away from the
ironstone vein.
Three test locations reported hydraulic conductivities between 0.1 m/d and 1 m/d. These
locations were interpreted to represent minor fractures or thin ironstone veins within the
otherwise low permeability bedrock.
Six test locations reported conductivities above 1 m/d, which confirm the modest
permeability associated with the ironstone vein, characteristic of a fractured rock aquifer.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
13
Table 5: Hydraulic Testing Data
Location Hole mE MGA
Zn50
mN MGA
Zn50
RL
(mAHD)
Depth
(m)
SWL
(mbtoc)
SWL (m
RL)
Final Airlift
Rate
(L/s)
Fraser’s
FRW2 429,804 7,351,086 343 96 35.6 307.44 1.5
FFRC082 429,925 7,351,046 338.89 60 35.5 303.36 3.4
FFRC098 429,770 7,350,825 336.51 48 33.1 303.41 0.015
Bald Hill
BHW1 427,958 7,356,494 355.7 72 35.0 320.70 3.9
BHW2 428,017 7,356,253 353.6 72 33.6 320.00 1.8
BHW3 428,064 7,356,105 350.5 119 29.85 320.65 0.14
BHRC161 428,397 7,355,720 343.6 75 25.87 317.73 3.0
BHRC082 428,268 7,355,904 346.0 58 23.23 322.77 2.0
BHRC095 428,206 7,356,149 337.12 58 29.14 307.98 0.33
BHRC097 428,134 7,356,197 337.28 70 30.26 307.02 0.8
Yangibana
North YWRC003 417,291 7,362,277 342.38 48 8.38 334.00 3.7
Yangibana
West YWRC057 417,189 7,362,389 339.90 24 12.54 322.46 8.0
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
14
Table 6: Hydraulic Test Results
Hole ID
Aquifer
Thickness
(m)
Transmissivity (m2/d) Adopted
Transmissivity
(m2/d)
Adopted
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/d)
Comments Airlift
Recovery
(Theis) ET
Airlift
Recovery
(Theis) LT
Steady
State
(Theim)
Slug Test
(Hvorslev)
FRW02 60.4 243 34 3.7 ‐ 19 0.3
Aquifer less well defined in this location, results
represent general rock mass, average of LT R and SS
most representative, and consistent with airlift rate
(1.5 L/s)
FFRC082 11 ‐ 223 27 ‐ 27 2.5
The R data is unreliable (minimal residual
drawdown). The SS analysis result is consistent with
the airlift rate (3.4 L/s)
FRRC098 14.9 0.12 0.25 0.18 ‐ 0.18 0.012
The AR and SS analysis are consistent with the low
flow rate during airlifting (<0.1 L/s), indicative of
general rock mass
BHW01 20 100 ‐ 26 ‐ 63 3.15 The AR and SS analysis result is consistent with the
airlift rate (3.9L/s)
BHW02 20 0.8 32 6.8 ‐ 13 0.66
Aquifer less well defined in this location, results
represent general rock mass, average of all tests is
consistent with airlift rate (1.8 L/s)
BHW03 87.25 ‐ ‐ 0.36 ‐ 0.36 0.004
Unreliable results from AR test, SS analysis results
and airlift rate (0.14L/s) indicative of general rock
mass
BHRC161 5 17 80 15 ‐ 37 7.5 The AR and SS analysis are consistent with airlift
yield (3 L/s)
BHRC082 34.77 ‐ 66 49 ‐ 58 1.7 Aquifer less well defined in this location, results
represent general rock mass, average of LT R and SS
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
15
Hole ID
Aquifer
Thickness
(m)
Transmissivity (m2/d) Adopted
Transmissivity
(m2/d)
Adopted
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/d)
Comments Airlift
Recovery
(Theis) ET
Airlift
Recovery
(Theis) LT
Steady
State
(Theim)
Slug Test
(Hvorslev)
BHRC095 28.86 0.72 ‐ 3.2 ‐ 1.98 0.07 Aquifer less well defined in this location, results
represent general rock mass, average of ET R and SS
BHRC097 34.74 ‐ ‐ 4.8 10 10 0.29
Poor data during R test, ST and SS analysis
consistent with airlift rate (0.8 L/s). Results
indicative of general rock mass
YWRC057 11.46 ‐ ‐ 117 ‐ 117 10 Unable to get reliable data during the R phase, SS
analysis consistent with airlift rate (8 L/s)
YWRC003 4 ‐ 28 20 ‐ 24 6.0 Reasonable fit to Theis, results consistent with
airlift rate (3.7 L/s)
Notes: CH constant head; LT late time; ET early time; R recovery; SS steady state; HC hydraulic conductivity; AR airlift recovery; ST slug test; T transmissivity
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
16
3.1.3 Test Bore Installation Two test production bores, FRW03 and BHW05, were installed during the Stage I assessment
adjacent to the two highest yielding exploration drill‐holes (FRW01 and BHW04). A third test
production bore was installed at Yangibana West (YWWB01) as part of the Stage II assessment,
adjacent to mineral exploration hole YWRC075. Please note that FRW03 was referred to as FRW01
during the field investigations, but has subsequently been re‐named to maintain consistent
nomenclature and differentiate it from the original FRW01 drill‐hole.
Drill‐holes FRW01 and BHW04 were constructed as temporary observation bores for test pumping
purposes. Nominal 50 mm uPVC casing was suspended in the drill‐holes using casing clamps to allow
for water level measurement. A permanent monitoring bore (YWMB01) was installed adjacent to
YWWB01, completed with nominal 50 mm uPVC casing, with a concrete annular seal and lockable
cap. The original YWRC075 drill‐hole was decommissioned in accordance with the minimum bore
construction standards (National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee 2011).
The test production bores were drilled and constructed by Three Rivers Drilling and overseen by
GRM and Hastings personnel. The bores completed during the Stage I assessment (FRW03 and
BHW05) were installed under a granted CAW (CAW183123(1)), issued by the DWER on 3 August
2016. Bore YWWB01 was installed under a granted Licence to CAW (CAW183464(1)), issued by the
DWER on 4 October 2016. The CAWs are provided as Appendix C, although it should be noted that
CAW183464(1) was incorrectly issued for 6 exploratory wells, rather than 3 production wells. An
email confirming the error is also provided in Appendix C. Form 2’s for the bores were submitted to
the DWER on 14 August 2018, in accordance with the licensing requirements.
The production bore installation methodology comprised:
Collaring to 3 m, using 15.5 inch diameter air rotary methods.
Installation of 10 inch diameter steel surface casing to 2 to 3 m depth, cement grouted.
Drilling a pilot hole and then reaming out to 10 inch diameter hole to depth using air rotary
methods.
Installation of 155 mm class 9 uPVC casing, slotted over the aquifer sequence, as identified
from drill‐cuttings and from geological logs from the original exploration hole, and capped at
its base using an external uPVC end‐cap.
Installation of +3.2 to 6.4 mm graded gravel pack in the annulus from the base of the bore to
just below surface.
Placement of an annular bentonite seal from the top of the gravel packed interval to surface
to prevent surface water ingress.
Airlift development of the bore for a period of at least 2 hours, to remove fine sediment
from within the gravel pack and adjacent formation.
Completion of the bore with a concrete plinth, and uPVC end‐cap.
The details of the installed test production bores are provided in Table 7, and bore logs are provided
in Appendix E.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
17
Table 7: Test Production and Monitoring Bore Details
Parameter Units Test Production Bores Monitoring Bores
FRW03 BHW05 YWWB01 FRW01 BHW04 YWMB01
Exploration Drill Hole FRW01 BHW04 YWRC075 ‐ ‐ ‐
Collar Location MGA Zn 50 (mE) 429,940 428,194 415,887 429,941 428,289 415,881
(mN) 7,351,210 7,356,015 7,362,891 7,351,211 7,356,019 7,362,895
RL (mAHD) 350.97 345.45 336.4 350.5 346.7 336.7
Depth Drilled/Reamed (mbgl) 110 106 126 110 102 337.1
Surface Casing Depth (mbgl) 3.2 4 2 2 2 48
Cased Depth (mbgl) 95.2 104 126 66 66 48
Casing Type
155 mm Class 9
uPVC
155 mm Class 9
uPVC
155 mm Class 9
uPVC
50 mm uPVC 50 mm uPVC 50 mm Class 12
uPVC
Slotted Interval (mbgl) 71.2 to 95.2 80 to 104 96 to 126 ‐ ‐ 42 to 48
Slot Type 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm ‐ ‐ 1 mm
Gravel Pack Grade mm 3.2 to 6.4 3.2 to 6.4 3.2 to 6.4 ‐ ‐ none
Gravel Pack Interval +0.1 to 95.5 +0.1 to 104 5 to 126 ‐ ‐ none
Annual Bentonite Seal 0.1 to +0.1 0.1 to +0.1 3 to 5 ‐ ‐ Concrete
Stick‐up (magl) 0.1 0.1 0.2 ‐ ‐ 0.4
SWL (mbtoc) 33.8 26.5 13.14 36.7 25.0 13.56
SWL Date 4 Nov 2016 14 Nov 2016 11 Dec 2017 4 Nov 2016 14 Nov 2016 11 Dec 17
Note: mbgl = metres below ground level; magl = metres above ground level; mbtoc = metres below top of casing
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
18
3.1.4 Test Pumping Test pumping of FRW03, BHW05 and an existing dis‐used bore at Yangibana North (YGWB03) was
carried out as part of the Stage I assessment by Three Rivers Drilling between October and
December 2016. Test pumping of YWWB01 was carried out as part of the Stage II assessment by
Three Rivers Drilling in August 2017. The test pumping was overseen by GRM and Hastings
personnel
The dis‐used bore YGWB03 is understood to be constructed of 155 mm Class 9 uPVC casing to a
depth of 58.6 m, slotted between 34.6 and 58.6 m. The bore is believed to be gravel packed and
completed with an annular bentonite seal.
The production bores were tested using a 6 inch Grundfos SP46‐12 electrical submersible pump with
a maximum capacity of about 15 L/s at 70 m head.
Testing of FRW03, BHW05 and YGWB03 comprised a three or four hour step test (of 1 hour steps),
followed after recovery by 48‐hour constant rate test and a recovery tests. The results from the step
test were used to identify a suitable rate for the constant rate test. The pumping and drawdown
data for the constant rate and subsequent recovery tests were used to:
estimate the transmissivity and storativity of the aquifer using standard analytical methods;
identify boundaries to the fractured rock aquifer;
characterise the aquifer type (i.e. unconfined, confined or leaky);
provide an indication of likely long term sustainable yields for the bores.
Over the period of the 48‐hour constant rate test, pumping rates were measured and recorded at
hourly intervals in the bore, and water levels monitored periodically in the pumping bore and
adjacent monitoring bore. Groundwater quality field parameters were measured from the pumping
bore periodically throughout the constant rate tests.
Testing of YWWB01 comprised a brief 30 minute test, which identified that yields from the bore
were going to be quite low. The initial test was followed by a 96‐hour constant rate test. The
extended duration of the constant rate test was aimed at identifying boundary conditions within the
fractured rock aquifer.
Over the period of the 96‐hour constant rate test, pumping rates were measured and recorded at
hourly intervals in the bore, and water levels monitored periodically in the pumping bore and
adjacent monitoring bore (YWMB01). Groundwater quality field parameters were measured from
the pumping bore periodically throughout constant rate tests.
The details of the step and constant rate tests are presented in Table 8.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
19
Table 8: Test Pumping Summary
Production
Bore ID
Step Test Pumping Rates (L/s) 48‐Hour
Pumping Rate
(L/s)
Maximum
Drawdown
after 48
Hrs (m)
Distance
Between
Production &
Monitor Bore
(m)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
FRW03 4 5 8 10 8 4.5 6.0
BHW05 5 6 11 18 16 10.8 7.4
YGWB03 5 8 11* ‐ 3.15 9.7 7.87
YWWB01 7 to 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.2 34.15 7.72
Notes: *drawdown exceeded pumping depth
The test data was analysed using a combination of standard analytical methods including Cooper
Jacob (1946), Neuman (1974) and Theis (1935). The resulting transmissivities from the various
testing methods were then reviewed and an adopted hydraulic conductivity value was assigned for
each test location.
The test analysis is provided in Appendix D and a summary of the analyses is presented in Table 9.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
20
Table 9: Test Pumping Results
Hole ID
Aquifer
Thickness
(m)
Transmissivity (m2/d)
Adopted
Transmissivity
(m2/d)
Adopted
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/d)
Storativity
(S) Comments
Constant
Rate ET
(Cooper
Jacob)
Constant
Rate LT
(Cooper
Jacob)
Constant
Rate
(Neuman)
Recovery
ET
(Theis)
Recovery
LT
(Theis)
FRW03 11 ‐ 28 ‐ 329 197 28 2.5 ‐
CRT indicates boundary condition
at about 1000 mins, LT data for
CRT most representative
FRW01 11 ‐ 28 ‐ ‐ ‐ 28 2.5 ‐
Results consistent with pumping
bore, CRT LT data most
representative
BHW05 20 236 75 ‐ 207 217 75 3.75 1.0 E‐04
CRT indicated boundary condition
at about 1000 mins, LT data for
CRT most representative
BHW04 20 214 75 ‐ 232 ‐ 75 3.75 4.0 E‐04 Results consistent with pumping
bore
YGWB03 10 ‐ 55 ‐ 30 83 56 5.6 1.0 E‐06 Poor curve fitting, average of all
test data
YGWB03obs 10 ‐ 36 10 23 78 37 3.7 ‐
Good curve fit with Neuman,
results consistent with pumping
bore
YWWB01 14 ‐ 16 ‐ ‐ 20 18 1.3 ‐ LT data indicates semi stabilised
drawdown.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
21
Hole ID
Aquifer
Thickness
(m)
Transmissivity (m2/d)
Adopted
Transmissivity
(m2/d)
Adopted
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/d)
Storativity
(S) Comments
Constant
Rate ET
(Cooper
Jacob)
Constant
Rate LT
(Cooper
Jacob)
Constant
Rate
(Neuman)
Recovery
ET
(Theis)
Recovery
LT
(Theis)
YWMB01 14 ‐ 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 1.8 ‐ Results consistent with pumping
bore
Notes: CRT constant rate test; ET Early time; LT late time
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
22
The test pumping results show the following:
Barrier boundaries were encountered in both FRW03 and BHW05 at around 1,000 minutes, indicative of a fractured rock environment whereby smaller fractures were drained during the testing.
Drawdown patterns are consistent with a semi‐confined aquifer.
The results indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranged between 1.3 to 5.6 m/d for the fractured rock aquifer, and a bulk storativity value adopted of about 0.0001.
Groundwater quality parameters remained stable during the constant rate tests, with FRW03 reporting an Electrical Conductivity (EC) of 2.39 mS/cm and pH of 7.45, BHW05 reporting an EC of 2.11 mS/cm and pH of 6.88, YGWB03 reporting an EC of 1.83 mS/cm and pH of 7.15, and YWWB01 reporting an EC of 1.2 mS/cm and pH of 8.1.
Total drawdown during the 48 hour constant rate test from FRW03 was 4.5 m, at a test rate of 8 L/s. The data suggests a maximum duty rate of 7 L/s as a sustainable short term supply for construction, and 6 L/s as a long term operational rate is suitable for this bore.
Total drawdown during the 48 hour constant rate test from BHW05 was 10.8 m, at a test rate of 16 L/s. The data suggests a maximum duty rate of 10 L/s as a short term supply for construction, and 8 L/s as a long term operational rate is suitable for this bore.
Total drawdown during the 48 hour constant rate test from YGWB03 was 9.7 m, at a test rate of 3.15 L/s. The data suggests a maximum duty rate of about 1 L/s, and indicates the bore is unsuitable as a longer term water supply bore.
Total drawdown during the 96 hr constant rate test from YWWB01 was 34.15 m, at a test rate of 2.2 L/s. The data suggests a maximum duty rate of about 2 L/s as a short term supply for construction, and 1 to 2 L/s as a longer term operational rate.
It must be noted, fractured rock aquifers have limited storativity and given that the drawdown response during testing of FRW03 and BHW05 indicated boundary conditions early in the test, the bores may experience yield reduction during operation.
It should be noted that the bores were constructed primarily for test purposes. The bores are likely to be damaged or destroyed during mining (e.g. blasting) due to the construction, and location (BHW05 is within the revised pit footprint). The bores are therefore considered water sources for the construction phase and early mining stage only.
Production bore details and recommended pumping rates are provided in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Bore Details and Pumping Rates
Bore ID
Location
(MGA zone 50) Bore
Depth
(m bgl)
SWL
(m
btoc)
Peak
(Construction)
Pumping Rate
(L/s)
Long Term
Operational
Pumping Rate
(L/s)
Pump Inlet
Setting
(m btoc) (mE) (mN)
FRW03 429,941 7,351,211 95.2 33.80 7 6 72
BHW05 428,189 7,356,019 104.0 26.52 10 8 82
YGWB03 417,265 7,362,211 58.6 18.03 <1 <1 36
YWWB01 415,887 7,362,891 126 13.14 2 1‐2 94
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
23
3.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Groundwater samples for laboratory analysis were collected from FRW03, BHW05, YGWB03 and
YWWB01 at the completion of test pumping (between October and December 2016 for the Stage I
bores, and August 2017 for YWWB01).
The results of the analysis are provided in Table 11 and laboratory certificates provided as Appendix
F. The results indicate:
The groundwater is slightly alkaline, reporting a pH of 7.8 to 8.5.
The groundwater is fresh to slightly brackish, with TDS ranging from 920 to 1,200 mg/L TDS.
The groundwater is of sodium chloride type.
Table 11: Groundwater Quality
Analyte Unit FRW03 BHW05 YGWB03 YWWB01
pH 8.5 8.0 7.8 8.1
Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 2,100 1,900 1,500 1,200
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1,200 1,000 920 720
Total Alkalinity mg/L ‐ ‐ 270 180
Carbonate Alkalinity mg/L 11 <1 <1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity mg/L 280 <5 330 220
Chloride mg/L 380 330 250 200
Sulphate mg/L 160 100 89 66
Fluoride mg/L ‐ ‐ ‐ 2
Nitrite mg/L <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 ‐
Nitrate mg/L 9.1 65 63 ‐
Calcium mg/L 72 81 85 ‐
Magnesium mg/L 67 51 44 ‐
Potassium mg/L 9.5 9.0 7.5 ‐
Silica, soluble mg/L 52 72 91 ‐
Silicon mg/L ‐ 34 43 ‐
Sodium mg/L 230 240 180 ‐
Total Hardness mg/L 460 410 390 ‐
Aluminium mg/L <5 <5 <5 ‐
Iron mg/L 73 9 5 ‐
Manganese mg/L <1 <1 <1 ‐
Selenium mg/L 4 7 6 ‐
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
24
3.3 CHLORIDE MASS BALANCE The results of the laboratory analysis have been used to estimate rainfall recharge using the chloride
mass balance method. Chloride mass balance is a method used to estimate rainfall recharge, based
upon the chloride concentrations in the groundwater and rainfall. The method is as follows:
Where:
Re = recharge
P = precipitation, in mm/yr
[Cl]rain = chloride concentration in rainfall, in mg/L
[Cl]gw = chloride concentration in groundwater, in mg/L
The chloride content of rainfall was assumed to be 2 mg/L.
The chloride mass balance for the production bores is provided in Table 12. The results indicate that
rainfall recharge rates are in the order of 1.3 to 2.4 mm/yr.
Table 12: Chloride Mass Balance
Production Bore
ID
Rainfall
(mm/yr)
Chloride Concentration
(mg/L) Recharge
(mm/yr) Rainfall Groundwater
FRW03 240.2 2 380 1.3
BHW05 240.2 2 330 1.5
YGWB03 240.2 2 250 1.9
YWWB01 240.2 2 200 2.4
3.4 ISOTOPE ANALYSIS Groundwater samples were collected from Fraser’s, Bald Hill and Yangibana North for isotopic
analysis to assist in assessing whether modern recharge exists in the fractured rock aquifer. Samples
were collected at the start and end of the 48‐hr constant rate test at Fraser’s and Bald Hill, and at
the end of test pumping at Yangibana North.
The samples were sent to Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
Laboratory, in Sydney and analysed for Tritium concentrations. The results were assessed by
ANSTO’s Senior Research Scientist, Dr Karina Meredith. The report is provided as Appendix G, and
the results summarised below.
Tritium is a short‐lived isotope (half‐life of 12.43 years) and can be used for determining whether or
not modern recharge exists in groundwater. Tritium is produced naturally by cosmic radiation, and
until the 1950’s concentrations were consistent in the atmosphere and rainfall. However, since the
early 1950’s, as a result of thermonuclear testing, additional Tritium was introduced into the
atmosphere. In 1963 Tritium concentrations reached two to three orders of magnitude higher than
natural background levels.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
25
Tritium can be used to determine whether or not modern recharge exists in groundwater and can be
used to date waters back to approximately 60 years, with its presence providing evidence of recent
recharge and conversely its absence indicating a lack of recent recharge. The results of the isotope
analysis are presented in Table 13 below, and indicate:
The only sample to record measurable Tritium, above the lower limit of detection was the
sample collected from FRW03 at the commencement of test pumping.
The late sample from FRW03 did not report measurable Tritium, nor did any of the other
samples collected from BHW05 and YGW03.
These results suggest that the bore is screened over both younger and older groundwater,
and the bore is primarily drawing from the older groundwater, which likely has higher
permeability.
The results from BHW05 and YGWB03 indicate that these groundwaters are not modern (i.e.
greater than 60 years old) and no recent groundwater recharge has occurred.
Table 13: Isotope Analysis Results
Production Bore
ID
Sample Collection
Date
Tritium Units (TU)
Tritium
Ratio Uncertainty^ LLDº
FRW03* Early 04/11/2016 0.13 0.03 0.05
FRW03* Late 06/11/2016 0.01’ 0.03 0.05
BHW05 Early 09/12/2016 0.05’ 0.03 0.05
BHW05 Late 11/12/2016 0.02’ 0.03 0.05
YGWB03 Late 16/12/2016 0.02’ 0.03 0.05
Notes: *samples are incorrectly reported from FRW1 in Appendix G, ^values reported are combined uncertainty calculated to 1 sigma,
ºLower Limit of Detection (LLD) corresponds to the fractional measurement standard uncertainty, ‘the result is below the LLD
3.5 RECHARGE AND STORAGE Fraser’s and Bald Hill are located within a small catchment (150 km2), which is dominated by Frasers
Creek, situated west of the two pits (Figure 4). The proposed pits are located on the upper reaches
of tributaries to Frasers Creek (JDA Associates 2016). The Yangibana North and Yangibana West
proposed pits are located within a small catchment of approximately 200 km2, which is dominated
by Yangibana Creek, situated to the west of the Frasers and Bald Hill catchment (Figure 4).
Recharge within the two catchments is likely to occur predominantly by stream flow of the dominant
creek and its tributaries during episodic rainfall (i.e. downstream of the proposed pits), with minor
direct infiltration of rainfall. Regionally, rainfall recharge is enhanced by the presence of more
permeable calcrete units. However, the calcrete associated with Fraser Creek is quite limited (Figure
3) and no additional calcrete has been observed through surface mapping or resource drilling within
the catchment. Calcrete is known to occur on the flanks of Yangibana Creek (Figure 4).
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
26
The small size of the catchments, the location of the pits (within the upper tributaries), the limited
rate of recharge (as evidenced by chloride mass balance calculations and isotope analysis), combined
with low and sporadic rainfall suggests that rainfall recharge in the vicinity of the proposed pits is
limited.
Aquifer storage within the fractured rock is also expected to be limited. Aquifer storage in fractured
rock systems is a function of the open void space associated with the fracturing, and the degree of
connection between the fractures. The test pumping data indicated barrier boundary conditions at
both the Fraser’s and Bald Hill bores (as discussed in Section 3.1.4), and low yields at Yangibana
North and Yangibana West, indicative of limited storage.
The limited recharge to the fractured rock aquifer and possible storage limitations indicate that bore
yields and dewatering rates may diminish during the life of the Project.
3.6 DEWATERING REQUIREMENTS Pit dewatering requirements were estimated based on the hydrogeological data collected during
field investigations and the mining schedules provided by Hastings’ mining consultants, Snowden
Group (Snowden) for the proposed Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and Yangibana West pits.
The Fraser’s and Bald Hills mining schedules have been revised since the Stage I assessment.
It should be noted that groundwater modelling was used to estimate dewatering rates as part of the
Stage I study (GRM 2017). However, analytical methods to determine dewatering rates have
subsequently been adopted for the Stage II hydrogeological assessment, rather than groundwater
flow modelling, due to the limitations of modelling fractured rock systems.
However given that the models were already developed, Hastings requested that GRM update the
models with the revised mining schedules for Fraser’s and Bald Hills, despite the limitations of the
method, to provide an indication of likely drawdown impacts associated with mine dewatering for
the purpose of environmental assessment. The revised modelling is presented as a letter report in
Appendix H.
3.6.1 Mining Schedule Snowden provided GIS files of the pit outline at yearly increments, and a summary table with the
base of the pit (at quarterly increments) for Fraser’s and Bald Hill. Preliminary pit shells at yearly
increments for Yangibana North and Yangibana West were provided by Snowden during the Stage I
study.
The pit development stages are provided in Figures 6 and 7 for Fraser’s and Bald Hill respectively,
and the pit shells for Yangibana North and Yangibana West provided as Figure 8. The tabulated data
is presented in Table 14 below.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
27
Table 14: Mining Schedule
Quarter
Fraser’s Bald Hill Yangibana
North
Yangibana
West
Base of Pit
(mRL) Base of Pit (mRL) Base of Pit
(mRL)
Base of Pit
(mRL) FR1 FR2 BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5
4 ‐ ‐ 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
5 ‐ ‐ 345 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
6 335 ‐ 340 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
7 320 350 340 340 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
8 310 340 335 335 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
9 305 330 330 330 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10 305 325 330 320 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
11 ‐ 315 ‐ 305 365 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
12 ‐ 305 ‐ 300 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
13 ‐ 295 ‐ ‐ 340 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
14 ‐ 285 ‐ ‐ 330 355 ‐ ‐ ‐
15 ‐ 270 ‐ ‐ 320 345 ‐ ‐ ‐
16 ‐ 230 ‐ ‐ 315 340 ‐ 340 ‐
17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 310 330 ‐ 340 ‐
18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 320 ‐ 340 ‐
19 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 310 ‐ 340 ‐
20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 ‐ 315 340
21 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 285 ‐ 315 340
22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 280 340 315 340
23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 265 335 315 340
24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 265 325 290 315
25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 255 315 290 315
26 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 235 285 290 315
27 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 290 315
28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 290
29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 290
30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 290
31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 290
32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250
33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250
34 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250
35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
28
3.6.2 Estimated Dewatering Rates Average dewatering rates for each pit at yearly increments have been estimated using the Thiem
equation for unconfined flow, represented as:
Where:
Q = the discharge in m3/day
K = hydraulic conductivity in m/day
H = static head measured from the final pit floor, in m
hw = distance from base of final pit floor to the current pit floor, in m
rw = radius of pit floor, in m R0 = radius of influence
With the radius of influence (R0) estimated using the Weber equation:
0 2.45
Where:
R0 = radius of influence
H = static head measured from the bottom of the pit, in m
K = hydraulic conductivity in m/d
t = time, in days
ne = effective porosity
The hydraulic conductivity values used in the Thiem equation were based on the average value from
field testing of the surrounding country rock (i.e. excluding the test conducted in the ore body) for
Fraser’s and Bald Hill. Values of 0.16 m/d for Fraser’s, 0.5 m/d for Bald Hill were used in the
equations. Given the limited test data, values for Yangibana North and Yangibana West were
assumed to be similar to Bald Hill (i.e. 0.5 m/d).
The pit geometry inputs were based on data provided by Snowden, and the static water levels were
assumed to be 308 m RL for Fraser’s, 316 m RL for Bald Hill and 323 mRL for Yangibana North and
Yangibana West, which is consistent with the data collected to date.
The results of the dewatering estimates are provided in Table 15 below. However, it should be
noted that short term higher than anticipated yields may result if large water bearing structures are
encountered which were not identified during field investigations. Dewatering rates could also
potentially be lower than estimated, particularly towards the latter stages of mining, due to limited
aquifer storage (as discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found.).
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
29
Table 15: Dewatering Estimates
Quarter
Dewatering Estimates (L/s)
Fraser’s Bald Hill Yangibana
North
Yangibana
West
Total
9 2.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.9
10 3.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.0
11 3.2 15.8 ‐ ‐ 19.0
12 3.6 13.3 ‐ ‐ 16.9
13 6.8 13.0 ‐ ‐ 19.8
14 8.3 15.2 ‐ ‐ 23.4
15 10.2 15.7 ‐ ‐ 25.9
16 8.0 16.0 ‐ ‐ 24.0
17 7.9 16.2 ‐ ‐ 24.1
18 ‐ 16.3 ‐ ‐ 16.3
19 ‐ 16.5 ‐ ‐ 16.5
20 ‐ 17.0 7.5 ‐ 24.4
21 ‐ 24.6 7.5 ‐ 32.0
22 ‐ 25.0 7.5 ‐ 32.5
23 ‐ 28.4 7.5 ‐ 35.9
24 ‐ 28.1 19.6 7.1 54.8
25 ‐ 26.2 19.6 7.1 52.9
26 ‐ 22.7 19.6 7.1 49.4
27 ‐ 22.6 19.6 7.1 49.3
28 ‐ ‐ 21.1 15.7 36.8
29 ‐ ‐ 21.1 15.7 36.8
30 ‐ ‐ 21.1 15.7 36.8
31 ‐ ‐ 21.1 15.7 36.8
32 ‐ ‐ 20.8 16.7 37.5
33 ‐ ‐ 20.8 16.7 37.5
34 ‐ ‐ 20.8 16.7 37.5
35 ‐ ‐ 20.8 16.7 37.5
3.7 DEWATERING STRATEGY The inflow rates estimated above indicate dewatering of the proposed pits will be best achieved by
sump pumping methods, potentially supplemented by dewatering bores.
Sufficient additional contingency will need to be considered to account for surface water inflows as a
result of rainfall and runoff to the pits. Sufficient contingency will also be required for short term,
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
30
higher than anticipated groundwater inflow rates upon interception of additional water bearing
features in the fresh bedrock. Contingency of at least 50 L/s should be considered to manage
increases in groundwater inflows.
The test bores (FRW03, BHW05 and YWWB01) may be used as temporary dewatering bores during
early stages of development, but are unlikely to remain in operation beyond the first year of mining,
due to potential damage during blasting and location (BHW05 is within the revised pit footprint for
the Stage 1 pit).
The test bores can be used for water supply during the construction phase, which will facilitate
dewatering ahead of mining to some degree. It is recommended that the performance of the bores
is closely monitored during the construction phase to assess whether or not dewatering bores will
likely be beneficial during mining, or whether or not Hastings can rely solely on sump pumping
methods for dewatering. If bore yields begin to diminish during the construction phase of the
Project then replacement dewatering bores are not likely to be necessary.
Dewatering bores, if required, should be constructed using 6” schedule 40 steel casing (7.1 mm wall
thickness). The steel casing should be slotted across the main aquifer zone (as per the test bore
construction), with the bore annulus gravel packed to just below the surface. The annulus will need
to be sealed at the surface, with cement grout or bentonite, to prevent surface water ingress.
Dewatering bores, should be positioned into a thick (preferably greater than 10 m) sequence of
ironstone, and located just outside the crest of the pits, on the down dip side.
Sump pumping is expected to provide the primary method of dewatering and will require ongoing
management during the operational life of the pits. Sumps should be strategically located at low
points along the pit floor.
All dewatering discharge can be used for dust suppression and mineral processing. There should be
no requirement to discharge mine water to the environment, since the predicted dewatering rates
are low with respect to the Project water demand.
3.8 MONITORING PROGRAMME A monitoring programme will be required during mining to verify the simulated drawdown impacts
as a result of dewatering activities. Monitoring will also be necessary to assess the performance of
the existing test bores to determine whether or not additional dewatering bores will be required.
A preliminary groundwater monitoring programme is provided in Table 16 below.
DEWATERING ASSESSMENT
J1709R01 April 2018
31
Table 16: Dewatering Monitoring Schedule
Scope Monitoring Frequency
Criteria Monitoring Sites
Test Bores (during construction)
Weekly Abstraction Volume
FRW03, BHW05, YWWB01 Weekly Water Level
Weekly Field testing for EC and pH
Quarterly* Laboratory Analysis
In‐Pit Sumps
Monthly Abstraction Volume Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and Yangibana West
Quarterly Field testing for EC and pH
Annually Laboratory Analysis
Dewatering Bores
Monthly Abstraction Volume
tba Monthly Water Level
Quarterly Field testing for EC and pH
Annually Laboratory Analysis
Regional Bores Quarterly
Water Level (excluding equipped bores)
Edmund HST, Minga Well, Edmund Well, Yangibana Bore, Woodsys Bore, Frasers Well, Contesse Bore, Red Hill 2 Annually Laboratory Analysis
*This may be overridden by the requirements of the Drinking Water Quality Management Plan, which will determine
monitoring frequency of specific analytes.
Laboratory analysis should include the major component analysis (as set out by the DWER), plus
additional analytes specific to the Project (as set out by Hastings or the Department of Health).
Laboratory analysis should include the following ions:
Physico‐chemical parameters – pH, EC, TDS, total hardness, and total alkalinity.
Major ions – sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulphate, bicarbonate,
carbonate, nitrate.
Minor ions/metals – silica, aluminium, iron and manganese.
Additional analytes – silver, barium, bismuth, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lithium,
molybdenum, nickel, lead, strontium, thorium, titanium, uranium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc.
J1709R01 April 2018
32
4.0 PIT LAKE MODELLING The pit lake model was developed using the generic systems modelling package GoldSim, which is
ideally suited to coupled water and solute balance modelling. The model was run over a 500 year
period to estimate pit lake conditions after mine closure.
The final mining depth in the two planned pits is below the ambient groundwater level. At mine
closure pumping will cease and the groundwater levels will recover forming a pit lake.
In the Gascoyne region, where evaporation exceeds rainfall by more than an order of magnitude, the
main drivers controlling the pit lake level will be groundwater inflow and evaporative outflow.
In the semi‐arid zone of Western Australia two pit lake systems typically develop, namely:
Evaporative sink, where pit lake levels are maintained at a lower elevation than the
surrounding groundwater system because of evaporation.
Throughflow system where there is some degree outflow of pit lake water to the
surrounding groundwater environment.
For the evaporative sink pit lake scenario, the depressed lake level will result in the development of
a local groundwater sink (i.e. where the lake level lies below the groundwater level down‐gradient of
the pit), with no discharge of lake water to the surrounding groundwater environment.
For the throughflow system, it is possible that the pit lake level will lie above the ambient
groundwater level on the down‐gradient side of the pit, thereby allowing pit lake water to flow to
the down‐gradient groundwater environment.
4.1 WATER BALANCE SET‐UP The GoldSim pit lake model includes four sub‐models that simulate the development of pit void
lakes in four proposed pits. The model comprises the following components:
Pit lake storage volumes.
Inflows to the pits comprising:
groundwater inflows, which occur when the pit lake water level lies below the
ambient groundwater level;
direct (incidental) rainfall onto the pit lakes; and
rainfall runoff from the pit walls into the pit void lakes.
Outflows from the pit comprising:
evaporation from the pit lakes; and
groundwater outflows, which occur if the pit lake water level exceeds the ambient
groundwater level on the downgradient portion of the pit.
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
33
4.1.1 Pit Lake Storage Volume The volume stored in the pit lake is estimated by the model based upon the total inflows and
outflows to the lake over a time step, and the volume of the lake at the previous time step. At time
zero (i.e. the start of the model run) the lake is assumed to have a nominal volume of 50 m3.
GoldSim requires a volume at the start of the model run for the solute balance calculations.
The water balance equation used to calculate the stored volume is presented below.
Where,
Storagei = the pit lake volume at the current time step
Inflow = the total inflow to the pit lake
Outflow = the total outflow from the pit lake
Storagei‐1 = the pit lake volume at the previous time step
4.1.2 Groundwater Inflows and Outflows Estimation of seepage outflows and inflows from the pit lakes were calculated based upon the
Dupuit equation for horizontal groundwater flow in an unconfined aquifer:
2
Where,
Q = seepage flow rate
P = pit perimeter length
K = hydraulic conductivity of the geological units adjacent to the pit lake
hB = difference in height between the ambient groundwater level and the base of aquifer
(assumed to be equivalent to the pit floor elevation)
hA =difference in height between the pit lake water level and the base of pit lake (i.e. the
lake depth)
L = flow path length.
All parameters in the equation, apart from hA, are applied as constants by the water balance. The
perimeter length was estimated from revised mine plans provided by Snowden.
The height of the ambient groundwater level, which represents the natural water level unaffected by
mining or groundwater production, was taken from monitoring data collected during the field
investigation. Hydraulic conductivity and flow path length were based upon modelling studies
completed during the dewatering assessment (Section 3.0) and adjusted during model verification.
The parameter values used in the water balance models are provided in Table 17.
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
34
Table 17: Baseline Groundwater Flow Parameters
Pit K (m/d) Ambient GWL
(mAHD)
Flow Path Length
(m)
Fraser’s 0.32 309 800
Bald Hill 0.66 316 1,000
Yangibana North 0.40 323 1,200
Yangibana West 0.40 323 1,200
Note K = hydraulic conductivity.
4.1.3 Rainfall and Runoff Rainfall and rainfall runoff inflows are estimated by the model using daily rainfall data from the
nearby Wanna meteorological station.
Average and wet rainfall conditions were tested, based upon the analysis of the daily 10‐year rolling
rainfall totals for the station. The average rainfall conditions were taken from the 10 year period
(1985 to 1994, inclusive), which best matched the mean rainfall for the station, and the wet
conditions were taken from records collected between 1992 and 2001 inclusive, which had the
highest 10 year rainfall total. Each 10‐year sequence was looped to cover the model run‐time. The
use of daily data is preferred as it captures the high rainfall variability characteristic of the region.
It was assumed that at closure the pit will be surrounded by a safety bund, which will prevent
catchment runoff from entering the pit, and as such surface inflows from only direct rainfall and pit
wall runoff have been considered in the model.
A conservative runoff coefficient of 1 was applied to the pit.
Table 18: Pit Catchments
Pit In‐Pit Catchment
(m2) Runoff Coefficient
Fraser’s 160,000 1
Bald Hill 440,000 1
Yangibana North 365,000 1
Yangibana West 153,000 1
4.1.4 Evaporative Outflows Evaporation losses are estimated by the model using the synthetic monthly evaporation rates
estimated for the Project area (Section 2.2), which uses the scaled mean of measured values at
Paraburdoo and Learmonth. The monthly data is adjusted for pan to lake effects, using a coefficient
of 0.7, and a salinity factor based on an empirical relationship developed by Turk (1970). The solute
balance used to estimate the pit lake salinities is described in a later section below.
The adjusted evaporation rate was applied to the area of the respective pit lake, which was
calculated from the relationship between lake volume and surface area at each time step (discussed
in the following section).
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
35
4.1.5 Pit Geometry The water balance uses the relationships between the pit volume (the independent variable), which
is tracked by the model at each time step, and elevation and pit area (dependant variables) to
estimate the groundwater‐pit lake interaction, rainfall/runoff inflows and evaporative losses.
The pit geometry data (as provided by Snowden) is provided in Table 19.
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
36
Table 19: Pit Geometry Data
Fraser’s Pit Bald Hill Pit Yangibana North Yangibana West
RL Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3)
230 1,464 7,319 235 2,952 14,760 253 3,544 29,306 253 3,544 29,306
235 3,226 23,448 240 5,854 44,029 259 7,152 72,215 259 7,152 72,215
240 4,921 48,052 245 11,026 99,156 265 12,022 144,345 265 12,022 144,345
245 8,339 89,747 250 18,257 190,443 271 20,200 265,543 271 20,200 265,543
250 10,689 143,191 255 22,374 302,310 277 28,440 436,184 277 28,440 436,184
255 14,853 217,455 260 27,722 440,921 283 42,253 689,701 283 42,253 689,701
260 23,331 334,109 265 41,459 648,218 289 55,110 1,020,357 289 55,110 1,020,357
265 25,875 463,484 270 48,241 889,420 295 76,805 1,481,185 295 76,805 1,481,185
270 29,283 609,902 275 58,056 1,179,701 301 93,085 2,039,690 301 93,085 2,039,690
275 37,592 797,863 280 75,470 1,557,052 307 121,435 2,768,300 307 121,435 2,768,300
280 40,885 1,002,288 285 86,226 1,988,185 313 142,064 3,620,682 313 142,064 3,620,682
285 44,082 1,222,700 290 99,339 2,484,882 319 180,887 4,706,000 319 180,887 4,706,000
290 53,978 1,492,589 295 125,101 3,110,386 325 197,885 5,893,310 325 197,885 5,893,310
295 57,884 1,782,011 300 141,487 3,817,823 331 162,982 6,871,198 331 162,982 6,871,198
300 62,694 2,095,481 305 165,537 4,645,510 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
305 74,339 2,467,175 310 198,672 5,638,867 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
310 84,388 2,889,114 315 222,536 6,751,546 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
315 90,171 3,339,967 320 252,081 8,011,951 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
320 104,976 3,864,848 325 297,724 9,500,573 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 draft March 2018
37
Fraser’s Pit Bald Hill Pit Yangibana North Yangibana West
RL Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3) RL
Surface
Area (m2)
Cumulative
Volume (m3)
325 109,556 4,412,627 330 334,624 11,173,694 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
330 114,776 4,986,505 335 380,240 13,074,896 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
335 130,192 5,637,462 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
340 137,272 6,323,820 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
38
4.1.6 Solute Balance Set‐Up A solute balance model was developed using the GoldSim software to simulate the increase in
salinity of the pit lakes after closure. The model assumptions are as follows:
An initial TDS concentration of 1,200 mg/L and 1,000 mg/L for Fraser’s and Bald Hill pit lakes
respectively (based on water quality results from the recent field investigations).
A TDS concentration of 1,200 mg/L for Fraser’s, 1,000 mg/L for Bald Hill and 920 mg/L for
Yangibana North and West, for groundwater inflows to the respective pit lake.
Zero salt inflows from rainfall.
Zero salt losses from evaporation.
Complete mixing within the respective pit lake (i.e. no allowance was made for
stratification).
The model simulated the gradual increase in salinity concentrations to the respective pit lake from
groundwater inflows.
4.2 WATER BALANCE MODELLING RESULTS A run time of 500 years was adopted for the water balance model simulations, using a one day time
step.
Four model runs were completed, comprising:
four base case runs (one per pit) using the pit only catchment and expected conditions
four sensitivity runs (one per pit) using the pit only catchment and high rainfall conditions
The groundwater inflow rates predicted by the water balance for the four pits was verified by
comparing the inflow rate against the dewatering requirements estimated in the groundwater flow
models. The water balance inflow rates approximate those derived from the dewatering assessment
at the end of mining.
Table 20: Model Runs
Run No Pit Rainfall Catchment Run Type
01 Fraser’s Average Pit Only Baseline
02 Fraser’s Wet Pit Only Sensitivity
03 Bald Hill Average Pit Only Baseline
04 Bald Hill Wet Pit Only Sensitivity
05 Yangibana North Average Pit Only Baseline
06 Yangibana North Wet Pit Only Sensitivity
07 Yangibana West Average Pit Only Baseline
08 Yangibana West Wet Pit Only Sensitivity
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
39
The predicted pit lake water levels for model Runs 01 to 08 are presented as time series plots in
Figures 9 to 12. The figures also present the adopted ambient groundwater level at the deposits.
The pit lake water levels and lake residual drawdowns for the eight model runs are presented in
Table 21. The figures and table show the following:
All model runs show a similar pattern following the cessation of mining:
A gradual pit lake level increase over the initial 10 years when groundwater inflow
rates exceed evaporation rates, because of the high groundwater hydraulic gradient
and the comparatively small lake area available for evaporation.
Pit lake levels increases at a slower rate between 10 and 15 years after cessation of
dewatering due to increased evaporation rates, because of the expanded pit lake
area as the pit fills, and the reduced groundwater inflow rate in response to the
lower groundwater gradients towards the pit.
The pit lake water levels equilibrate after about 20 years as the groundwater and
rainfall inflows are in equilibrium with the evaporative losses.
By the end of the 500 year model run, the pit lake levels have stabilised, with minor
seasonal and annual variations in response to variation in rainfall and evaporation.
For the baseline condition (Runs 01, 03, 05 and 07) the final predicted pit lake level ranges
from:
302.7 mAHD in Fraser’s pit, which is 6.3 m lower than the surrounding groundwater
level
310.2 mAHD in Bald Hill pit, which is 5.8 m lower than the surrounding groundwater
level
304.8 mAHD in Yangibana North, which is 18.2 m lower than the surrounding
groundwater level
296.0 mAHD in Yangibana West, which is 27 m lower than the surrounding
groundwater level
However, it should be noted that the pit geometry inputs for Yangibana North and
Yangibana West were preliminary (as part of the Stage I study, and will require
refinement once the mining schedules are confirmed for these two pits).
The results indicate that all pits act as groundwater sinks under baseline conditions.
For the sensitivity analyses relating to wet years (Runs 02, 04, 06 and 08), the pit lake levels
are 4.3 m (Bald Hill), 5.3 m (Fraser’s), 16 m (Yangibana North) and 25 m (Yangibana West)
lower than the surrounding groundwater levels, indicating that the pits continue to act as
groundwater sinks under high rainfall conditions.
The model also provides an estimate of TDS concentrations post‐closure, based upon
evaporative concentration in the pit lakes. The results indicate that after 500 years post
closure the TDS in all pits increase to about 34,000 mg/L TDS.
PIT LAKE MODELLING
J1709R01 April 2018
40
The results of the pit lake modelling indicate that the risk of outflows of pit lake water to the
groundwater environment post closure is low for the current climate regime.
Note that the model results assumed that catchment runoff will be diverted around the pit, which
will need to be confirmed during the final closure plan.
Table 21: Predicted Lake Levels and Residual Drawdowns
Pit Run
Number
Minimum
Pit Lake
Level
(mAHD)
Maximum
Pit Lake
Level
(mAHD)
Mean Pit
Lake Level
(mAHD)
Minimum
Residual
Drawdown
(m)
Maximum
Residual
Drawdown
(m)
Mean
Residual
Drawdown
(m)
Fraser’s Run 01 230.0 302.7 302.0 80.0 6.3 7.0
Run 02 230.0 303.7 302.6 80.0 5.3 6.4
Bald Hill Run 03 235.0 310.2 309.6 82.0 5.8 6.4
Run 04 235.0 311.1 310.2 82.0 4.9 5.8
Yangibana
North
Run 05 250.0 304.8 303.8 73.0 18.2 19.2
Run 06 250.0 307.0 305.6 73.0 16.0 17.4
Yangibana
West
Run 07 250.0 296.0 295.3 73.0 27.0 27.7
Run 08 250.0 297.6 296.6 73.0 25.4 26.4
Note: bold italics = baseline condition
J1709R01 April 2018
41
5.0 WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION
5.1 GROUNDWATER TARGETS The hydrogeological information collected during the dewatering investigation (Section 3.0) suggests
that the intact fresh rock has very low permeability, but that permeability is enhanced in fracturing
associated with the ironstone, and even further enhanced when fractures cross cut the ironstone
veins.
Fractured rock groundwater targets for the water supply investigation therefore focussed on
identifying cross cutting structural features within the ironstone of the Western Belt. The Western
Belt lies to the north west of Bald Hill, and comprises an area of approximately 12 km of ironstone
strike length (Figure 3).
Hastings engaged Applied Scientific Services and Technology Pty Ltd (ASST) to assist with locating
suitable targets within the Western Belt. ASST used ground based electrical resistivity imaging (ERI),
in conjunction with airborne magnetic data to identify a series of structures along the Western Belt
(Figure 13).
The drill‐holes were drilled for mineral resource purposes to provide further information on the
ironstone veins, but also provided information about groundwater conditions along the geological
structures.
In addition to the Western Belt targets, three mineral exploration holes were also targeted as
potential water supply locations (Figure 14). These targets were based on anecdotal information
suggesting that previous drilling in this area intercepted groundwater inflows.
Based upon previous results at Fraser’s and Bald Hill, a potential bore location was to be defined as
an RC drill‐hole reporting an airlift yield of 2.2 L/s or higher. As discussed previously, RC drill‐holes
typically under‐predict likely groundwater inflows due to the narrow annulus between the drill rod
and the drill‐hole.
5.2 EXPLORATION DRILLING Hydrogeological data was collected during the drilling of 12 vertical groundwater exploration drill‐
holes (three at Auer North and nine along the Western Belt), which varied in depth from 101 to 126
m deep (Figure 14).
The drilling was undertaken by Three Rivers Drilling between 23 June and 11 August 2017, using RC
methods. The programme was overseen by a GRM hydrogeologist and a Hastings geologist who
were responsible for the collection and field assessment of geological and hydrogeological data.
A summary of the drilling results is provided in Table 22 and the bore logs are provided in Appendix
E.
The exploration drilling results indicate the following:
The drilling identified one potential bore location at LERC020 or LERC021 (which are
adjacent holes).
WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION
J1709R01 April 2018
42
Groundwater inflows were associated with ironstone veins and associated fracturing, as
identified by the ERI surveys. However, yields were typically low to modest and often
diminished with time (indicating limited connectivity between the fractures).
Groundwater inflows in the intact fresh rock were very low.
There were no reported inflows associated with alluvium or calcrete and the depth to
weathering was very shallow.
The exploration drilling results support the presence of a discrete fractured rock aquifer associated
with the ironstone veins and associated fracturing. However, the drilling indicates that permeability
along strike of the Belt is inconsistent.
Table 22: Water Supply Exploration Drilling Results
Location Hole mE MGA
Zn50
mN MGA
Zn50
RL
(mAHD) Depth (m)
Max Airlift
Yield During
Drilling (L/s)
Auer North
ANW1 425,005 7,350,799 ‐ 101 0.3
ANW2 424,965 7,350,758 ‐ 114 0.8
ANW3 424,965 7,350,804 ‐ 120 0.8
Western
Belt
LERC020 419,993 7,360,889 343.5 124 2.2
LERC021 419,943 7,361,078 346.4 120 2.5
LERC022 422,945 7,359,497 348.128 126 0.3
LERC023 422,990 7,359,315 349.3 120 <0.1
LERC024 422,898 7,359,783 347 120 0.4
KGRC019 425,475 7,358,365 337.751 108 1.8
KGRC020 425,526 7,358,866 335.23 120 1.8
KGRC021 425,506 7,358,646 340.37 120 0.3
KGRC022 426,516 7,357,389 331.888 108 0.2
WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION
J1709R01 April 2018
43
5.3 MONITORING BORE INSTALLATION Three monitoring bores were constructed in exploration drill holes KGRC019, KGRC022 and LERC020.
Details of monitoring bores are provided in Table 23 below, and locations shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15 also shows groundwater contours, using the water level data collected to date. The
contours indicate a groundwater flow direction to the south west, which is consistent with regional
conditions.
Table 23: Water Supply Monitoring Bores
Parameter Units Monitoring Bores
KGRC019 KGRC022 LERC020
Collar Location MGA Zn 50 (mE) 425,475 426,516 425,526
(mN) 7,358,365 7,357,389 7,358,866
RL Ground Level (mAHD) 337.54 331.89 335.23*
RL Top of Casing (mAHD) 338.16 332.67 335.53*
Depth Drilled (mbgl) 108 120 124
Cased Depth (mbgl) 24 108 47
Casing Type
50 mm Class
12 uPVC
50 mm Class
12 uPVC
50 mm Class
12 uPVC
Slotted Interval (mbgl) +0.6 to 24 +0.8 to 108 41 to 47
Gravel Pack Grade mm none none none
Gravel Pack Interval none none none
Annual Bentonite Seal none none none
Stick‐up (magl) 0.6 0.8 0.3
SWL (mbtoc) 10.27 4.46 14.17
SWL Date 11 Dec 17 11 Dec 17 11 Dec 17
Note: * RL estimated from DTM; mbgl = metres below ground level; magl = metres above ground level; mbtoc =
metres below top of casing
J1709R01 April 2018
44
6.0 WATER SUPPLY DISCUSSION The fractured rock field investigations has resulted in three water supply bores, providing a potential
combined 16 L/s for the construction phase of the Project. The investigations also identified at least
one other potential bore location at LERC020 or 021.
The fractured rock investigations completed to date indicate that low to modest bore yields (i.e. up
to 8 L/s) of low salinity groundwater are possible within the fractured rock. However, the aquifer
storage and recharge are limited, and bore yields could potentially diminish with extended use.
Whilst dewatering inflows will contribute to the Project water supply in the latter stages of the
Project, the pits do not extend below the water table until quarter 9 (i.e. year 3). Consequently, the
full demand of 79 L/s will need to be met by water supply bores for the initial three year period.
The investigations indicate that it is likely to be a long and costly programme to meet the Project
water demand of 79 L/s from fractured rock sources. Investigations would likely need to extent
further afield, potentially off‐tenement, and would likely require a geophysical survey and
exploration drilling. Bore yields in the fractured rock aquifer are low to modest and bore locations
would require suitable spacing (perhaps 2 km or greater) to account for the low recharge and limited
aquifer storage. Sufficient borefield contingency would also be required to allow for the risk of
diminishing yields.
Given the risks identified above and through consultation with DWER and DBCA, in late 2017 the
focus of the water supply investigation moved to palaeochannel sources. Whilst palaeochannel
aquifers can report higher salinity than fractured rock aquifers, aquifer storage is typically higher and
consequently more reliable.
The palaeochannel investigation is well underway and will be the focus of a separate report.
J1709R01 April 2018
45
7.0 GROUNDWATER LICENSING Any groundwater abstraction for the Project will require a groundwater licence (GWL), issued by the
DWER, under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA).
The DWER issues GWLs using a risk based assessment tool termed the Level of Water Allocation.
Under this system a water allocation limit is placed on each aquifer resource within a groundwater
area or, where defined, groundwater sub‐area. The scale of assessment required for licensing is
then set depending upon the proportion of the maximum allocation that has already been assigned,
with the aim to minimise the risk of unacceptable impacts upon existing users and future public
water supplies, and to support future development in the area/sub‐area.
Once the maximum allocation is reached, the DWER will review any new applications to identify any
unacceptable impacts. If unacceptable risks are identified by the department, then the licence
application will be rejected. Securing of additional water supplies will then be limited to water
trading with existing licence holders or seeking supplies from other aquifer resources. Inherent in
this scheme is the allocation of new licences on a first‐come first‐served basis.
7.1 RESOURCE AREA AND CURRENT ALLOCATION The Project area lies within the Bangemall/Capricorn subarea of the Gascoyne Groundwater Area.
The groundwater resources available for each of the Project Mining Lease tenements, and the
corresponding current level of allocation (as sourced from the DWER Water Register) for each
resource are provided in Table 29 below.
Any groundwater resources listed as having limited information, indicate that there is insufficient
information for the groundwater resource and an allocation has not been set for that resource. The
DWER would evaluate each application individually and apply an allocation limit when sufficient data
is available to assign a suitable allocation limit.
The information provided in Table 29 below indicates that there is available allocation for all
groundwater resources associated with the Project Mining Lease tenements. This suggests that
licensing for the Project, for either the fractured rock or palaeochannel sources, is not likely to be a
Project risk, assuming the hydrogeological investigation is conducted to a suitable level, as discussed
further in Section 7.3.
Table 24: Current Resource Allocation
Tenement Groundwater Area
Sub Area Groundwater Resource Current Allocation
M09/157, M09/158, M09/159, M09/160, M09/161, M09/162
Gascoyne Bangemall / Capricorn
Combined – Fractured Rock West – Alluvium Allocation Available
Combined – Fractured Rock West – Calcrete Allocation Available
Combined ‐ Fractured Rock West –Palaeochannel
Allocation Available
Combined Fractured Rock West – Fractured Rock Allocation Available
GROUNDWATER LICENSING
J1709R01 April 2018
46
7.2 LICENCE APPLICATION The Project will require two groundwater licences, to permit groundwater abstraction from the
fractured rock aquifer, and from the palaeochannel aquifer. Licensing of the palaeochannel aquifer
will be addressed separately.
Hastings has been issued with an initial Groundwater Licence (GWL183285(2)) to cover the water
demand for the construction phase of the Project. The GWL permits an annual entitlement of
280,000 kL per annum, from the Combined – Fractured Rock West – Fractured Rock groundwater
resource, expiring 11 September 2026.
An addendum to this existing licence will be required for the long‐term water supply. Given the
uncertainty of the long‐term dewatering estimates it is recommended that Hastings applies for an
annual entitlement of 820,000 kL per annum (26 L/s) initially. This allocation should suffice for the
first three to five years of operation, and cover groundwater abstraction from existing water supply
bores and dewatering.
Subsequent addendums can then be submitted throughout the life of the Project, once monitoring
data allows for a more reliable estimate of future dewatering rates. It is likely that an addendum to
increase the allocation to over 1,000,000 kL per annum may be necessary during the latter stages of
the Project.
7.3 REGULATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The DWER set the level of investigation required for any future groundwater abstraction based upon
a decision matrix (defined under Operational Policy No. 5.12, Hydrogeological Reporting Associated
with a Groundwater Well Licence). The matrix uses five criteria; the volume requested, the level of
allocation, the risk of impacts upon other users and GDEs, and the existing groundwater salinity.
A copy of the decision matrix is provided in Table 25, with the highlighted cells providing the
assessment for the proposed fractured rock groundwater usage based upon a demand of 0.82
GL/year, a salinity of between 500 and 1,500 mg/L TDS, and a level of allocation of 30 to 70%. It is
assumed that impacts to other users and GDE’s are unlikely.
The results for Table 25 indicate a total score of 12 points, which is on the limit of requiring a H1 or
H2 level of assessment. A H2 assessment requires a basic hydrogeological assessment, including
installation and testing of investigation bores. This report can be used to support a H2 level
assessment.
Note that the level of allocation and potential for unacceptable impacts has been estimated, based
on available information, and the DWER reserve the right to request a higher level of assessment if
they have uncertainty about the potential impact to the water resource, other groundwater users or
the environment. Hastings has, however, consulted regularly with DWER hydrogeology specialists
throughout the investigations and is confident that the level of information collected will be
sufficient.
GROUNDWATER LICENSING
J1709R01 April 2018
47
Table 25: DWER Decision Matrix for Hydrogeological Assessments
Volume Requested (kL/year)
Level of Allocation
Potential for Unacceptable Impacts Existing Salinity (mg/L TDS) Other Users GDE’s
<10,000
(0 points)
30‐70% (1 point)
Impacts unlikely(0 points)
Impacts unlikely(0 points)
Fresh <500 (4 points)
10,001–50,000 (2 points)
70‐<100% (3 points)
Impacts possible (2 points)
Impacts possible (2 points)
Marginal 501‐1,500 (3 points)
50,000‐250,000 (4 points)
100% + (5 points)
Impacts likely (5 points)
Impacts likely (5 points)
Brackish 1,501‐5,000 (2 points)
250,001‐500,000 (6 points)
Saline 5,001‐50,000 (1 point)
500,001‐1,000,000 (8 points)
Hypersaline >50,000 (0 points)
1,000,000‐2,500,000 (15 points)
>2,500,000 (20 points)
0 to 7 Points – Generally no assessment required, unless other knowledge of risks indicates that H1
level assessment is warranted.
8 to 12 points – H1 level of assessment (desktop hydrogeological assessment). However, low volume
applications with low risk of impacts may not warrant an assessment.
12 to 18 points – H2 level of assessment (basic hydrogeological assessment, including installation and
testing of investigation bores).
>19 points – H3 level of assessment (detailed hydrogeological assessment including installation and
testing of investigation bores and a groundwater model).
7.4 REQUIREMENT FOR OPERATING STRATEGIES The DWER may require an operating strategy as part of the GWL conditions. This requirement is
assessed using a decision matrix presented in Operational Policy 5.08 (Use of Operating Strategies in
the Water Licensing Process), which is similar to the matrix used to assess reporting requirements
(Section 7.2).
A copy of the operating strategy matrix is presented as Table 26, with the highlighted cells providing
the assessment for the fractured rock groundwater usage. The tabulated results indicate a total
score of 7 points, which indicates an operating strategy is unlikely to be required. Again, the DWER
reserves the right to request a basic operating strategy if they have uncertainty about the potential
impact to the water resource, other groundwater users or the environment.
GROUNDWATER LICENSING
J1709R01 April 2018
48
Table 26: DWER Decision Matrix for Operating Strategies
Volume Requested (kL/year)
Level of Allocation
Potential for Unacceptable Impacts Existing Salinity (mg/L TDS) Other Users GDE’s
0‐499,999
(0 points)
0‐30% (0 point)
Impacts unlikely(0 points)
Impacts unlikely(0 points)
Fresh <1500 (4 points)
500,000‐2,000,000 (2 points)
30‐70% (1 point)
Impacts possible (2 points)
Impacts possible (2 points)
Brackish 1,501‐5,000 (2 points)
2,000,001‐5,000,000 (5 points)
70‐<100% (3 points)
Impacts likely (5 points)
Impacts likely (5 points)
Saline 5,001‐50,000 (1 point)
>5,000,001 (8 points)
100% + (5 points)
Hypersaline >50,000 (0 point)
0 to 7 Points – Development of an operating strategy unlikely to be required.
8 to 12 points – A basic operating strategy is likely to be required.
12 to 18 points – Development of a detailed operating strategy is required.
J1709R01 April 2018
49
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Hastings Technology Metals Limited (Hastings) holds the Yangibana Rare Earths Project, located
approximately 150 km north east of Gascoyne Junction, in the Upper Gascoyne region of Western
Australia (Figure 1). The Project’s tenement package (Figure 2) covers approximately 650 km2, and
hosts extensive rare earths‐bearing ferrocarbonatite/ironstone veins containing neodymium,
praseodymium and dysprosium in a monazite ore. Rare earth elements will be mined and processed
at the Project area.
Hastings has undertaken a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on the basis of initially developing two
pits, i.e. Fraser’s and Bald Hill (Figure 3) with other pits following to the south and north‐west of the
plant site. Mineralisation also occurs at several other deposits including Yangibana West, Yangibana
North, Yangibana South, Yangibana, Gossan, Lions Ear, Hook, Kane’s Gossan, Spider Hill, Tongue, and
Auer and Auer North (Figure 3). Yangibana West, Auer, Auer North and Yangibana are the
immediate prospective pits following completion of the Fraser’s and Bald Hill mining.
To date, mining schedules have been prepared by Hasting’s mining consultant (Snowden Group) for
four proposed pits; Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and Yangibana West. Project infrastructure
includes on‐site processing, a FIFO / DIDO mine accommodation village and an airstrip. The
proposed pits will be developed using conventional open cut methods to depths of 120 m below
ground level at Fraser’s and Bald Hill and 95 m at Yangibana North and Yangibana West. The pits
extend below the ambient groundwater level and will require pit dewatering to maintain dry mining
conditions.
The project has an estimated water demand of up to 2.5 GL/annum (79 L/s), for the purposes of
mineral processing, dust suppression and camp / potable supply (via reverse osmosis treatment).
A Stage I assessment was undertaken in 2016 (GRM 2017). The Stage II study comprised a fractured
rock and palaeochannel study, aimed at identifying a water source for the Project and providing
sufficient supporting documentation to meet Approvals requirements.
The fractured rock component of the Stage II study can be summarised as follows:
Field investigations for the dewatering assessment of the Fraser’s and Bald Hill pits
comprised 11 exploration drill‐holes, 12 airlift recovery tests, the installation of three test
bores and test pumping of four bores (including a dis‐used bore). Groundwater samples
were collected for groundwater chemistry and isotope analysis.
The results indicate that permeability in the fresh bedrock is enhanced by fracturing,
dissolution and chemical weathering. Away from the fractures permeability in the bedrock
is typically low. Permeability in the immediate area of the proposed pits is associated with
the ferrocarbonatite/ironstone veins (which host the ore), further enhanced by cross
cutting structures. The three test production bores are expected to provide a combined
water supply of 16 L/s for the construction phase of the Project.
The laboratory analysis indicates that the groundwater is slightly alkaline, fresh to brackish
and of sodium chloride type. Chloride mass balance calculations indicate recharge rates in
the order of 1.3 to 2.4 mm per year, and the isotope analysis indicates that the
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
J1709R01 April 2018
50
groundwater is not modern, and no recent (within the past 60 years) recharge had
occurred.
Given the small surface water catchment size (150 to 200 km2), low average rainfall, low
recharge rates and the isotope results; recharge to the fractured rock aquifer is expected to
be limited. In addition, aquifer storage is also likely to be limited, based upon test pumping
results.
Average dewatering rates for the proposed Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and
Yangibana West pits have been estimated using the Thiem equation for unconfined flow.
The estimated dewatering inflows range from 2.9 L/s in Q9 (year 3), and peak at 54.8 L/s in
Q29 (year 7).
However, it should be noted that short term higher than anticipated yields may result if
large water bearing structures are encountered which were not identified during the field
investigations. Alternatively, dewatering rates may be lower than anticipated due to the
limited storage and recharge rates, particularly during the latter stages of the Project.
The estimated inflow rates indicate that dewatering will be best achieved by sump pumping
methods, potentially supplemented by dewatering bores. The test bores (FRW03, BHW05
and YWWB01) are not considered dewatering bores as they were constructed for testing
purposes only, using uPVC casing, and may not withstand the pressure of blasting during
mining. In addition, BHW05 is now within the pit footprint for the Stage 1 pit and will be
destroyed during the pre‐strip for the mine. However, the test bores can be utilised during
the construction phase and early operational phase of the Project and will facilitate
dewatering ahead of mining to some degree.
It is recommended that the performances of test bores are closely monitored during the
construction phase to assess the degree of future dewatering during mining. Dewatering
bores, if required, should be constructed using 6” schedule 40 steel casing (7.1 mm wall
thickness), slotted against the inflow zones.
A groundwater monitoring programme will be required, and a preliminary monitoring
schedule has been provided in Table 16.
Pit lake modelling was undertaken to assess pit lake conditions after mine closure. The
models were run over a period of 500 years under both average and wet climatic
conditions. The results indicate a rapid pit lake level rise over the initial 10 years when
groundwater inflow rates exceed evaporation. The rate of rise reduces between 10 and 15
years, before reaching a state of equilibrium after 20 years, when inflows (groundwater and
rainfall) balance evaporative losses. The models indicate that both pits act as groundwater
sinks (i.e. no groundwater throughflow) under average and wet conditions.
The pit lake model also provides an estimate of salinity concentrations post closure, based
upon evaporative concentration in the pit lakes. The results indicate a rise in salinity over
500 years to about 34,000 mg/L TDS.
The pit lake modelling indicates potential for pit water flowing into the groundwater
environment post closure is low, assuming no catchment runoff reporting to the pit.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
J1709R01 April 2018
51
Therefore, the pit lake modelling will require re‐running if the mine closure plan indicate
the potential for catchment runoff reporting to the mine void after closure.
A fractured rock water supply investigation was undertaken during 2017 to target fractured
rock aquifers away from the pit areas. The investigations focussed on the area of Auer
North which reported anecdotal groundwater inflows during exploration drilling, and the
Western Belt. The Western Belt lies between Yangibana West to Kane’s Gossan and
comprises an area of approximately 12 km of ironstone strike length. Targets were
identified along the Western Belt using Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) to define cross
cutting structural features along the ironstone.
Twelve drill‐holes were tested as part of the water supply investigation, which identified
one potential bore locations along the Western Belt.
The groundwater quality along the Western Belt and at Auer North is fresh to brackish and
slightly alkaline, consistent with the results from Fraser’s, Bald Hill, Yangibana North and
Yangibana West.
Four monitoring bores were installed along the Western Belt, which indicate a groundwater
flow direction to the south west, which is consistent with regional conditions.
Dewatering and abstraction from production bores will require an addendum to the
existing licence. It is recommended that an allocation increase to 820,000 kL/annum is
requested, which should cover the first three to five years of groundwater abstraction from
the fractured rock aquifer. The addendum may require an H2 level of hydrogeological
assessment (this report is expected to constitute this level of assessment). However, an
operating strategy is not expected to be required at this stage. The licence addendum and
supporting documentation are expected to be submitted to the DWER by early April 2018.
The focus of the water supply investigation was shifted to target palaeochannel aquifers in late
2017. The results of the palaeochannel assessment will be reported in a separate report. A
water balance for the Project’s Life of Mine will be included in the palaeochannel assessment,
along with licensing requirements to abstract from the palaeochannel aquifer.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
J1709R01 April 2018
52
Groundwater Resource Management Pty Ltd
Kathy McDougall Jan Vermaak
Principal Hydrogeologist Principal Hydrogeologist
Doc Ref: J1709R01
This report has been printed on paper that contains a proportion of recycled material as a gesture of
Groundwater Resource Management’s commitment to sustainable management of the
environment.
J1709R01 April 2018
53
REFERENCES Bennelongia Environmental Consultants 2017 “Yangibana Project: Subterranean Fauna Assessment”,
unpublished report prepared for Hastings Technology Metals Limited, January 2017.
Cooper, H.H., Jacob, C.E., 1946 “A Generalised Graphical Method for Evaluating Formation Constants
and Summarising Well Field History, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 27, pp. 526‐534.
Department of Water 2011 “Operational policy 5.08 – Use of Operating Strategies” Department of
Water, Perth.
Department of Water 2011 “Operational Policy 5.12 – Hydrogeological Reporting Associated with
Groundwater Well Licenses” Department of Water, Perth.
Ecoscape 2017 “Impact of Post Mining Groundwater Drawdown in Groundwater Dependant
Ecosystems”, unpublished report prepared for Hastings Technology Metals Limited, January 2017.
Global Groundwater 2016 “Yangibana Rare Earth Project Conceptual Hydrogeological Appraisal”,
unpublished report prepared for Hastings Technology Metals Limited, October 2016.
Groundwater Resource Management 2017 “DFS Study ‐ Stage I Hydrogeological Assessment
Yangibana Rare Earths Project”, unpublished report prepared for Hastings, J160014R01, dated
February 2017.
Hvorslev, M.J., 1951 “Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Groundwater Observations”, Bull. No. 36,
Waterways Exper. Sta. Corps of Engrs, U.S. Army, Vicsburg, Mississippi, pp. 1‐50.
JDA Consultant Hydrologists 2016 “Yangibana Rare Earth Project, Gascoyne Preliminary Hydrology
Assessment, unpublished report prepared for Hastings Technology Metals Limited, December 2016.
National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee 2012 “Minimum Construction Requirements for
Water Bores in Australia Third Edition”.
Neuman, S.P., 1974 “Effects of Partial Penetration on Flow I Unconfined Aquifers Considering
Delayed Gravity Response”, Water Resource Research, vol 10, no. 2, pp. 303‐312.
Martin, D. McB., Sheppard, S., and Thorne, A.M., Geology of the Maroonah, Ullawarra, Capricorn,
Mangaroon, Edmund and Elliott Creek 1:100 000 sheets: Western Australian Geological Survey,
1:100 000 Geological Series Explanatory Notes, 65p.
Theis, C.V., 1935 “The Relationship Between The Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate
and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Groundwater Storage”, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol.
16, pp. 519‐524.
Thiem, G., 1906 “Hydrologische Methoden”, Gebhardt, Leipzig.
Turk. L.J., 1970 “Evaporation of Brine: A Field Study of the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah”, Water
Resource Research, vol 6, no. 4, pp 1209‐1215.
Yangibana Stage II FR (J1709R01)
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd
FIGURE 1KM Mar 18
SITE LOCATION PLAN
FILE:\\G:\Jobs2017\J1709_Yangibana/figures/other/locplan.pptx
YangibanaRare Earths
Project
395,000 400,000 405,000 410,000 415,000 420,000 425,000 430,000 435,000 440,000 445,000 450,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,340,000
7,345,000
7,350,000
7,355,000
7,360,000
7,365,000
7,370,000
7,375,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
LEGEND
410,000 412,000 414,000 416,000 418,000 420,000 422,000 424,000 426,000 428,000 430,000 432,000 434,000 436,000 438,000 440,000 442,000 444,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,346,000
7,348,000
7,350,000
7,352,000
7,354,000
7,356,000
7,358,000
7,360,000
7,362,000
7,364,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
Fraser's
LEGEND
Geology of the 1:100 000 Edmund Sheet
Gossan Lion's EarHook
Kane's Gossan
Turbine
Yangibana
TongueYangibana South
Terry's Find
Hatchett
Spider Hill Simon's Find
Auer North
Leceq
Hisinger
Auer
Mosander
Demarcay
WESTERN BELT
Auer
405,000 410,000 415,000 420,000 425,000 430,000 435,000 440,000 445,000 450,000 455,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,340,000
7,345,000
7,350,000
7,355,000
7,360,000
7,365,000
7,370,000N
orth
ing
(MG
A94
Zon
e 50
)
Proposed Pits
Surface Water Catchments(JDA, 2016)
YANGIBANACREEK CATCHMENT
FRASER CREEKCATCHMENT
PIMBYANACREEK CATCHMENT
Fraser's
LEGEND
BENBAGEON WELL (W16)
BOOGARDI BORE (W17)
DINGO WELL (W18)
CARDIBAR BORE W12
GAP BORE (E17)
PIMBIANA BORE W10
HENDERSON BORE W11
(W13) WALLABY BORE
ROADSIDE BORE (W14)
FRASER WELL F1
E15 CONTESSE WELL
E16 RED HILL BORE
YANGIBANA BORE F2
Edmund HST
Minga Well
Contessi Bore
Edmund Well
Frasers Well
Yangibana Bore
Woodsys Bore
Red Hill 2
405,000 410,000 415,000 420,000 425,000 430,000 435,000 440,000 445,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,350,000
7,355,000
7,360,000
7,365,000
7,370,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
LEGEND
WIR Bores
Bores Sampled
Proposed Pits
Bald Hill
Fraser's
Yangibana NorthYangibana West
FRW02
FRRC082
FRRC098
(1.5 L/sec)
(3.4 L/sec)
(0.015 L/sec)
(316.7 mRL)
(307.44 mRL)
(303.36 mRL)
(303.41 mRL)
429,400 429,500 429,600 429,700 429,800 429,900 430,000 430,100 430,200
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,350,300
7,350,400
7,350,500
7,350,600
7,350,700
7,350,800
7,350,900
7,351,000
7,351,100
7,351,200
7,351,300
7,351,400
7,351,500
7,351,600
7,351,700
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
Test Production Bore
Test Location(1.5 L/sec) - airlift yeild(316.7 mRL) - static water level
Proposed Stage 1 Pit
Proposed Stage 2 Pit
FRW03
BHW01
BHW02
BHW03
BHW04
BHRC082
BHRC161
BHRC097BHRC095
(3.9 L/sec)
(1.8 L/sec)
(0.14 L/sec)
(2 L/sec)
(3 L/sec)
(0.8 L/sec)
(0.33 L/sec)
(320.7 mRL)
(320 mRL)
(320.65 mRL)(320.18 mRL)
(322.77 mRL)
(317.73 mRL)
(307.02 mRL)
(307.98 mRL)BHW05
427,600 427,800 428,000 428,200 428,400 428,600 428,800
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,354,800
7,355,000
7,355,200
7,355,400
7,355,600
7,355,800
7,356,000
7,356,200
7,356,400
7,356,600
7,356,800
7,357,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
LEGEND
Test Production Bore
Test Location(3.9 L/sec) - airlift yield(320.7 mRL) - static water level
Proposed Stage 1 Pit
Proposed Stage 2 Pit
Proposed Stage 3 Pit
Proposed Stage 4 Pit
Proposed Stage 5 Pit
YGWB03
YWRC003
YWRC057
YGRC094 YGRC095
YGRC096
YWRC075YWWB01YWMB01
YWRC076
YWWB01
415,500 416,000 416,500 417,000 417,500 418,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,360,000
7,360,500
7,361,000
7,361,500
7,362,000
7,362,500
7,363,000
7,363,500
7,364,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
(8 L/sec)(322.5 mRL)
(1.9 L/sec)
(1 L/sec)
(1.2 L/sec)
(3.7 L/sec)
(339.1 mRL)
(339.3 mRL)
(335.5 mRL)
(334.0 mRL)
(337.3 mRL)(1.9 L/sec)
(323.3 mRL)
E:\D
ropbox (G
RM
)\GR
M Team
Folder\J1709_Y
angibana Stage II\figures\grapher\F
rasers pit lake modelling.grf
0 100 200 300 400 500Years Post Closure
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
m R
L
R01 - Pit Only, Average Rainfall
R02 - Pit Only, High Rainfall
Ambient Groundwater Level
E:\D
ropbox (G
RM
)\GR
M Team
Folder\J1709_Y
angibana Stage II\figures\grapher\B
ald Hills pit lake m
odelling.grf
0 100 200 300 400 500Years Post Closure
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
m R
L
R03 - Pit Only, Average Rainfall
R04 - Pit Only, High Rainfall
Ambient Groundwater Level
E:\D
ropbox (G
RM
)\GR
M Team
Folder\J1709_Y
angibana Stage II\figu
res\grap
her\Yangi N
orth pit lake modelling.grf
0 100 200 300 400 500Years Post Closure
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
m R
L
R05 - Pit Only, Average Rainfall
R06 - Pit Only, High Rainfall
Ambient Groundwater Level
E:\D
ropbox (G
RM
)\GR
M Team
Folder\J1709_Y
angibana Stage II\figures\graph
er\Yangi W
est pit lake modelling.grf
0 100 200 300 400 500Years Post Closure
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
m R
L
R07 - Pit Only, Average Rainfall
R08 - Pit Only, High Rainfall
Ambient Groundwater Level
YWWB01
414,000 416,000 418,000 420,000 422,000 424,000 426,000 428,000 430,000 432,000 434,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,350,000
7,352,000
7,354,000
7,356,000
7,358,000
7,360,000
7,362,000
7,364,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
Auer North
LEGEND
Bald Hill
Fraser's
Yangibana North
Yangibana West
FRW03
BHW05
LERC020LERC021
LERC022
LERC023
LERC024
ANW1ANW2
ANW3
KGRC022
KGRC019
KGRC020
KGRC021
YWWB01
414,000 416,000 418,000 420,000 422,000 424,000 426,000 428,000 430,000 432,000 434,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,350,000
7,352,000
7,354,000
7,356,000
7,358,000
7,360,000
7,362,000
7,364,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
Existing Production Bores
Completed Exploration Holes
ERI Transects
LEGEND
FRW03
BHW05
YWMB01
LERC020
KGRC019
KGRC022
313 mA
HD
315 mA
HD
317 mA
HD
319
mA
HD
319 mAHD
321 mAHD
321 mAHD 323 mAHD
323 mAHD
325 mAHD
325 mAHD
327 mAHD
327 mAHD
329 mAHD
412,000 414,000 416,000 418,000 420,000 422,000 424,000 426,000 428,000 430,000 432,000 434,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,350,000
7,352,000
7,354,000
7,356,000
7,358,000
7,360,000
7,362,000
7,364,000
Nor
thin
g (M
GA
94 Z
one
50)
Groundwater Contours
Completed Production Bores
Completed Monitoring Bores
YWWB01
LEGEND
FRW03
BHW05
J1709R01 April 2018
A1
APPENDIX A
Regional Water Quality
Appendix A ‐ Regional Water Quality
Parameter
Easting (MGA z50)
Northing(MGA z50)
Sampling Date Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17 22-10-17 Jun-17 09-08-17SWL mbtc 10.6 9.1 2.6 2.4 14.9 9.2 7.3 31.9
Arsenic - Dissolved mg/L 0.003 0.001 #N/A <0.001 0.001 #N/A 0.002 0.002 #N/A 0.003 0.001 #N/A <0.001 <0.001 #N/A 0.004 0.002 #N/A <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 #N/A
Antimony - Dissolved mg/L <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A
Aluminium - Dissolved mg/L <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A <0.1 #N/A <0.1 #N/A #N/A
Barium - Dissolved mg/L 0.02 #N/A #N/A 0.04 #N/A #N/A 0.04 #N/A #N/A 0.02 #N/A #N/A 0.16 #N/A #N/A 0.07 #N/A #N/A 0.03 #N/A 0.04 #N/A #N/A
Beryllium - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Boron - Disolved mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Cadmium - Dissolved mg/L <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 #N/A <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 #N/A
Chromium - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 #N/A
Cobalt - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Copper - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 <0.01 #N/A 0.04 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A 0.02 0.02 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 #N/A
Iron - Dissolved mg/L 0.07 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.07 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.19 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Manganese - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.87 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Mercury - Dissolved mg/L #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A #N/A <0.0002 #N/A <0.0002 #N/A
Molybdenum - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A 0.02 #N/A #N/A
Nickel - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 #N/A
Lead - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 #N/A
Selenium - Dissolved mg/L 0.007 #N/A #N/A 0.003 #N/A #N/A 0.003 #N/A #N/A 0.007 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A 0.003 #N/A 0.005 #N/A #N/A
Silicon - Dissolved mg/L 32 #N/A #N/A 23 #N/A #N/A 36 #N/A #N/A 32 #N/A #N/A 30 #N/A #N/A 31 #N/A #N/A 26 #N/A 24 #N/A #N/A
Silver - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Strontium - Dissolved mg/L 0.76 #N/A #N/A 1.1 #N/A #N/A 0.41 #N/A #N/A 0.76 #N/A #N/A 0.3 #N/A #N/A 2.2 #N/A #N/A 0.82 #N/A 0.52 #N/A #N/A
Tin - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.02 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A <0.01 #N/A <0.01 #N/A #N/A
Titanium - Dissolved mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Thorium - Dissolved mg/L <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A <0.001 #N/A <0.001 #N/A #N/A
Uranium - Dissolved mg/L 0.004 #N/A #N/A 0.038 #N/A #N/A 0.004 #N/A #N/A 0.004 #N/A #N/A 0.02 #N/A #N/A 0.079 #N/A #N/A 0.009 #N/A 0.025 #N/A #N/A
Vandanium - Dissolved mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Zinc - Dissolved mg/L <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 0.02 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 #N/A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 #N/A
Aluminium - Total mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1
Arsenic - Total mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.002
Cadmium - Total mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Chromium - Total mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 47 49 53
Calcium - Dissolved mg/L 66 82 81 79 74 75 39 52 52 66 82 81 30 71 73 250 260 170
Copper - Total mg/L 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.06 <0.01
Iron - Total mg/L 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.01 <0.01 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.01 1.5 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.51 0.84
Mercury - Total mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Nickel - Total mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead - Total mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sulphur - Dissolved mg/L 96 #N/A #N/A 110 #N/A #N/A 38 #N/A #N/A 96 #N/A #N/A 17 #N/A #N/A 250 #N/A #N/A 52 #N/A #N/A
Potassium - Dissolved mg/L #N/A 4 2.8 #N/A 15 16 #N/A 4.4 4 #N/A 4 2.8 #N/A 4.6 4.4 #N/A 22 17 #N/A 10 9.1
Magnesium - Dissolved mg/L 90 40 40 100 94 95 58 46 46 90 40 40 48 51 53 130 150 98 40 42 41
Sodium - Dissolved mg/L 280 31 26 610 530 450 150 120 88 280 31 26 70 44 37 620 670 410 550 530 420
Selenium - Total mg/L #N/A 0.001 0.002 #N/A 0.004 0.004 #N/A 0.003 0.002 #N/A 0.001 0.002 #N/A <0.001 <0.001 #N/A 0.01 0.007 #N/A 0.006 0.005
Zinc - Total mg/L 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.05 0.02
Uranium - Total mg/L #N/A 0.001 0.001 #N/A 0.037 0.031 #N/A 0.039 0.003 #N/A 0.001 0.001 #N/A 0.029 0.027 #N/A 0.25 0.13 #N/A 0.035 0.029
Chloride mg/L 270 83 75 810 700 750 110 95 110 270 83 75 95 82 81 710 890 720 570 700 510
Fluoride mg/L 1.4 #N/A #N/A 2.9 #N/A #N/A 2.3 #N/A #N/A 1.4 #N/A #N/A 2.5 #N/A #N/A 4 #N/A #N/A 3 #N/A #N/A
Sulphate mg/L 330 38 35 320 310 350 110 95 100 330 38 35 45 77 81 830 1200 700 160 190 170
Nitrate-N mg/L 8.97 2.7 2.9 17 18 16.97 6.5 5.1 4.69 8.97 2.7 2.9 0.05 0.7 1.1 <0.01 8.3 7.7 12 12 11
Hardness mg CaCO3/L 535 #N/A #N/A 609 #N/A #N/A 336 #N/A #N/A 535 #N/A #N/A 273 #N/A #N/A 1160 #N/A #N/A 282 #N/A #N/A
Alkalinity mg CaCO3/L 300 320 310 430 340 310 520 390 380 300 320 310 360 340 350 440 260 250 410 310 290
Alkalinity to pH9.5 mgCaCO3/L <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A <5 #N/A #N/A
Acidity to pH9.5 mgCaCO3/L 82 #N/A #N/A 130 #N/A #N/A 120 #N/A #N/A 82 #N/A #N/A 77 #N/A #N/A 200 #N/A #N/A 93 #N/A #N/A
pH pH units 8.6 7.5 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.6 7.5 7.9 8.5 8.2 8.2 7.2 8.1 7.5 8 7.9 7.3
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1400 600 580 2200 1900 1800 920 680 700 1400 600 580 600 530 600 2800 3100 2100 1600 1500 1400
Total Suspended Solids mg/L <5 <5 <5 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7 33 <5 76 7 <5 <5 26 5
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.09 #N/A #N/A 0.07 #N/A #N/A 0.12 #N/A #N/A 0.09 #N/A #N/A 0.06 #N/A #N/A 0.39 #N/A #N/A 0.14 #N/A #N/A
Total Coliforms CFU/100mL #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A
E. Coli CFU/50mL #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 0 #N/A
Radium 226 Bq/L #N/A 0 <0.05 #N/A 0 0 #N/A 0 0 #N/A 0 <0.05 #N/A 0 <0.05 #N/A 0 <0.05 #N/A 0 #N/A
Radium 228 Bq/L #N/A 0 <0.08 #N/A 0 0 #N/A 0 0 #N/A 0 <0.08 #N/A 0 <0.08 #N/A 0 <0.08 #N/A 0 #N/A
Water Microbiology
Radiation
7,346,769 7,351,570
Heavy Metals in Water
Metals in Water
Ions by Discrete Analyse
Physical Parameters
7,357,878 7,354,106 7,368,128 7,371,981 7,370,735 7,368,605
Woodsys Bore Fraser's Well414,866 405,351 407,894 410,186 416,349 419,832 413,896 424,854
Yangibana Bore Edmund Well Bore Minga Well Bore Edmund Homestead Bore Contessis Bore Red Hill 2 Bore
J1709R01 draft March 2018
B1
APPENDIX B
GDE Atlas
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Map Report
25km of 428,000mE 7,356,000mN
Data source - Data are assumed to be correct as supplied from Commonwealth, State and Territory data suppliers or referenced projects. Disclaimer - Use of the information and data contained within this document is at your sole risk. Neither the Bureau nor its agents make any warranties or representations regarding the quality, accuracy, merchantability or fitness for purpose of any material in this document.
Date: 30 January, 2017
J1709R01 April 2018
C1
APPENDIX C
Licence to Construct or Alter a Well
1
Kathy GRM
From: MAJOR Michael <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 1:01 PMTo: [email protected]: FW: Water Online - add a partyAttachments: Authorisation to act on Hastings behalf.pdf
Hi Kathy – Looks as though it must have a been a admin typo error as CAW 183464 should have read 3 x production bores and not 6 exploratory wells. Your licence is still valid to 29 September 2017 and you are not in breach of your licence to construct the 3 production wells. Kind Regards Mick
From: Licence Enquiry Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 11:01 AM To: MAJOR Michael <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Water Online ‐ add a party
Hi Mick Could you please respond to Kathy regarding the question below. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks Adam Viskovich Senior Natural Resource Management Officer Business Support Unit, Department of Water
T: 1800 508 885 | E: [email protected] or [email protected]
From: Kathy GRM [mailto:kathy@g‐r‐m.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2017 3:51 PM
2
To: Licence Enquiry <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Water Online ‐ add a party Is it only for 6 exploration wells? The application (ref 010045) was for 3 production wells!!
From: Licence Enquiry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 3:03 PM To: Kathy GRM Subject: RE: Water Online - add a party
As requested
From: Kathy GRM [mailto:kathy@g‐r‐m.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2017 2:57 PM
J1709R01 April 2018
D1
APPENDIX D
Test Pumping Analysis
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\to save to server\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW03_CR.aqtDate: 02/09/17 Time: 14:05:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW03Test Date: 4 Nov 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW03 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW03 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 28.1 m2/day S = 827.1
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\to save to server\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW03_recET.aqtDate: 02/09/17 Time: 14:07:30
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW03Test Date: 6 Nov 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW03 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW03 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 329.4 m2/day S/S' = 1.66E-9
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\to save to server\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW03_recLT.aqtDate: 02/09/17 Time: 14:09:08
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW03Test Date: 6 Nov 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW03 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW03 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 197.6 m2/day S/S' = 3.162E-5
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\to save to server\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW01obs_CR.aqtDate: 02/09/17 Time: 14:10:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW03Test Date: 4 Nov 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW03 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW01 6 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 28.37 m2/day S = 0.4489
1. 10. 100.0.
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.4
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY FRW02
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW02_recET.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 10:26:42
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW02Test Date: 25/10/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW02 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW02 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 242.3 m2/day S/S' = 0.321
1. 10. 100.0.
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.4
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY FRW02
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\FRW02_rec.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 10:26:14
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FRW02Test Date: 25/10/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FRW02 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FRW02 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 34.1 m2/day S/S' = 3.638
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY FFRC082
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\FRC082_rec_logger.aqtDate: 01/06/17 Time: 15:39:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FFRC082Test Date: 26/10/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 6. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FFRC082 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FFRC082 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 226.6 m2/day S/S' = 2.057
1. 10. 100.6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY FFRC098
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\FRC098_rec_logger.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 12:32:36
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FFRC082Test Date: 26/10/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 14.9 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FFRC098 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FFRC098 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 0.1156 m2/day S/S' = 6.315E-5
1. 10. 100.6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY FFRC098
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\FRC098_rec_loggerLT.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 12:32:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: FFRC082Test Date: 26/10/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 14.9 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)FFRC098 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
FFRC098 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 0.02527 m2/day S/S' = 1.06
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
3.2
6.4
9.6
12.8
16.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_CR.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 14:15:52
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 9 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 236.1 m2/day S = 0.0001196
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
3.2
6.4
9.6
12.8
16.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_crtLT.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 14:14:42
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 9 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 74.81 m2/day S = 16.34
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
6.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_recET.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 14:32:01
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 11 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 207. m2/day S/S' = 0.1134
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
6.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_recLT.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 14:31:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 11 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 216.5 m2/day S/S' = 0.05542
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05obs_crtET.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:06:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 9 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05obs 7.4 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 223.8 m2/day S = 0.0004285
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05obs_crtLT.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:06:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 9 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05obs 7.4 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 68.36 m2/day S = 0.09607
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
6.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_obs recLT.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 14:50:55
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05obsTest Date: 11 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05obs 7.4 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05obs 7.4 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 231.9 m2/day S/S' = 0.0347
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.2
2.4
3.6
4.8
6.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW05_recET.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:09:38
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW05Test Date: 11 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW05 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW05obs 7.4 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 221.2 m2/day S/S' = 0.05159
1. 10. 100.0.
0.32
0.64
0.96
1.28
1.6
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHW01
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW01.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:48:09
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW01Test Date: 18/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW01 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW01 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 100. m2/day S/S' = 0.7462
1. 10. 100.0.
2.8
5.6
8.4
11.2
14.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHW02
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW02ET.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:41:28
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW02Test Date: 16/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW02 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW02 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 0.8155 m2/day S/S' = 12.94
1. 10. 100.0.
2.8
5.6
8.4
11.2
14.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHW02
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHW02.aqtDate: 01/07/17 Time: 15:11:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHW02Test Date: 16/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHW02 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHW02 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 31.58 m2/day S/S' = 1.999
1. 10. 100.0.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHRC161
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHRC161 early.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 15:55:21
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHRC161Test Date: 20/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHRC161 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHRC161 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 16.99 m2/day S/S' = 10.51
1. 10. 100.0.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHRC161
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHRC161.aqtDate: 01/06/17 Time: 16:26:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHRC161Test Date: 20/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHRC161 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHRC161 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 79.91 m2/day S/S' = 1.117
1. 10. 100. 1000.0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHRC082
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHRC082.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 16:01:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHRC082Test Date: 20/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 34.77 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHRC082 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHRC082 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 66.01 m2/day S/S' = 1.505
1. 10. 100.0.
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
AIRLIFT RECOVERY BHRC095
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\BHRC095.aqtDate: 01/06/17 Time: 17:13:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHRC095Test Date: 20/11/2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 14. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)BHRC095 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
BHRC095 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 0.7155 m2/day S/S' = 4.002
0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500.0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (sec)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\Daves\BHRC097.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 16:14:46
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: BHRC097Test Date: 18 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 40.48 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (BHRC097)
Initial Displacement: 0.1628 m Static Water Column Height: 40.48 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 40.48 m Screen Length: 40.48 mCasing Radius: 0.075 m Well Radius: 0.075 m
Gravel Pack Porosity: 1.
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Hvorslev
K = 0.25 m/day y0 = 0.1635 m
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
2.4
4.8
7.2
9.6
12.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\Daves\YGWB003.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 20:24:01
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 14 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB003 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 54.95 m2/day S = 1.008E-6
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003recET.aqtDate: 01/15/17 Time: 14:42:30
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 16 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB003 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 29.75 m2/day S/S' = 32.49
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003recLT.aqtDate: 01/15/17 Time: 14:42:57
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 16 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB003 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 82.61 m2/day S/S' = 0.0985
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003obs bore crt.aqtDate: 01/14/17 Time: 20:14:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: Hastings Project: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 14 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 2.848
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB001 7.87 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 35.63 m2/day S = 0.002797
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.1
1.
10.
Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003 Obs.aqtDate: 01/15/17 Time: 15:40:51
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: Hastings Metals LimitedProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 14/12/16
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42. m
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB001 7.87 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Neuman
T = 10.11 m2/day S = 0.0004562Sy = 0.1169 ß = 0.2
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003 Obs recET.aqtDate: 01/15/17 Time: 14:46:03
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: Hastings Metals LimitedProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 14/12/16
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB001 7.87 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 22.7 m2/day S/S' = 46.47
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\YGWB003 Obs rec.aqtDate: 01/11/17 Time: 08:43:06
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: Hastings Metals LimitedProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGWB003Test Date: 14/12/16
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YGWB003 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YGWB001 7.87 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 78.24 m2/day S/S' = 0.1218
1. 10. 100.0.
0.24
0.48
0.72
0.96
1.2
Time, t/t'
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: F:\J160014_Yangibana\modelling\aqtesolv\ygrc003.aqtDate: 01/15/17 Time: 15:02:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J160014Location: YangibanaTest Well: YGRC003Test Date: 17 Dec 2016
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 1. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YWRC005 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YWRC005 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 27.55 m2/day S/S' = 6.227
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
8.
16.
24.
32.
40.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\...\ywwb01_CR.aqtDate: 04/11/18 Time: 12:52:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J1709Location: YangibanaTest Well: YWWB01Test Date: 20 Aug 2017
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 14. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YWWB01 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YWWB01 0 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 16.04 m2/day S = 1.529E-12
1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+40.
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.
Adjusted Time (min)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: E:\...\ywmb01_CR.aqtDate: 04/11/18 Time: 12:49:59
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: GRMClient: HastingsProject: J1709Location: YangibanaTest Well: YWWB01Test Date: 20 Aug 2017
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 14. m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)YWWB01 0 0
Observation WellsWell Name X (m) Y (m)
YWMB01 7.72 0
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 25.08 m2/day S = 0.06301
J1709R01 April 2018
E1
APPENDIX E
Drill Logs
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weakly lateritised,ferruginous, after granite
SAPROCK: brown grey, after granite
GRANITE: cream grey to grey, massive, distinctlyto slightly weathered
IRONSTONE: dark grey, brown, fractured
GRANITE: dark grey, brown, weakly foliated
50m: minor inflow
54m: minor inflow55m: inflow >0.1 L/sec
84m: increased inflow85m: inflow 1.2 L/sec,
pH 7.88, EC 2.47mS/cm
90m: inflow 1.5 L/sec,pH 7.97, EC 2.47
mS/cm96m: inflow 1.5 L/sec,
pH 8.03, EC 2.51mS/cm
102m: inflow 1.5 L/sec,pH 8.17, EC 2.47
mS/cm
+0.4-+0.2m annulargrout seal+0.4-2.3m collar pipe0-3m cementannular seal withcement surround
3-110m 10 inchdiameter air rotarydrill-hole
+0.4-71.2m 155mmND class 9 uPVCblank casing
+0.2-95m+3.2-6.4mm gradedfilter pack
71.2-95.2m 155mmND class 9 uPVCslotted casing
155mm uPVC endcap95-110m fallback
PO Box 2310 Kardinya WA 616323 Parry StreetFremantle WA 6160Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
FRW03 J160014
Hastings Yangibana DFS
22-Oct-15
TRD
PH/KF
SWL (date):
7351211
350.5
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42994120-Oct-16
4-Nov-1633.8
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weakly lateritised,ferruginous, after granite
SAPROCK: brown grey, after granite
GRANITE: cream grey to grey, massive, distinctlyto slightly weathered, fractures 27-30m; 33-36m;and 41-45m
GRANITE: grey, massive, fresh to slightlyweathered
IRONSTONE: dark grey, brown, fractured
GRANITE: dark grey, brown, weakly foliated
36m: minor inflow38m: inflow <0.1 L/sec
42m: inflow <0.1 L/sec
48m: inflow 0.2 L/sec
55m: inflow 0.2 L/sec
63m: inflow 0.1 L/sec
68m: inflow 0.8 L/sec
76m: inflow 1 L/sec78m: inflow 1.2 L/sec
81m: inflow 2.9 L/sec83m: inflow 1.8 L/sec84m: inflow 2.2 L/sec
+0.4-+0.2m annulargrout seal+0.4-2.3m collar pipe0-3m cementannular seal withcement surround
3-110m 10 inchdiameter air rotarydrill-hole
+0.4-80m 155mmND class 9 uPVCblank casing
+0.2-104m+3.2-6.4mm gradedfilter pack
80-104m 155mmND class 9 uPVCslotted casing
155mm uPVC endcap104-110m fallback
PO Box 2310 Kardinya WA 616323 Parry StreetFremantle WA 6160Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
BHW05 J160014
Hastings Yangibana DFS
13-Nov-16
TRD
PH/KF
SWL (date):
7356019
346.7
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42818911-Nov-16
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CLAY: transported, maroon and white, mottled
SAPROLITE: in situ, granite saprolite, khaki, relicbiotite, feldspar and quartz
SAPROCK: in situ, granite saprock, black grey,relic biotite, feldspar and quartz
GRANITE: black grey, fresh, with quartz vein (30%quartz)
GRANITE: fresh, black grey, minor iron staining ofjoints and fractures. Coarse chips 48-51m, 52-57m,and 61-65m
GRANODIORITE: fresh, black, occasional ironstaining on joints and fractures
GRANITE: altered granite (Fenite), miinor limonite,magneticQUARTZ VEIN: 50% quartz, very coarse, white,massive, iron staining (hematite)GRANITE: altered granite (Fenite), magneticQUARTZ VEIN: 70 to 80% quartz, very coarse,white, massive, iron staining at baseGRANITE: foliated, slightly weathered, quartzveining, magnetic, iron staining (limonite)QUARTZ VEIN: white, coarse, massiveGRANITE: brown, foliated, magnetic, slightlyweathered, iron staining (hematite), possible shearzoneGRANITE: brown, foliated, magnetic, slightlyweathered, iron staining (hematite and limonite)GRANITE: brown black, slightly weathered, ironstaining (limonite)GRANITE: black to grey, fresh
7m: moist at 7m
30m: minor inflows
58m: 0.1 L/sec, pH7.97, EC 2.53 mS/cm
64m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.87, EC 2.57 mS/cm
70m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.96, EC 2.53 mS/cm
76m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.97, EC 2.47 mS/cm
82m: 0.1 L/sec, pH7.8, EC 2.72 mS/cm
88m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.75, EC 2.67 mS/cm
94m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.92, EC 2.47 mS/cm
100m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.05, EC 2.43 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-101m 5.25" inchRC drill hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
ANW1 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
24-May-17
TRD
DMT
SWL (date):
7350799
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42500524-May-17
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM:SAPROCK: brown white, friable, extremelyweatheredSAPROCK: grey white , friable, extremelyweathered
SAPROCK: grey brown, friable, extremelyweathered
GRANITE: fresh, black, equigranular
GRANITE: fresh, grey white, massive
GRANITE: fresh, black, equigranular
GRANITE: fresh, black, foliated, minor iron oxidecoatings throughout
GRANITE: fresh, grey, massive. Minor iron oxidecoatings throughout
GRANITE fresh, black, foliated, minor iron oxidecoatings throughout
SCHIST: black green, friable, shear, minor ironoxide coatings throughout
GRANITE GNEISS: black, massive, minor ironoxide coatings throughout
QUARTZ VEIN: white, >80% quartz
GRANITE: black and white, foliated, minor ironoxide coatings throughout
GRANITE: black and white, massive, trace ironoxide coatings
47m: 0.1 L/sec, pH7.94, EC 2.72 mS/cm
53m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.93, EC 2.76 mS/cm
59m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.96, EC 2.76 mS/cm
65m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.00, EC 2.72 mS/cm
71m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.93, EC 2.67 mS/cm
77m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.95, EC 2.71 mS/cm
83m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.00, EC 2.73 mS/cm
89m: 0.4 L/sec, pH7.92, EC 2.71 mS/cm
95m: 0.4 L/sec, pH7.93, EC 2.68 mS/cm
101m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.90, EC 2.59 mS/cm
107m: 0.7 L/sec, pH7.96, EC 2.63 mS/cm
113m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.95, EC 2.60 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-114m 5.25" inchRC drill hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
ANW2 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
25-May-17
TRD
DMT
SWL (date):
7350758
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42496525-May-17
26-May-1710.2
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SAPROLITE: dark red to yellow
GRANITE: extremely weathered, grey red, mediumto coarse grained, iron oxide staining (limonite)throughoutGRANITE: extremely weathered, yellow grey,medium to coarse grained, strong iron oxidestaining (limonite) up to 30% limoniteGRANITE: strongly weathered, yellow grey,medium to coarse grainedGRANITE: medium grey, strongly weathered, ironoxide staining throughout
GRANITE: medium grey, foliated, coarse grained,strongly weathered, iron oxide staining throughout
PEGMATITE: medium grey, foliated, stronglyweathered, iron oxide staining throughoutPEGMATITE & GRANITE: medium grey,moderately foliated, strongly weathered, Iron oxidestaining throughoutGRANITE: black to dark grey, moderately foliated,coarse grained, strongly to moderately weathered,iron oxide staining throughoutGRANITE: fresh, dark grey, moderately foliated tomassive, medium to coarse grainedGRANITE: slightly weathered, mid to dark grey,moderately foliated, medium to coarse grained, ironoxide coats 62-65 m.GRANITE: fresh, mid to dark grey, moderatelyfoliated, medium to coarse grained, iron oxidecoats 70-72 m
GRANITE: fresh, light to dark grey, massive,medium to coarse grained
GRANITE: fresh, black, massive, medium tocoarse grained
QUARTZ: in fresh granite, 30-50% quartz
GRANITE: fresh, black, massive, medium tocoarse grained
40m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.01, EC 2.64 mS/cm
46m: 0.4 L/sec, pH7.97, EC 2.63 mS/cm
53m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.91, EC 2.56 mS/cm
59m: 0.7 L/sec, pH8.00, EC 2.56 mS/cm
65m: 0.8 L/sec, pH8.03, EC 2.53 mS/cm
71m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.98, EC 2.54 mS/cm
77m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.87, EC 2.58 mS/cm
83m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.92, EC 2.55 mS/cm
89m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.85, EC 2.43 mS/cm
95m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.97, EC 2.24 mS/cm
101m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.98, EC 2.23 mS/cm
107m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.96, EC 2.35 mS/cm
113m: 0.5 L/sec, pH8.04, EC 2.41 mS/cm
119m: 0.5 L/sec, pH8.06, EC 2.35 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-120m 5.25" inchRC drill hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
ANW3 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
29-May-17
TRD
DMT
SWL (date):
7350804
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42496528-May-17
29-May-1710.03
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRANITE: grey, porphyritic, slightly weathered,some fe staining
GRANITE: brown grey, fe staining, fractured
GRANITE: grey, porphyritic, slightly weathered,some fe staining
GRANITE & PEGMATITE: 23 to 24 m pink greypegmatite veins, 24 to 25m brown grey fracturedgranite with fe staining, 25 to 26m pink greypegmatite veins, 26 to 32m brown grey fracturedgranite with fe staining, 32 to 42m grey mediumgrained fresh granite, 42 to 44m pink greypegmatite veins
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, fresh
15m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.95, EC 1.92 mS/cm
24m: 0.5 L/sec, pH8.12, EC 1.93 mS/cm
30m: 1.5 L/sec, pH8.08, EC 2.27 mS/cm
36m: 1.8 L/sec, pH8.10, EC 2.25 mS/cm
42m: 0.5 L/sec, pH8.24, EC 2.06 mS/cm
48m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.89, EC 2.27 mS/cm
54m: 0.5 L/sec, pH8.01, EC 2.06 mS/cm
60m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.90, EC 2.31 mS/cm
66m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.81, EC 2.21 mS/cm
72m: 1.0 L/sec, pH7.92, EC 2.22 mS/cm
86m: 1 L/sec, pH 8.13,EC 2.25 mS/cm
90m: 1.2 L/sec, pH7.80, EC 2.14 mS/cm
96m: 1.2 L/sec, pH8.01, EC 2.24 mS/cm
102m: 1.5 L/sec, pH7.84, EC 2.17 mS/cm
108m: 1.5 L/sec, pH8.13, EC 2.20 mS/cm
0-1m A&B foam plug
+0.9-24m 50mmClass 12 uPVCslotted casing,suspended oncasing clamps
4-108m open hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
KGRC019 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
03-Aug-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7358365.231
337.751
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
425474.9602-Aug-17
4-Aug-1710.27
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 GRANITE: brown grey, slightly weathered,porphyritic
GRANITE: grey, porphyritic, fresh
PEGMATITE: pink grey coase grained pegmatiteveins in granite
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, quartz veins 28to 32m, fe staining 42 to 44m and 55 to 56m
SCHIST: black, fine grained, foliated
QUARTZ: pale green, some transluscent quartz
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, pegmatite vein90 to 91m, quartz vein 94 to 96m
SCHIST: black, fine grained, foliated
GRANITE: grey, medium grained
12m: minor inflow
30m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.37, EC 3.22 mS/cm
36m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.30, EC 2.98 mS/cm
42m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.20, EC 2.98 mS/cm
48m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.26, EC 3.15 mS/cm
54m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.86, EC 2.81 mS/cm
60m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.24, EC 2.83 mS/cm
66m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.88, EC 2.51 mS/cm
78m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.92, EC 2.61 mS/cm
84m: 1.4 L/sec, pH7.60, EC 2.44 mS/cm
90m: 1.2 L/sec, pH7.81, EC 2.40 mS/cm
96m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.88, EC 2.24 mS/cm
102m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.83, EC 2.01 mS/cm
108m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.88, EC 2.24 mS/cm
114m: 1.5 L/sec, pH7.95, EC 2.33 mS/cm
120m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.86, EC 1.89 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-120m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
KGRC020 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
05-Aug-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7358865.9
335.23
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
425525.8103-Aug-17
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 GRANITE: yellow brown, slightly weathered,abundant quartz, fe stainedGRANITE: grey, minor fe staining, with quartzveining
GRANITE: grey, fresh, porphyritic, some quartzveins 56 to 59m, minor fe staining 63 to 66m
GRANITE: yellow brown, altered, abundant festaining, fracture zone
GRANITE: grey, fresh, quartz veins 83 to 84m, festaining 85 to 87m, 91 to 94m, quartz veining andfe staining 101 to 103m, quartz veining 112 to113m, quartz veining and minor fe staining 119 to120m
66m: minor inflow
102m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.22, EC 3.74 mS/cm
108m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.26, EC 3.94 mS/cm
114m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.43, EC 3.93 mS/cm
120m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.93, EC 4.06 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-120m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
KGRC021 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
07-Aug-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7358645.9
340.37
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
425505.6705-Aug-17
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 CALCRETE: white, chalky, competent
GRANITE: orange grey, slightly weathered, somefe staining
GRANITE: grey, minor fe staining, quartz veining18 to 19m, 76 to 82m
19m: minor inflow
24m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.11, EC 2.01 mS/cm
30m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.10, EC 2.03 mS/cm
36m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.12, EC 1.98 mS/cm
42m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.07, EC 1.97 mS/cm
48m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.07, EC 1.99 mS/cm
54m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.04, EC 1.99 mS/cm
60m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.02, EC 1.96 mS/cm
66m: no flow
78m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.40, EC 1.94 mS/cm
84m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.08, EC 1.90 mS/cm
90m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.05, EC 1.90 mS/cm
96m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.00, EC 1.88 mS/cm
102m: 0.2 L/sec, pH7.99, EC 1.87 mS/cm
108m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.20, EC 1.86 mS/cm
0-1m A&B foam plug
+0.9-108m 50mmClass 12 uPVCslotted casing
4-108m open hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
KGRC022 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
09-Aug-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7357388.924
331.888
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
426515.83707-Aug-17
10-Aug-174.46
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRANITE: light grey to white, slightly weatheredwith occasional quartz veining and maficphases,iron oxides throughout
DOLERITE: dark grey, fine grained, maficsincluding biotite commonly foliated, iron oxidesthroughout
QUARTZ: massive quartz vein with minortourmaline crystals
GRANITE: dark grey, fracture zone 37 to 39m,trace iron oxides throughout
QUARTZ: green, massive microcrystaline quartziteor vein material with hardness < 7, no fizz withacid, possibly a feldspar vein
GRANITE: dark grey, with mafic schist lenses from76m
40m: minor inflow42m: pH 7.97, EC 2.55
mS/cm
48m: 0.4 L/sec, pH8.06, EC 2.45 mS/cm
60m: 0.5 L/sec, pH7.95, EC 2.45 mS/cm
66m: 0.4 L/sec, pH7.99, EC 2.46 mS/cm
72m: 2.2 L/sec, pH7.87, EC 2.54 mS/cm
84m: 2.2 L/sec, pH7.82, EC 2.51 mS/cm
90m: 1.3 L/sec
96m: 1.7 L/sec, pH8.04, EC 2.55 mS/cm
102m: 0.9 L/sec, pH8.04, EC 2.63 mS/cm
0-1m A&B foam plug
+0.3-41m 50mmClass 12 uPVCblank casing,suspended oncasing clamps
41-47m 50mmClass 12 uPVCslotted casing
4-126m open hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
LERC020 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
17-Jul-17
TRD
DMT
SWL (date):
7360889
343.5
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41999317-Jul-17
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: red grey, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: grey, fine to medium grained, fresh,some iron oxide surfaces
QUARTZ: red brown, slightly weathered
GRANITE: grey, fine to medium grained, fresh,quartz veins 42 to 44m, 61 to 66m
29m: minor inflow
56m: 0.7 L/sec, pH7.19, EC 2.18 mS/cm
66m: 1 L/sec, pH 7.68,EC 2.08 mS/cm
72m: 2.5 L/sec, pH7.45, EC 2.10 mS/cm
78m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.75, EC 2.10 mS/cm
84m: 1.2 L/sec, pH7.68, EC 2.08 mS/cm
90m: 1.3 L/sec, pH7.54, EC 2.08 mS/cm
96m: 1.5 L/sec, pH7.43, EC 2.07 mS/cm
102m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.56, EC 2.12 mS/cm
108m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.45, EC 2.18 mS/cm
114m: 2.0 L/sec, pH7.60, EC 2.16 mS/cm
120m: 1.8 L/sec, pH7.54, EC 2.18 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-124m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
LERC021 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
25-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7361078
346.4
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41994324-Jul-17
27-Jul-1714.17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: red grey, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: grey, fine to medium grained, fresh,quartz vein 83 to 84m
66m: minor inflow
84m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.08, EC 1.97 mS/cm
90m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.10, EC 1.99 mS/cm
96m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.09, EC 1.98 mS/cm
102m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.03, EC 2.05 mS/cm
108m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.05, EC 2.02 mS/cm
114m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.08, EC 2.03 mS/cm
120m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.65, EC 2.04 mS/cm
126m: 0.3 L/sec, pH7.69, EC 2.08 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-126m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
LERC022 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
27-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7359496.836
348.128
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
422945.08826-Jul-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: red grey, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: gret, fine to medium grained,porphyritic, quartz veins 27 to 28m, 32 to 33m, 64to 65m, 78 to 80m, 95 to 97m
66m: minor inflow
120m: <0.1 L/sec
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-120m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
LERC023 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
29-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7359315
349.3
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42299028-Jul-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, fresh
QUARTZ: white, opaque, quartz vein
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, fresh
GRANITE: red grey, fe staining common
PEGMATITE: pink grey coase grained pegmatiteveins in quartz
GRANITE: grey, medium grained, fresh, quartzvein 83 to 84m
QUARTZ: white, opaque, quartz veins within granite
GRANITE: grey, medium grained
60m: minor inflow
108m: 0.3 L/sec, pH8.03, EC 1.95 mS/cm
114m: 0.4 L/sec, pH8.11, EC 1.93 mS/cm
120m: 0.4 L/sec, pH8.12, EC 1.91 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-120m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
LERC024 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
31-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7359783
347
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
42289830-Jul-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: pale grey, fresh, hard, high quartz 3 to11m, iron staining 19 to 20 m, very high quartzcontent 31 to 40, 46 to 47 m, iron staining 55 m,quartz vein 55 to 58 m
90m: inflow 1.9 L/sec,pH 7.90, EC 1.82
mS/cm96m: inflow 1.9 L/sec,
pH 7.94, EC 1.85mS/cm
102m: inflow 1.5 L/sec,pH 8.02, EC 1.87
mS/cm108m: inflow 1.0 L/sec,
pH 8.04, EC 1.87mS/cm
115m: inflow 1.8 L/sec,pH 7.80, EC 1.84
mS/cm121m: inflow 1.8L/sec,
pH 7.85, EC 1.87mS/cm
123m: inflow 1.8 L/sec,pH 8.01, EC 1.85
mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-126m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole4-108m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YGRC095 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
28-Jun-17
TRD
KM/KF
SWL (date):
7361989
339.1
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41713525-Jun-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GRANITE: dark grey, fine to medium grained,equigranular, massive, slightly weathered, ironoxide coats and stains common, pegmatite/quartzveins 11 to 13m and 16 to 17.5m
IRONSTONE & GRANITE: brown, magnetic, majoriron staining and coats
GRANITE: dark grey to black, fine to mediumgrained, equigranular, commonly gneissic, freshfrom 32m, quartz veins 36 to 38m
PEGMATITE/QUARTZ VEIN, pink and creamblack, fine grained quartz, pink feldspar and mica,slightly weathered, massive, iron oxide throughout
PHOSCORITE: black and cream, massive, stronglymagnetic, quarttz, phlogopite/muscovite, ironoxides throughoutIRONSTONE: dark brown, fine to medium grainediron oxides, magnetic, distinctly weathered
GRANITE: dark grey green, fine to coarse grained,porphyritic to equigranular, fresh, quartz vein 75 to76m
GRANITE GNEISS: black, fine to medium grained,equigranular, fresh, quartz vein 92 to 95m
53m: minor flow
66m: inflow 0.2 L/sec,pH 7.88, EC 1.86
mS/cm72m: inflow 0.2 L/sec,
pH 7.86, EC 1.84mS/cm
82m: inflow 0.1 L/sec,pH 7.74, EC 1.92
mS/cm88m: inflow 0.1 L/sec,
pH 7.97, EC 1.86mS/cm
96m: inflow 0.9 L/sec,pH 7.95, EC 1.80
mS/cm102m: inflow 0.5 L/sec,
pH 7.98, EC 1.80mS/cm
108m: inflow 1.0 L/sec,pH 7.97, EC 1.70
mS/cm
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YGRC096 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
06-Jul-17
TRD
DMT/TBR
SWL (date):
7362161
339.3
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41721203-Jul-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: light to dark grey, slightly weathered,fine to medium grained, equigranular matrix withcommon feldspar phenocrysts, commonly foliated,30% quartz from 11 to 12m, trace iron oxide coatsand stains 12 to 66m, fracture 62 to 64m, maficincreasing
Granite as above but sample brown grey withironstone and mostly fine chips, water brown andgreatly reduced flow. Fracture zone and/ormineralised zone.
GRANITE: dark grey, fresh, fine to mediumgrained, equigranular matrix with common feldsparphenocrysts, mafics increased, commonly foliated,significant iron oxide coats and stains, fracturezone 67 to 72m, 74 to 75m, 91 to 92m, 110 to 112m
IRONSTONE and GRANITE: brown, ironstone 50%of sample, magnetic, major iron staining and coats,mineralisation and/or fracture zoneGRANITE: dark green grey, fresh to slighltyweathered, fine to course, equigranular matrix withcommon feldspar phenocrysts, fractured with ironoxide coats and stains throughout, driller reportedcavity 123 to 124m.
30m minor inflow
48m inflow: 0.04 L/sec,pH 8.01, EC 1.28
mS/cm54m inflow: 0.05 L/sec,pH 7.95, EC 1.2 mS/cm
60m inflow: 0.15 L/sec,pH 8.07, EC 1.28
mS/cm66m inflow: 0.3 L/sec,pH 8.1, EC 1.34 mS/cm
72m inflow: 0.2 L/sec,EC mS/cm
78m inflow: 0.2 L/sec,pH 8.09, EC 1.4 mS/cm
84m inflow: 0.5 L/sec,pH 7.84, EC 1.34
mS/cm90m inflow: 0.1 L/sec,
pH 8.05, EC 1.42mS/cm
96m inflow: 0.4 L/sec,pH 7.86, EC 1.36
mS/cm102m inflow: 0.5 L/sec,
pH 7.82, EC 1.36mS/cm
108m inflow: 0.7 L/sec,pH 7.83, EC 1.36
mS/cm114m inflow: 1.1 L/sec,
pH 7.94, EC 1.44mS/cm
120m inflow: 3.1 L/sec,pH 7.94, EC 1.63
mS/cm126m inflow: 1.3 L/sec,
pH 7.85, EC 1.72mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-126m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YWRC075 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
01-Jul-17
TRD
DMT/TBR
SWL (date):
7362889
336.4
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41588530-Jun-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 GRANITE: grey brown, very fine to coarse grained,equigranular, distinctly weathered, 40% Iron oxides
GRANITE: dark grey, fine to medium grained,equigranular, fresh, quartz veins 25 to 28m, 35.5 to36m, 44 to 46m, 47 to 50m
Fracture zone in granite, significant iron oxidecoats and stains
GRANITE: green grey, fine to mediumgrained,equigranular, fresh, quartz veins 65 to66m, 69 to 71m, 72 to 73m, 75 to 76m, 91 to 95m,96 to 97m
28m: minor inflow
36m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.05, EC 1.35 mS/cm
47m: 0.1 L/sec, pH8.05, EC 1.35 mS/cm
54m: 0.2 L/sec, pH8.12, EC 1.34 mS/cm
60m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.90, EC 1.39 mS/cm
66m: 0.7 L/sec, pH7.96, EC 1.38 mS/cm
72m: 0.9 L/sec, pH7.88, EC 1.38 mS/cm
78m: 0.8 L/sec, pH8.06, EC 2.35 mS/cm
84m: 0.6 L/sec, pH7.87, EC 1.85 mS/cm
90m: 1.2 L/sec, pH7.89, EC 1.92 mS/cm
98m: 0.8 L/sec, pH7.80, EC 1.66 mS/cm
+0.1-4m uPVCcollar pipe
4-102m 5.25" inchdiameter RC hole
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YWRC076 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
02-Jul-17
TRD
DMT/TBR
SWL (date):
7363026
335.5
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41619001-Jul-17
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: light to dark grey, slightly weathered,fine to medium grained, equigranular matrix withcommon feldspar phenocrysts, commonly foliated,30% quartz from 11 to 12m, trace iron oxide coatsand stains 12 to 66m, fracture 62 to 64m, maficincreasing
Granite as above but sample brown grey withironstone and mostly fine chips, water brown andgreatly reduced flow. Fracture zone and/ormineralised zone.
GRANITE: dark grey, fresh, fine to mediumgrained, equigranular matrix with common feldsparphenocrysts, mafics increased, commonly foliated,significant iron oxide coats and stains, fracturezone 67 to 72m, 74 to 75m, 91 to 92m, 110 to 112m
IRONSTONE and GRANITE: brown, ironstone 50%of sample, magnetic, major iron staining and coats,mineralisation and/or fracture zoneGRANITE: dark green grey, fresh to slighltyweathered, fine to course, equigranular matrix withcommon feldspar phenocrysts, fractured with ironoxide coats and stains throughout, driller reportedcavity 123 to 124m.
+0.4-2m collar pipe0-6m steel collarsleeve3-5m annularbentonite seal
6-126m 9 inchdiameter air rotarydrill-hole
+0.4-96m 155mmND class 9 uPVCblank casing
+0.2-126m+3.2-6.4mm gradedfilter pack
96-126m 155mmND class 9 uPVCslotted casing
155mm uPVC endcap
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YWWB01 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
22-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7362891
336.4
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41588707-Jul-17
24-Jul-1713.14
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 COLLUVIUM: brown, weathered, after granite
GRANITE: light to dark grey, slightly weathered,fine to medium grained, equigranular matrix withcommon feldspar phenocrysts, commonly foliated,30% quartz from 11 to 12m, trace iron oxide coatsand stains 12 to 47m
0-1m A&B foam plug
+0.55-42m 50mmClass 12 uPVCblank casing
42-48m 50mmClass 12 uPVCslotted casing
PO Box 244 Bayswater WA 693315 Harborne StreetWembley WA 6014Ph: +61 8 9433 2222 Fx: +61 8 9433 2322Email: [email protected]
Depth(m bgl)
Gra
phic
+S
trat
igra
phy
Lithological Description FieldNotes
Bore Construction
ID: JOB NUMBER:
CLIENT: PROJECT:
COMMENCED:
COMPLETED:
DRILLED BY:
LOGGED BY:
INCLINATION:
AZIMUTH:
EASTING:
NORTHING:
ELEVATION:
GRID SYSTEM:
YWMB01 J1709
Hastings Technology Metals Ltd Yangibana DFS
23-Jul-17
TRD
KM
SWL (date):
7362895
336.7
MGA z50
90 degrees
degrees0
mbtoc ( )
41588123-Jul-17
24-Jul-1713.56
J1709R01 April 2018
F1
APPENDIX F
Laboratory Certificates
Date Reported
Contact
SGS Perth Environmental
28 Reid Rd
Perth Airport WA 6105
Ros Ma
(08) 9373 3500
(08) 9373 3556
1
SGS Reference
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Manager
Laboratory
J160014
Yangibana
9433 2322
9433 2222
PO Box 8110 Fremantle High Street, Fremantle,
WA, 6160
23 Parry Street
Fremantle 6160
KARDINYA WA
Groundwater Resource Management
Kathy Garnett
Samples
Order Number
Project
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
02 Dec 2016
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112242 R0
23 Nov 2016Date Received
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(898/20210).
For determination of soluble metals, filtered sample was not received so samples were laboratory filtered on receipt. This may give soluble metals
results that do not represent the concentrations present at the time of sampling.
Metals: Dissolved: Spike recovery failed due to the presence of significant concentration of the target analyte (i.e. the concentration of analyte
exceed spike level).
COMMENTS
Donald Smith
Chemist
Louise Hope
Laboratory Technician
Mary Ann Ola-A
Inorganics Team Leader
Michael McKay
Inorganics and ARD Supervisor
Tommy Cheng
ICP Chemist
SIGNATORIES
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Environment, Health and Safety 28 Reid Rd
PO Box 32
Perth Airport WA 6105
Welshpool WA 6983
Australia
Australia
t +61 8 9373 3500
f +61 8 9373 3556
www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
Page 1 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112242.001
Water
06 Nov 2016
FRWI
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Date
Sample Name
pH in water Method: AN101 Tested: 23/11/2016
pH** pH Units - 8.5
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: AN106 Tested: 23/11/2016
Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 2100
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: AN113 Tested: 30/11/2016
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C mg/L 10 1200
Alkalinity Method: AN135 Tested: 23/11/2016
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 mg/L 1 11
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 mg/L 5 280
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: AN274 Tested: 25/11/2016
Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 380
Sulphate in water Method: AN275 Tested: 25/11/2016
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 160
Page 2 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112242.001
Water
06 Nov 2016
FRWI
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Date
Sample Name
Nitrate Nitrogen and Nitrite Nitrogen (NOx) by FIA Method: AN258 Tested: 28/11/2016
Nitrate Nitrogen, NO₃ as N mg/L 0.05 9.1
Nitrite, NO₂ as NO₂ mg/L 0.2 <0.2
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: AN320/AN321 Tested: 30/11/2016
Calcium, Ca mg/L 0.2 72
Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 67
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 9.5
Silica, Soluble mg/L 0.05 52
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 230
Total Hardness by Calculation mg CaCO3/L 1 460
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: AN318 Tested: 29/11/2016
Aluminium, Al µg/L 5 <5
Manganese, Mn µg/L 1 <1
Selenium, Se µg/L 1 4
Trace Metals (Total) in Water by ICPMS Method: AN022/AN318 Tested: 25/11/2016
Total Iron µg/L 5 73
Page 3 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
MB
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 LB125163 mg/L 1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 LB125163 mg/L 5 <5
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Chloride, Cl LB125188 mg/L 1 <1 0 - 1% 102 - 105% 89 - 103%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Conductivity @ 25 C LB125162 µS/cm 2 <2 0% 99 - 101%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Calcium, Ca LB125348 mg/L 0.2 <0.2 4% 94 - 97% 104%
Magnesium, Mg LB125348 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 3% 91 - 94% -507%
Potassium, K LB125348 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 3% 95 - 96% -115%
Silica, Soluble LB125348 mg/L 0.05 <0.05
Sodium, Na LB125348 mg/L 0.5 <0.5 5% 99 - 101% 10290%
Total Hardness by Calculation LB125348 mg CaCO3/L 1 <1
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Nitrate Nitrogen and Nitrite Nitrogen (NOx) by FIA Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN258
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Nitrate Nitrogen, NO₃ as N LB125253 mg/L 0.05 <0.05 0 - 44% NA
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 4 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
pH in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
pH** LB125162 pH Units - 6.0 - 6.2 0 - 1% 101%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Sulphate, SO4 LB125188 mg/L 1 <1 0 - 1% 102 - 106% 100 - 102%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN113
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
MSD %RPD
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C LB125237 mg/L 10 <10 1 - 6% 96% 95% 1%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
MB LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Aluminium, Al LB125311 µg/L 5 <5 81% 99%
Manganese, Mn LB125311 µg/L 1 <1 97% 101%
Selenium, Se LB125311 µg/L 1 <1 114% 122%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Trace Metals (Total) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN022/AN318
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Total Iron LB125178 µg/L 5 <5 4% 86% 251%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 5 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
Nitrate and Nitrite by FIA: 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.
Following acid digestion of un filtered sample, determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS
technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.
AN022/AN318
pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode (glass plus
reference electrode) and is calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, an extract with water is
made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA 4500-H+.
AN101
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: 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. Total Dissolved Salts can be estimated from conductivity
using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. SGS use 0.6. Reference APHA
2510 B.
AN106
Total Dissolved Solids: 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.
AN113
This method is used to calculation the balance of major Anions and Cations in water samples and converts major
ion concentration to milliequivalents and then summed. Anions sum and Cation sum is calculated as a difference
and expressed as a percentage.
AN121
The sum of cations and anions in mg/L may also be reported. This sums Na, K, Ca, Mg, NH3, Fe, Cl, Total
Alkalinity, SO4 and NO3.
AN121
Alkalinity (and forms of) by Titration: 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
AN135
Chloride by Aquakem DA: 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-
AN274
sulfate by Aquakem DA: sulfate 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 sulfate
concentration in the sample. Reference APHA 4500-SO42-. Internal reference AN275.
AN275
Determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.AN318
Metals by ICP-OES: Samples are preserved with 10% nitric acid for a wide range of metals and some non-metals.
This solution is measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma. 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 .
AN320/AN321
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.
AN320/AN321
Free and Total Carbon Dioxide may be calculated using alkalinity forms only when the samples TDS is <500mg/L.
If TDS is >500mg/L free or total carbon dioxide cannot be reported . APHA4500CO2 D.
Calculation
Page 6 of 702-December-2016
PE112242 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf
This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues
defined therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's 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
a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
IS
LNR
*
**
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
NATA accreditation does not cover the
performance of this service.
Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.
FOOTNOTES
LOR
↑↓
QFH
QFL
-
NVL
Limit of Reporting
Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting
QC result is above the upper tolerance
QC result is below the lower tolerance
The sample was not analysed for this analyte
Not Validated
Page 7 of 702-December-2016
Accreditation No. 2562
Date Reported
Contact
SGS Perth Environmental
28 Reid Rd
Perth Airport WA 6105
Ros Ma
(08) 9373 3500
(08) 9373 3556
1
SGS Reference
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Manager
Laboratory
J160014
Yangibana
9433 2322
9433 2222
PO Box 8110 Fremantle High Street, Fremantle,
WA, 6160
23 Parry Street
Fremantle 6160
KARDINYA WA
Groundwater Resource Management
Kathy McDougall
Samples
Order Number
Project
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
05 Jan 2017
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112957 R0
21 Dec 2016Date Received
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(898/20210).
COMMENTS
Donald Smith
Chemist
Hue Thanh Ly
Metals Team Leader
Michael McKay
Inorganics and ARD Supervisor
SIGNATORIES
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Environment, Health and Safety 28 Reid Rd
PO Box 32
Perth Airport WA 6105
Welshpool WA 6983
Australia
Australia
t +61 8 9373 3500
f +61 8 9373 3556
www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
Page 1 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112957.001
Water
BHW5
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Name
pH in water Method: AN101 Tested: 21/12/2016
pH** pH Units 0.1 8.0
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: AN106 Tested: 21/12/2016
Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 1900
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: AN113 Tested: 3/1/2017
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C mg/L 10 1000
Alkalinity Method: AN135 Tested: 21/12/2016
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 mg/L 1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 mg/L 5 <5
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: AN274 Tested: 22/12/2016
Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 330
Sulphate in water Method: AN275 Tested: 22/12/2016
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 100
Page 2 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE112957.001
Water
BHW5
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Name
Low Level Nitrate Nitrogen and Nitrite Nitrogen (NOx) by FIA Method: AN258 Tested: 22/12/2016
Nitrate, NO₃ as NO₃ mg/L 0.05 65
Nitrite, NO₂ as NO₂ mg/L 0.05 <0.05
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: AN320/AN321 Tested: 21/12/2016
Calcium, Ca mg/L 0.2 81
Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 51
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 9.0
Silica, Soluble mg/L 0.05 72
Silicon, Si mg/L 0.02 34
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 240
Total Hardness by Calculation mg CaCO3/L 1 410
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: AN318 Tested: 21/12/2016
Aluminium, Al µg/L 5 <5
Iron, Fe µg/L 5 9
Manganese, Mn µg/L 1 <1
Selenium, Se µg/L 1 7
Page 3 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
MB
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 LB126339 mg/L 1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 LB126339 mg/L 5 <5
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Chloride, Cl LB126336 mg/L 1 <1 1% 102 - 103% 80 - 96%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
Conductivity @ 25 C LB126337 µS/cm 2 <2 0 - 2% 96 - 99%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Low Level Nitrate Nitrogen and Nitrite Nitrogen (NOx) by FIA Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN258
MB
Nitrate, NO₃ as NO₃ LB126342 mg/L 0.05 <0.05
Nitrite, NO₂ as NO₂ LB126342 mg/L 0.05 <0.05
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Calcium, Ca LB126304 mg/L 0.2 <0.2 1 - 3% 95% 92%
Magnesium, Mg LB126304 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 0 - 3% 98% 93%
Potassium, K LB126304 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 0 - 3% 95% 87%
Silica, Soluble LB126304 mg/L 0.05 <0.05
Silicon, Si LB126304 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 0% 103%
Sodium, Na LB126304 mg/L 0.5 <0.5 1 - 4% 108% 100%
Total Hardness by Calculation LB126304 mg CaCO3/L 1 <1
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 4 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
pH in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
pH** LB126337 pH Units 0.1 5.7 - 6.0 0 - 1% 100 - 101%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Sulphate, SO4 LB126336 mg/L 1 <1 0 - 2% 98 - 99% 90 - 94%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN113
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
MSD %RPD
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C LB126510 mg/L 10 <10 0 - 2% 89% 101% 3%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Aluminium, Al LB126303 µg/L 5 <5 0% 99% 107%
Iron, Fe LB126303 µg/L 5 <5 7% 103% 109%
Manganese, Mn LB126303 µg/L 1 <1 0% 100% 105%
Selenium, Se LB126303 µg/L 1 <1 0% 107%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 5 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode (glass plus
reference electrode) and is calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, an extract with water is
made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA 4500-H+.
AN101
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: 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. Total Dissolved Salts can be estimated from conductivity
using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. SGS use 0.6. Reference APHA
2510 B.
AN106
Total Dissolved Solids: 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.
AN113
Alkalinity (and forms of) by Titration: 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
AN135
Nitrate and Nitrite by FIA: 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.
AN258
Chloride by Aquakem DA: 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-
AN274
sulfate by Aquakem DA: sulfate 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 sulfate
concentration in the sample. Reference APHA 4500-SO42-. Internal reference AN275.
AN275
Determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.AN318
Metals by ICP-OES: Samples are preserved with 10% nitric acid for a wide range of metals and some non-metals.
This solution is measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma. 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 .
AN320/AN321
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.
AN320/AN321
Free and Total Carbon Dioxide may be calculated using alkalinity forms only when the samples TDS is <500mg/L.
If TDS is >500mg/L free or total carbon dioxide cannot be reported . APHA4500CO2 D.
Calculation
Page 6 of 705-January-2017
PE112957 R0
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf
This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues
defined therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's 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
a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
IS
LNR
*
**
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
NATA accreditation does not cover the
performance of this service.
Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.
FOOTNOTES
LOR
↑↓
QFH
QFL
-
NVL
Limit of Reporting
Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting
QC result is above the upper tolerance
QC result is below the lower tolerance
The sample was not analysed for this analyte
Not Validated
Page 7 of 705-January-2017
Accreditation No. 2562
Date Reported
Contact
SGS Perth Environmental
28 Reid Rd
Perth Airport WA 6105
Ros Ma
(08) 9373 3500
(08) 9373 3556
2
SGS Reference
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Manager
Laboratory
J1709
Yangibona
9433 2322
9433 2222
PO Box 8110 Fremantle High Street, Fremantle,
WA, 6160
23 Parry Street
Fremantle 6160
KARDINYA WA
Groundwater Resource Management
Kathy McDougall
Samples
Order Number
Project
Facsimile
Telephone
Address
Client
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
27 Sep 2017
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE119413 R0
14 Sep 2017Date Received
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(898/20210).
For determination of soluble metals, filtered sample was not received for HYRCO3 so samples were laboratory subsamples and filtered on
receipt. This may give soluble metals results that do not represent the concentrations present at the time of sampling.
All metals subcontracted to SGS Perth Minerals, 28 Reid Rd Perth Airport WA, NATA Accreditation Number 1936, WM179032.
COMMENTS
Louise Hope
Laboratory Technician
Rachel Harrison
Inorganics Team Leader
Shino Pecoult
Laboratory Technician
SIGNATORIES
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278
Environment, Health and Safety 28 Reid Rd
PO Box 32
Perth Airport WA 6105
Welshpool WA 6983
Australia
Australia
t +61 8 9373 3500
f +61 8 9373 3556
www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
Page 1 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE119413.001
Water
YWWB01
PE119413.002
Water
HYRC03
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Name
pH in water Method: AN101 Tested: 14/9/2017
pH** pH Units 0.1 8.1 7.7
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: AN106 Tested: 14/9/2017
Conductivity @ 25 C µS/cm 2 1200 3900
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: AN113 Tested: 21/9/2017
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C mg/L 10 720 2400
Alkalinity Method: AN135 Tested: 14/9/2017
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 180 280
Hydroxide Alkalinity as OH mg/L 5 <5 <5
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 mg/L 1 <1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 mg/L 5 220 340
Fluoride by Ion Selective Electrode in Water Method: AN141 Tested: 26/9/2017
Fluoride by ISE mg/L 0.1 2.0 1.0
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: AN274 Tested: 26/9/2017
Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 200 870
Page 2 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT
PE119413.001
Water
YWWB01
PE119413.002
Water
HYRC03
Parameter LORUnits
Sample Number
Sample Matrix
Sample Name
Sulfate in water Method: AN275 Tested: 26/9/2017
Sulfate, SO4 mg/L 1 66 300
Sample Subcontracted Method: Tested: 27/9/2017
Sample Subcontracted* No unit - Appended Appended
Page 3 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
MB LCS
%Recovery
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 LB136739 mg/L 5 <5 101%
Hydroxide Alkalinity as OH LB136739 mg/L 5 <5
Carbonate Alkalinity as CO3 LB136739 mg/L 1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as HCO3 LB136739 mg/L 5 <5
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Chloride, Cl LB136832 mg/L 1 <1 0 - 7% 103 - 106% 111%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN106
MB LCS
%Recovery
Conductivity @ 25 C LB136731 µS/cm 2 <2 105%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Fluoride by Ion Selective Electrode in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN141
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Fluoride by ISE LB136808 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 0% 103% 88%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
pH in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN101
MB LCS
%Recovery
pH** LB136731 pH Units 0.1 5.8 100%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Sulfate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
Sulfate, SO4 LB136832 mg/L 1 <1 1 - 7% 98 - 100% 95 - 102%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 4 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN113
MB DUP %RPD LCS
%Recovery
MS
%Recovery
MSD %RPD
Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 175-185°C LB136726 mg/L 10 <10 1% 97% 102% 1%
LORUnits Parameter QC
Reference
Page 5 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
METHOD SUMMARY
pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode (glass plus
reference electrode) and is calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, an extract with water is
made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA 4500-H+.
AN101
Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: 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. Total Dissolved Salts can be estimated from conductivity
using a conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. SGS use 0.6. Reference APHA
2510 B.
AN106
Total Dissolved Solids: 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.
AN113
Alkalinity (and forms of) by Titration: 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
AN135
Determination of Fluoride by ISE: 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.
AN141
Chloride by Aquakem DA: 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-
AN274
sulfate by Aquakem DA: sulfate 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 sulfate
concentration in the sample. Reference APHA 4500-SO42-. Internal reference AN275.
AN275
Free and Total Carbon Dioxide may be calculated using alkalinity forms only when the samples TDS is <500mg/L.
If TDS is >500mg/L free or total carbon dioxide cannot be reported . APHA4500CO2 D.
Calculation
Page 6 of 727-September-2017
PE119413 R0
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf
This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.
Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.
Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's 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 only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or
falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
IS
LNR
*
**
Insufficient sample for analysis.
Sample listed, but not received.
NATA accreditation does not cover the
performance of this service.
Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.
FOOTNOTES
LOR
↑↓
QFH
QFL
-
NVL
Limit of Reporting
Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting
QC result is above the upper tolerance
QC result is below the lower tolerance
The sample was not analysed for this analyte
Not Validated
Page 7 of 727-September-2017
J1709R01 April 2018
G1
APPENDIX G
Isotope Analysis
To Kathy McDougall (Senior Hydrogeologist) Groundwater Resource Management
Date 27/07/2017
From Karina Meredith, Senior Research Scientist (ANSTO)
Subject The interpretation of 5 tritium samples for groundwater in Western Australia.
Introduction This memo was prepared by Dr Karina Meredith from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Environment Theme, for Groundwater Resource Management (GRM). The memo outlines the groundwater dating methodology using tritium and provides comment on the groundwater residence time of five groundwater samples that were analysed at ANSTO on 04-July-2017. The major limitation of this assessment is that the interpretation was based entirely on five tritium (3H) samples with no other supporting hydrochemical or hydrogeological background information.
Groundwater residence time assessment using tritium Tritium (3H) is a short-lived isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.43 years. It is directly incorporated into the water molecule and can therefore be used to date the water molecule. 3H is produced naturally by cosmic radiation, and up until the 1950s relatively consistent levels of 3H were present in rainfall and subsequently entered surface and groundwater systems. Since the early 1950s, additional 3H was introduced into the atmosphere as a result of open air thermonuclear tests (Fontes, 1980). At its maximum level in 1963, the contribution of anthropogenic 3H to precipitation reached 2-3 orders of magnitude above natural 3H (Fontes, 1980). By 1990, most of the artificial 3H had been washed from the atmosphere with global atmospheric levels returning to values close to natural background levels (Clark and Fritz, 1997). This is particularly the case for the Southern Hemisphere where 3H values in precipitation remain at least one order of magnitude lower than those in the Northern Hemisphere, and in Australia are approaching back ground (Tadros et al, 2014). Tritium can be used for determining whether ‘modern’ recharge exists in groundwater. Due to its short half-life and its natural background levels in the atmosphere, 3H can be used to date groundwaters back to ~60 years. A sample of groundwater will represent a composite of recharge events. Once this groundwater becomes isolated from active recharge, its 3H content will decrease by decay and the 3H concentration will be a function of its residence time in the recharge environment (Clark and Fritz, 1997). The presence of 3H in a groundwater sample can also be used to qualitatively date the water sample, i.e. a measurable 3H activity in a water sample can be equated to a component of modern recharge; therefore its presence in groundwater can provide evidence for recent recharge and conversely its absence implies no recent recharge.
Methodology For 3H analysis, water samples were distilled and electrolytically enriched prior to being analysed by liquid scintillation method. The 3H concentrations were expressed in tritium units (TU) with an uncertainty of ± 0.03 TU and lower limit of detection (LLD) of 0.05 TU. Tritium was measured by
2
counting beta decay events in a liquid scintillation counter (LSC). A 10 ml sample aliquot was mixed with a scintillation compound that releases a photon when struck by a beta particle. Photomultiplier tubes in the counter convert the photons to electrical pulses that are counted over 51 cycles for 20 minutes (see results sheet for full methodology).
Results Of the 5 groundwater samples analysed for 3H in this project, only 1 sample (FRW1_Early) contained measurable 3H above the lower limit of detection 0.05 TU (Table 1). This sample was collected at the start of pumping. The final sample FRW1_Late was taken 48 hours after pumping the well and did not contain any measurable 3H. This result suggests that the groundwater from this well contained no modern water (i.e. contains water older than 60 years old). This seems likely when considering the groundwater was abstracted from a well with a slotted interval located 71.2 to 95.2m below ground level. Because the 3H concentration changes after pumping, this suggests the well is accessing older water. Possible reasons for this change in 3H could include: a) that the screen range in the well intercepts both younger and older groundwater but that older groundwater is drawn from higher permeability areas in the aquifer after pumping or b) the well construction has allowed some leakage from the surface or shallower aquifers that has mixed with the deeper groundwater in the vicinity of the screen. All other groundwaters sampled contain no measureable 3H.
Table 1. Tritium concentration at sampling date in tritium units (TU) for groundwaters sampled by GRM and analysed by ANSTOs tritium laboratory (refer to original report for details).
Client Identification Date Sample Collected
Tritium Ratio
Uncertainty1 LLD2
TU TU TU
FRW1 Early 4/11/2016 0.13 0.03 0.05 FRW1 Late 6/11/2016 0.01^ 0.03 0.05 BHW5 Early 9/12/2016 0.05^ 0.03 0.05 BHW5 Late 11/12/2016 0.02^ 0.03 0.05 YGWB3 Late 16/12/2016 0.02^ 0.03 0.05
1. Values reported are combined standard uncertainty, calculated to 1 sigma. A Coverage factor, k, of 2 may be used to calculate Expanded
Uncertainty to 95% confidence.
2. The lower limit of detection (LLD) corresponds to the fractional measurement standard uncertainty (σ(C)/C) of 0.5 [4].
^ This result is below the LLD and therefore has an unacceptable level of uncertainty
Conclusion The lack of 3H in groundwater implies that these groundwaters are not ‘modern’ (i.e. greater than 60 years old) and no recent groundwater recharge has occurred. These results also suggest that when the aquifer is pumped for up to 48 hours, older groundwater migrates into the well. This interpretation is based only on 3H analysis, therefore it is recommended that further hydrochemical and 14C dating is needed to confirm this assessment.
References Clark, I. and P. Fritz (1997). Environmental isotopes in hydrology, Lewis Publishers. pp328. Fontes, J. (1980). Environmental isotopes in hydrogeology. Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry, Elsevier. Tadros, C. V., Hughes, C. E., Crawford, J., Hollins, S. E., & Chisari, R. (2014). Tritium in Australian precipitation: A 50 year record. Journal of hydrology, 513, 262-273.
J1709R01 April 2018
H1
APPENDIX H
Revised Pit Modelling Report
T: (+61 8) 9433 2222 F: (+61 8) 9433 2322 ABN: 97 107 493 292 A: 15 Harborne Street Wembley WA 6014 P: Po Box 442, Bayswater, WA 6933
19 March 2018
J1709L02
Lara Jefferson
Hastings Technology Metals Limited
306 Murray Street
Perth WA 6000
Dear Lara,
Revised Mine Dewatering Modelling
Introduction
Groundwater Resource Management Pty Ltd (GRM) developed a series of three numerical groundwater flow models for the Fraser’s, Bald Hill and Yangibana pits, as part of the Stage I DFS (GRM report J160014R01, dated February 2017).
The Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) has subsequently recommended the use of analytical methods to determine dewatering rates for the Stage II hydrogeological assessment, rather than groundwater flow modelling, due to the inherent limitations of modelling fractured rock systems.
However, given that the models were already developed, Hastings requested that GRM update the models with the revised mining schedule, despite the limitations of the method, to provide an indication of likely drawdown impacts associated with mine dewatering.
The following summarises the revised modelling.
Groundwater Modelling
Two of the three previously constructed groundwater flow models were updated to simulate the impacts upon the groundwater environment from mining below the water table at Fraser’s and Bald Hill. The Yangibana model was not updated, as the deposit has been excluded from the mining schedule.
The models were constructed using the MODFLOW 3D finite‐difference code PMWIN pre‐processor.
The numerical modelling was based upon a conceptual understanding of the groundwater system as provided in the Stage I hydrogeological report (GRM, 2017), developed using the data collected during filed investigations. No calibration data was available. However, sensitivity analyses were run on the initial models to assess the implications of varying hydraulic properties.
The numerical model setup and results are discussed below.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
2
Model Mesh and Layers
The models were constructed using three layers, with Layer 1 (L1) representing the hanging wall bedrock, L2 representing the permeable fractured ironstone, and L3 representing the intact footwall bedrock. The geometry of the layers reflected the conceptual model (GRM, 2017), with L2 outcropping on the northern / western boundaries of the proposed pits and plunging to south / south‐east. The thickness of the L2 was set at a uniform 5 m for Fraser’s and 4 m for Bald Hill.
Alluvium was not represented in the model as it is not known to extend below the water table in the immediate vicinity of the pits.
The model limits were set to about 5 km from the proposed pits, such that interference from regional boundaries would not influence the simulated impacts from dewatering.
The layer slices were constructed from:
Fraser’s Model: 24,975 rectangular cells (225 columns and 111 rows), covering an area of approximately 115 km2. The cell sizes range from 10 m by 10 m in the area of the pit to 500 m by 500 m near the model boundary.
Bald Hill Model: 37,185 rectangular cells (185 columns and 201 rows), covering an area of approximately 120 km2. The cell sizes ranged from 10 m by 10 m in the area of the pits, to 500 by 500 m near the model boundary.
The ambient pre‐mining water level for each model was set at the average ambient water level recorded during the field investigations, namely; 309 mRL for the Fraser’s model and 316 mRL for the Bald Hill model. The lower boundary was set at about 10 m below the base of the proposed pits.
Hydraulic Parameters
Values for hydraulic conductivity and storage were assigned to each layer. The baseline values used for horizontal hydraulic conductivity were based upon the average results of the hydraulic testing analysis presented in the Stage I report (GRM 2017), whilst vertical hydraulic conductivity was set at 10% of the corresponding horizontal conductivity value.
Values for aquifer storage were based upon a combination of the test data, published values (Kruseman and de Ridder 1994) and experience with other modelling studies.
In addition to the baseline simulation, sensitivity analysis was carried out on the original model to assess the impacts from variation in hydraulic parameters. Details relating to the sensitivity analysis are provided in the Stage I report (GRM 2017).
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
3
Table 1: Adopted Baseline Hydraulic Parameters
Pit Model Layer
Baseline Model Parameters
Kh (m/d) Kv (m/d) Sy Ss
Fraser’s
L1 0.012 0.0012 0.01 0.0001
L2 2.5 0.25 0.01 0.0001
L3 0.001 0.0001 0.01 0.0001
Bald Hill
L1 0.03 0.003 0.01 0.0001
L2 5 0.5 0.01 0.0001
L3 0.001 0.0001 0.01 0.0001
Note Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity, Sy = specific yield, Ss = specific storage.
Boundary Conditions and Recharge
All lateral boundaries were designated as constant head boundaries, using the ambient groundwater levels of 309 mRL and 316 mRL for Fraser’s and Bald Hill respectively. A no flow boundary was adopted for the base of the models.
Groundwater recharge was not included in the model given the low hydraulic conductivity of the fresh bedrock and the short project life. This is a conservative approach with respect to drawdown impacts, which will be reduced under recharge conditions. However, the model is not conservative with respect to the dewatering rate, which may show periodic increases in response to rainfall recharge. Though, these increases are expected to be short lived during and immediately after rainfall events.
Mine Dewatering
The mine dewatering strategy adopted for the purpose of modelling comprised:
Two dewatering bores installed into the higher permeability HU2 zone, at Fraser’s and Bald Hill (production bores FRW03 and BHW05).
Sump pumping in both pits.
Mine dewatering was simulated using a combination of MODFLOW’s well and drain packages.
The MODFLOW well package applies pumping rates to the layer model cells associated with the assigned production bore locations. A maximum pumping rate of 6 L/s was applied to FRW03 and 8 L/s to BHW05. For the Fraser’s model this rate was adjusted downward as drawdown was achieved to prevent the model cell drying out and to maintain sufficient drawdown ahead of mining. At Bald Hill BHW05 is now within the revised pit footprint and so the production bore was switched off in the model at the commencement of mining.
The MODFLOW drain package simulates dewatering by sump pumping methods, by allowing flow out of the model domain based upon a drain head elevation and a conductance term. The drain head is equivalent to the elevation of the pit floor, and was adjusted at each stress period to simulate mining progress in the pits.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
4
The drain head elevations used to simulate lowering of the pit floors were based on the revised pit schedules, as provided by Mr Tarrant Ellkington (General Manager, Snowden) by email on 24 November 2017. The schedule comprised maximum pit depths at quarterly increments for the two pits. The schedule indicates that Fraser’s will be mined in year’s 2.5 to 4 and Bald Hill mined in year’s 2 to 6.5.
The conductance term describes the conductivity at this boundary (i.e. the inverse of the resistance to outflow from the model domain). For the numerical models a high conductance value of 20 m2/d was adopted, allowing the water levels in the model drain cells to equilibrate with the fixed head specified for the drain, whilst maintaining sufficient resistance to assist in model convergence.
A summary of the mining schedule as provided by Snowden, is provided in Table 2. The final pit outline as provided by Snowden, is presented in Figure 1.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
5
Table 2: Revised Mining Schedule
Quarter
Fraser’s Bald Hill
FR1 FR2 BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5
4 ‐ ‐ 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
5 ‐ ‐ 345 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
6 335 ‐ 340 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
7 320 350 340 340 ‐ ‐ ‐
8 310 340 335 335 ‐ ‐ ‐
9 305 330 330 330 ‐ ‐ ‐
10 305 325 330 320 ‐ ‐ ‐
11 ‐ 315 ‐ 305 365 ‐ ‐
12 ‐ 305 ‐ 300 350 ‐ ‐
13 ‐ 295 ‐ ‐ 340 ‐ ‐
14 ‐ 285 ‐ ‐ 330 355 ‐
15 ‐ 270 ‐ ‐ 320 345 ‐
16 ‐ 230 ‐ ‐ 315 340 ‐
17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 310 330 ‐
18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 320 ‐
19 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 310 ‐
20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 ‐
21 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 285 ‐
22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 280 340
23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 365 335
24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 365 325
25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 355 315
26 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 235 285
Model Layer Type and Run Time
An unconfined model layer type was used for L1, and confined/unconfined for L2 and L3. The model layers were set to calculate transmissivity.
The model simulations were run for the following periods:
Fraser’s model was run for 4 years representing year’s 1 to 4, and comprising 4 stress periods of 365 days.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
6
Bald Hill model was run for 6.5 years representing year’s 1 to 6.5 and comprising 6 stress periods of 365 days and one stress period of 182.5 days.
Predicted Dewatering Requirements
One model run for each of the two models was undertaken using the expected hydraulic parameter values for each layer. Sensitivity analysis was not repeated for the revised modelling, and further details relating to the original sensitivity analysis is provided in the Stage I report (GRM 2017).
The predicted dewatering requirements for the revised pit runs are presented in Table 3.
The modelling results show the following:
Prior to the pits extending below the water table the two dewatering bores provide a combined 14 L/s.
The highest inflows are reported from the Bald Hill pit, as a result of the larger pit area.
The total combined predicted dewatering rates range from 5.9 L/s in year 5 (upon completion of the Fraser’s pit), to 23.6 L/s in Year 6.
The modelling indicates that a combination of dewatering bores and sump pumping should be a suitable strategy to achieve sufficient drawdown. However additional ex‐pit dewatering bores may need to be considered if inflows are higher than anticipated or difficult to manage, particularly at Bald Hill. Additional dewatering bores would need to be located such that they intercept high yielding structural features which extend beyond the pit perimeter.
It is important to note that the model does not allow for rainfall recharge, which is a conservative modelling approach with regard to drawdown impacts. Increased groundwater inflows following significant rainfall events are likely. For this reason it would be prudent to allow contingency for groundwater inflows of up to 50 L/sec following high rainfall events. Additional contingency will also be necessary to account for surface water inflows (rainfall and runoff) following high rainfall events.
Conversely, recent fractured rock investigations within the Project area (GRM report J1709R01, 2018) has indicated limited storage in the fractured rock aquifers. This may result in significantly lower than anticipated inflows to the pits, particularly towards the latter stages of the LoM, as a result of draining the fractures.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
7
Table 3: Predicted Dewatering Rates
Year
Fraser’s Bald Hill
Combined
Total (L/s) Bore FRW03
(L/s)
Sump
Pumping
(L/s)
Fraser’s
Total (L/s)
Bore BHW05
(L/s)
Sump
Pumping
(L/s)
Bald Hill
Total (L/s)
1 6.0 ‐ 6.0 8.0 ‐ 8.0 14.0
2 6.0 ‐ 6.0 8.0 ‐ 8.0 14.0
3 6.0 ‐ 6.3 8.0 ‐ 8.0 14.3
4 3.0 7.2 10.2 ‐ 5.0 5.0 15.2
5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.9 5.9 5.9
6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 23.6 23.6 23.6
7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21.9 21.9 21.9
Predicted Groundwater Drawdown
The predicted groundwater level drawdown for the baseline runs at the end of mining are presented as contour plots in Figure 1. The plot shows the following:
The asymmetrical drawdown reflects the geometry of the aquifer, with the steep hydraulic gradient corresponding to the ironstone extending above the water table, whilst the drawdown propagates along strike and down‐dip of the ironstone aquifer.
At the end of mining the predicted 5 m drawdown contour extends up to 1.5 km from the pit perimeter at Fraser’s and 1.8 km from the pit perimeter at Bald Hill.
Steep hydraulic gradients are predicted in the fresh basement (HU3) beyond the outcropping ironstone, with the 5 m contour extending only about 500 m from the pit perimeter.
The groundwater drawdown contours suggest that other groundwater users in the area are not expected to be impacted by dewatering (Figure 1). The nearest identified other groundwater user (Fraser Well) is located 3.9 km from the predicted 5 m drawdown contour.
ATTN: Lara Jefferson J1709L02 March 2018
8
Yours sincerely,
Kathy McDougall
PRINCIPAL HYDROGEOLOGIST
Attachment: Figure 1 Model Simulated Drawdown Contours End of Mining
Doc Ref: J1709L02
5 m
5 m
10 m
10 m
15 m
BHW05
FRW03
FRASER WELL F1
424,000 425,000 426,000 427,000 428,000 429,000 430,000 431,000 432,000
Easting (MGA94 Zone 50)
7,348,000
7,349,000
7,350,000
7,351,000
7,352,000
7,353,000
7,354,000
7,355,000
7,356,000
7,357,000
7,358,000
7,359,000
7,360,000N
orth
ing
(MG
A94
Zon
e 50
)
LEGEND
Simulated Drawdown ContousEnd of Mining
Production Bore
Proposed Pits
Other Groundwater Users
5 m
5 m
5 m
BALD HILL
FRASER'S
