CMS16331 Referral Appendix 13 Geotechnical Assessment of Kundip Mine Site

PETER O’BRYAN & Associates
Consultants in Mining Geomechanics

11 Southport Street LEEDERVILLE WA 6007
PO Box 1157 WEST LEEDERVILLE WA 6901
Tel: (08) 9388 7070 Fax: (08) 9388 7171
A division of WBG Pty Ltd ABN 94 082 091 236
In association with:
George, Orr and Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd
Alan Thompson Geotechnology Pty Ltd
Peter Clifton & Associates
PHILLIPS RIVER PROJECT

FEASIBILITY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
KUNDIP DEPOSITS
REPORT 09053D
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Tectonic Resources NL John Keogh
Phillips River Project Peter O’Bryan
Unit 46, 328 Albany HWY December 2010
VICTORIA PARK WA 6100
Tectonic Resources NL – Phillips River 09053D
Kundip Geotechnical Assessment -i- December 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 KAOLIN AND HILLSBOROUGH........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 PREVIOUS MINING .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 PROPOSED MINING ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 GROUND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.4.1 Geotechnical Logging ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.4.2 Rock Weathering ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.3 Rock Quality...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.4 Rock Strength .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.5 Rock Stress ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.4.6 Hydrogeology.................................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.7 Rock Defects...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.8 Mining Rock Mass Rating Scheme .................................................................................................. 10
2.4.9 Q-System Classification .................................................................................................................. 11
2.5 OPEN PIT MINING ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.6 UNDERGROUND MINING....................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.1 Mining Methods .............................................................................................................................. 18
2.6.2 Room and Pillar Mining.................................................................................................................. 18
2.6.3 Longhole Open Stoping................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.4 Pillar Design ................................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.5 Mine Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.6 Ground Support and Reinforcement................................................................................................ 19
3.0 HARBOUR VIEW ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 PREVIOUS MINING EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3 PROPOSED MINING ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.4 GROUND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.1 Geotechnical Logging ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.2 Rock Weathering ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.4.3 Rock Quality.................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.4 Rock Strength .................................................................................................................................. 26
3.4.5 Rock Stress ...................................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.6 Hydrogeology.................................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.7 Rock Defects.................................................................................................................................... 27
3.5 OPEN PIT MINING ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.6.1 Mining Methods .............................................................................................................................. 38
3.6.3 Pillar Design ................................................................................................................................... 38
4.0 FLAG DEPOSIT.................................................................................................................................... 42
4.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 42
4.2 PREVIOUS MINING EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................................... 42
4.3 PROPOSED MINING ............................................................................................................................... 42
4.4 GROUND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.1 Geotechnical Logging ..................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2 Rock Weathering ............................................................................................................................. 45
4.4.3 Rock Quality.................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.4 Rock Strength .................................................................................................................................. 46
PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

Kundip Geotechnical Assessment - ii - December 2010
4.4.5 Rock Stress ...................................................................................................................................... 47

4.4.6 Hydrology........................................................................................................................................ 47
4.4.7 Rock Defects.................................................................................................................................... 47
4.5 OPEN PIT MINING ................................................................................................................................. 55
4.6.1 Mining Methods .............................................................................................................................. 56
4.6.3 Pillar Design ................................................................................................................................... 56
5.0 FURTHER WORK................................................................................................................................ 59
5.1 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 59
5.2 MONITORING ........................................................................................................................................ 59
5.3 GROUND CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................ 59
5.4 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 60
6.0 CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 61
7.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 62
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Development Sizes and Minimum Ground Support Specifications .................... 5
Table 2 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Kaolin and Hillsborough......................................... 5
Table 3 Fracture Frequency & RQD - According to Weathering for Kaolin and Hillsborough ...... 6
Table 4 Summary of Rock Property Results for Kaolin and Hillsborough ...................................... 7
Table 5 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Kaolin and Hillsborough............ 8
Table 6 Summary of Major Defect Set Orientations Identified at Kaolin and Hillsborough ........... 9
Table 7 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Kaolin and Hillsborough ........................................... 10
Table 8 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating - Kaolin & Hillsborough Pit Walls.................... 12
Table 9 Geotechnical Domains Assessed for Kaolin using the Q-System ..................................... 12
Table 10 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Kaolin Domains............................................. 14
Table 11 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Kaolin - Q-System Design Chart ............... 15
Table 12 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Kaolin................................................ 16
Table 13 Base case slope design parameters (inferred likely rock mass conditions) for Kaolin &
Hillsborough Open Pits..................................................................................................... 17
Table 14 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Kaolin ................................................... 22
Table 15 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Harbour View ....................................................... 25
Table 16 Fracture Frequency & RQD Ranges According to Weathering for Harbour View........... 26
Table 17 Summary of Rock Property Results for Harbour View..................................................... 27
Table 18 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Harbour View .......................... 28
Table 19 Summary of Major Rock Defect Orientations Identified at Harbour View ...................... 29
Table 20 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Harbour View............................................................ 29
Table 21 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating Assessment for Harbour View Open Pit Walls . 31
Table 22 Geotechnical Domains Assessed for Harbour View using the Q-System......................... 32

Kundip Geotechnical Assessment - iii - December 2010
Table 23 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Harbour View Domains ................................ 34
Table 24 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Harbour View According to Q-System
Design Chart ..................................................................................................................... 35
Table 25 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Harbour View.................................... 36
Table 26 Base case design parameters (likely rock mass conditions) Harbour View Open Pit....... 37
Table 27 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Harbour View ....................................... 41
Table 28 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Flag ....................................................................... 45
Table 29 Fracture Frequency & RQD Ranges According to Weathering ........................................ 46
Table 30 Summary of Rock Property Results for Flag .................................................................... 46
Table 31 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Flag .......................................... 48
Table 32 Summary of Major Rock Defect Orientations Identified at Flag ..................................... 49
Table 33 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Flag............................................................................ 49
Table 34 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating Assessment for Flag Open Pit Walls ................. 50
Table 35 Geotechnical Domains Assessed using the Q-System for Flag......................................... 51
Table 36 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Flag Domains ................................................ 53
Table 37 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Flag - Q-System Design Chart ................... 54
Table 38 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Flag ................................................... 54
Table 39 Base case wall design parameters (likely rock mass conditions) for Flag Open Pit ......... 55
Table 40 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Flag ....................................................... 58
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Summary Borehole Logs – Excel Format
Appendix B Stereographic Projections – DIPS Plots
Appendix C MRMR and Slope Calculations
Appendix D Stability Graph Method Calculations
Appendix E Ground Support and Reinforcement Designs

Kundip Geotechnical Assessment -1- December 2010
1.0 Introduction
This report presents a feasibility level geotechnical assessment of ground conditions influencing the
stability of proposed open pits and underground mines at the Kaolin, Hillsborough, Harbour View and
Flag Deposits (Kundip Deposits) at Tectonic Resources NL (Tectonic), Phillips River Project, located
between Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun, Western Australia.
Recommendations are provided to enable mine designs to be prepared including:
à Bench heights, batter angles, berm widths and overall slope angles for the open pits.
à Stope and pillar dimensions and development ground support requirements for the
underground mines.
The work was carried out at the request of Mr Bruce Armstrong, Senior Project Geologist, for
Tectonic.
1.1 Sources of Information

Comments and recommendations provided in this report are based on:
à Discussions and correspondence variously and severally with Messrs Steven Norregaard,
Managing Director; Andy Czerw, Operations Director and Bruce Armstrong, Senior Project
Geologist all of Tectonic and Geoffrey Davidson, Principal Mining Engineer of Mining and
Cost Engineering Pty Ltd (M&C Engineering), Mining Consultant to Tectonic.
à Review of internal Tectonic documents concerning:
Previous mining experience within the original underground mines at Kundip (Phillips
River). This document 1 was prepared by Mr Robert Walker (formerly of Tectonic) and
was available from a previous mining study.
Proposed mining strategy 2 for the Phillips River Deposits.
à Consideration of the findings and recommendations of previous geotechnical assessments 1, .2
of ground conditions and mining at Phillips River. The geotechnical data collected from these
previous assessments by Peter O’Bryan & Associates (POB) and Tectonic were combined
with the current assessments into a series of Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheets.
à Summary geotechnical logging of selected portions of surface exploration and geotechnical
boreholes to assess fundamental geotechnical conditions, and variations thereof, within the
proposed open pit walls and underground mining areas.
à Stereographic analysis of rock defect data collected by Tectonic Exploration Geologists
(provided in electronic format). Analysis was carried out using the DIPS 5 software program.
à Assessment, based on borehole cores, of rock mass quality and competence using the:
The Rock Mass Rating 6 (RMR) and the Mining Rock Mass Rating Scheme 7 (MRMR) to
characterise ground within proposed open pit walls. A method 8 based on the MRMR
scheme was used to assess base case wall design parameters.
Q System developed by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute 9, 10. The Modified
Stability Graph Method 11, which utilises a modified Q-Value, was used to make a
preliminary estimate of potential stable stope spans.
à Review of digital photographs and hardcopy prints of borehole core supplied by Tectonic.
à Results12 of Uniaxial Compressive Strength testing undertaken on borehole cores recovered
from the most recent diamond drilling campaign. The testing was performed by Fenixx
Australia Pty Ltd, Perth.

à A series of cross sections and longsections at 1:500 scale for each of the deposits showing:
Diamond drill hole traces with Rock Quality Designation (RQD), fracture frequency, rock
strength and hardness per metre interval plotted.
The interpreted weathering profile and positions of ore lodes.
Open pit optimisations from the previous mining study
à On-screen review in SURPAC of preliminary open pit and underground mine designs for the
current study.
à Review of a consultant’s hydrological investigation report 13 provided by Tectonic.
à Consideration of previous experience in investigation, assessment and review of stability
performance of open pit walls and underground opening in similar ground conditions to those
found at Phillips River.

2.0 Kaolin and Hillsborough
2.1 Geology
The following summary of the Kaolin and Hillsborough local geology is based on information
supplied by Tectonic 2.
The Kaolin deposit is hosted within altered felsic rocks which form part of the Annabelle
Volcanics. The sequence in this area is dominated by dacite tuffs and porphyries. The intense
kaolin alteration that occurs in the upper levels of the deposit is thought to have resulted from
the intrusion of the Kundip Granodiorite. This intense alteration has destroyed much of the
primary rock textures. Numerous raft / sill like bodies have been intersected in the drilling
with the bottom of many of the deeper holes terminating in the granodiorite.
East-west striking, southerly dipping granitic rocks have been intersected in boreholes at
depths of 90 to 200m in the Gem and Hillsborough areas. The nature and relationship of
these granitic occurrences is not known. Microdiorite (and dolerite) dykes crop out near the
Beryl Mine. These dykes have been intersected by diamond drilling along the Harbour View
line and are not considered to be co-magmatic to the volcanic dykes, as they postdate the
granitic rocks.
There are four main stacked lodes at Kaolin with numerous other less extensive lodes also
identified. The lodes dip at between 20-40° toward the South. The mineralisation is almost
always associated with some form of dilation quartz vein and encapsulating alteration halo.
There is some evidence from the trial mining in the oxide zone that supergene effects have
spread lower grade gold values outside of these primary alteration halos.
Kaolin alteration dominates the country rock in the upper levels of the deposit, which is
thought to have resulted from the intrusion of a large granodiorite at depth.
2.2 Previous Mining

Observations of general mine and stope stability performance in existing underground workings in the
Kundip (Phillips River) area are summarised in a document 1 prepared by Mr Robert Walker
(formerly) of Tectonic. Mr Walker has actual mining experience (as Miner-Mine Owner) at Kundip
between 1969 and the mid-1990s. During this period Mr Walker inspected the majority of the old
mine workings in the area, some of which date back to the early 1900s.
Key observations listed in the Tectonic document relating to Kaolin are that:
à The lodes are generally narrow and occur within annealed fault/ shear zones.
à Ground conditions are generally favourable; however wedge style failure did occur locally
due to the unfavourable intersection of geological structures.
à The lodes mined were typically < 50m along strike, and tended to pinch and swell.
à Stoping blocks of up to ~ 30m long were mined by Tributers in the 1940s. These miners did
not install timbers to support stope hangingwalls.
à Observations made during more recent mining (1987-89) found that voids left by Tributers
remained open.

2.3 Proposed Mining

Tectonic is planning to develop an ∼ 900m long x 300m wide open pit on the Kaolin and Hillsborough
Lodes (Figure 1). The mining will be undertaken in two stages commencing with excavation of an
∼ 90m to 100m deep open pit at Kaolin. The Hillsborough Open Pit will be commenced toward the
end of mining on Kaolin, and will be excavated to a depth of ∼ 60m to 80m below surface (mbs).
Kaolin Pit
Hillsborough Pit
Portal
Kaolin Underground
Historical Underground
workings
N
Historical Underground workings
Kaolin Pit
Hillsborough Pit
Portal
Hillsborough
Underground
Kaolin
Underground N
Figure 1 Proposed Mine Designs for Kaolin and Hillsborough

The proposed underground will be accessed via a Portal developed into the 915-930mRL batter in the
south-western corner of the Kaolin Open Pit. Decline development is planned to be advanced towards
the north-east and south-west to access the Kaolin and Hillsborough Lodes respectively. The
uppermost sector of the decline will be within the hangingwall of the lodes, however, it will cross the
mine sequence into the footwall rocks at several places to optimise access to the lodes.

The steeply dipping Hillsborough Lode is planned to be extracted by longhole open stoping (LHOS)
methods while the shallow to moderate dipping Kaolin Lode is planned to be extracted by room and
pillar mining, predominantly via hand held mining techniques.
Tectonic is currently planning to exhaust mine air at the Kaolin end of the open pit via a sub-
horizontal ventilation drive that will intersect the 925– 940mRL batter in the north-eastern sector of
the open pit. The Hillsborough stoping area is designed to be exhausted by an ∼ 60m long shaft
designed to intersect the 955mRL berm on the open pit northern wall.
Development sizes and ground support specifications proposed by Tectonic for Kaolin and the other
underground mines are as listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Proposed Development Sizes and Minimum Ground Support Specifications
Development Type Dimensions

Ground Support Specifications
Width x Height
3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets & 2.4m long, 46mm

Declines & Ore Accesses 4.0m x 4.0m
diameter friction bolts
3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets & 1.8m long, 46mm

Ore Drives – Jumbo 3.0m x 3.5m
diameter friction bolts
3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets as required & 1.5m

Ore Drives - Handheld 2.0m x 2.0m
long, 33mm diameter friction bolts
Tectonic is planning to use resin anchored gewie bars in addition to the above ground support to
reinforce large rock slabs/ wedges.
2.4 Ground Conditions

2.4.1 Geotechnical Logging
Summary geotechnical logging to obtain parameters for assessments was undertaken on the borehole
core intervals listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Kaolin and Hillsborough
Borehole No. Mine Interval (m) Borehole No. Mine Interval (m)
DD04KP342 OC 0 – 110 DD09KP751 OC 0 - 55
DD04KP343 OC 0 – 110 BD015 UG 80 – 133
DD04KP344 OC 0 – 110 BD016 UG 70 – 120
DD05KP473 OC / UG 100 - 117 BD024 UG 80 – 130
DD05KP474 OC / UG 70 – 86 BD025 UG 80 – 130
DD08KP510 OC 45 – 86 BD026 UG 60 – 120
DD09KP748 OC 0 - 115 BD030 UG 60 – 120
DD09KP749 * OC 0 – 126 BD034 UG 83 – 132
DD09KP750 * OC 0 – 72 BD035 UG 90 – 140
Note: * = Hillsborough Boreholes all others Kaolin.

Important points to note regarding the assessed borehole cores are that:
à The DD04KP – DD09KP prefixed series of boreholes were drilled by Tectonic between 2004
and 2009 with the later boreholes drilled primarily for the current assessment of open pit slope
stability at Kaolin and Hillsborough.
à Boreholes BD015 – BD035 were drilled by Norseman Gold Mines in the 1980s for
exploration purposes. Check geotechnical logging of these boreholes was undertaken to
collect additional information about ground conditions within potential underground mining
areas at Kaolin.
Core quality observed during the check logging and previous rock mass characterisation
results suggest that these borehole cores provide a reasonable indication of ground conditions.
à For the Kaolin underground assessment geotechnical data from these boreholes was combined
with data from Boreholes DD05KP473 and DD05KP474.
2.4.2 Rock Weathering
The rock weathering profile within the proposed open pits varies as follows:
Kaolin
The rock mass can be generally described as highly weathered to a depth of ~ 50mbs (rangeing from
∼ 42m to 55mbs). From this depth the rock mass weathering rapidly transitions from slightly
weathered to fresh.
An exception to the general weathering profile may occur on the proposed southern pit wall where
Borehole DD09KP749 indicates that the rock mass becomes reasonably fresh (slightly weathered) at a
depth of ∼ 15mbs. It is envisaged that this type of weathering irregularity could be present along other
wall sectors of the proposed open pit.
Hillsborough
The proposed ~ 80m deep Hillsborough Open Pit will be excavated within extremely to moderately
weathered rock mass to ~ 42mbs. The base (~ 38m) of the open pit will be within slightly weathered
to fresh rocks. The weathering profile corresponds with that at the western end of the Kaolin Open
Pit, as defined by Borehole DD09KP748.
2.4.3 Rock Quality
For this assessment Tectonic supplied EXCEL spreadsheets containing Rock Quality Designation
(RQD) and fracture counts per metre of core from the assessed boreholes. The data are presented in
Appendix A. Where the intensity of fracturing exceeded 25 fractures per metre, Tectonic geologists
recorded the fracture frequency as > 25 f/m, hence this is the maximum fracture frequency. The RQD
and fracture frequency data were assessed according to Quartile values with best and worst case
results summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 Fracture Frequency & RQD Ranges According to Weathering for Kaolin and
Hillsborough
Fracture Frequency (f/m) RQD (%)

Mining Domain Rock Mass Domain st th st
1 Quartile 4 Quartile 1 Quartile 4th Quartile
(Worst) (Best) (Worst) (Best)
Highly Weathered to
25 9 12 100
Moderately Weathered
Open Pit
Slightly Weathered to
25 9 18 100
Fresh Rock
Underground Fresh Rock 25 8 21 100

The results overall show that the within the proposed open pit underground mining areas the rock mass
is characterised by well developed fracturing which can be expected to be detrimental for wall
stability.
2.4.4 Rock Strength

Manual index testing, according to the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) guidelines,
was undertaken during geotechnical logging to estimate intact rock strength. The results of this testing
are presented in Appendix A for (each 1m interval along) the boreholes logged.
A program 12 of rock property testing were also undertaken on representative samples of borehole core
from within the deposit by Fenixx Australia Pty Ltd, Perth with results summarised in Table 4.
Table 4 Summary of Rock Property Results for Kaolin and Hillsborough

UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa)
A+C Total
Rock Type
No No
Mean Std Dev Mean Std
Samples Samples
Dacite 252 20 3 252 20 3
Diorite 172 129 2 172 129 2
Granitoid
- - - 17.9 - 1
(Undifferentiated)
Intermediate Lapilli
72 - 1 72 - 1
Tuff
Notes-
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength normalised for 50mm core diameter.
UCS A+C = Uniaxial Compressive Strength data from core that failed either due to axial splitting (A) or multiple cracking (C).
UCS TOTAL = Total Uniaxial Compressive Strength data including shear failure.
Based on the results of the manual strength testing and the laboratory based Uniaxial Compressive
Strength (UCS) testing following comments are provided:
à The weathered rocks at Kaolin and Hillsborough typically range from 1 MPa to 50 MPa
(worst and best cases).
à For slightly weathered to fresh rocks, UCS values of 250 MPa and 70 MPa are considered to
be representative of the best case (highest) and worst case rock strength values respectively.
The current results indicate that the rocks at Kaolin and Hillsborough are stronger than those
found at Harbour View and Flag Deposits.
2.4.5 Rock Stress
No in situ stress measurements have been undertaken to date at Kundip.
Given the shallow depth (≤150m) of mining it is expected, however that rock stresses will be low to
moderate. Experience at other Australian mines suggests that stress magnitudes would not likely be
sufficient to adversely affect the stability of openings until mining proceeds to depths greater than ∼
550m below surface. On the basis of experience at other mines, the virgin stress field at Kundip is
assumed to be defined as:
σvertical (σ3) = 0.028h MPa where h is the depth below surface (m).
σnorth south (σ1) = 2.5 x σvertical MPa
σEast-West (σ2) = 1.5 x σvertical MPa

2.4.6 Hydrogeology
The most recent hydrological investigation 13 of the proposed Kundip mining area was undertaken in
2004 by Rockwater Pty Ltd. Key findings from that investigation were that:
à The Archean rocks of the Kundip area have low permeability.
à Previous groundwater inflows into the historical underground working could be up to 500m3
per day.
à Flag is probably the wettest mine, followed Harbour View and then Beryl (Kaolin).
à Groundwater occurs in localised fracture zones most of which are probably related to
mineralised zones.
à The groundwater drilling program consisted of six boreholes of which four intersected
groundwater. Only one of the boreholes intersected significant water inflow (∼ 60m3/day).
à The water table at Kundip dips gently to the south south-east. The water level generally
ranges between ∼ 25m and 40mbs.
2.4.7 Rock Defects
Rock defect orientations and characteristics were collected by the Tectonic Exploration Department
personnel from the oriented sections of the borehole cores.
Stereographic analysis of the rock defect data was carried out using the DIPS 5 software code with
results (relative to AMG) for the individual boreholes summarised in Table 5 Appendix B contains
pole and major plane plots of assessments.
Table 5 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Kaolin & Hillsborough
Borehole Defect Set Major Defect Set
1 50° / 238°
2 49° / 011°
DD04KP342 3 45° / 149°
4 64° / 206°
5 71° / 312°
1 20° / 274°
DD04KP343 2 25° / 014°
3 34° / 158°
1 33° / 271°
2 17° / 043°
DD04KP344
3 47° / 144°
4 68° / 202°
DD05KP473 4 59° / 186°
1 26° / 249°
2 12° /018°
DD05KP474
3 40° / 163°
4 70° / 205°
1 30° / 204°
DD09KP702
6 51° / 106°

DD09KP710 2 14° / 087°

1 37° / 288°
DD09KP748
2 52° / 360°
1 33° / 242°
DD09KP749 3 61° / 168°
4 67° / 197°
DD09KP750 Insufficient Data
DD09KP751 Insufficient Data
From these assessments the major rock defect orientations were delineated for the Kaolin Deposit with
results summarised in Table 6.
Table 6 Summary of Major Defect Set Orientations Identified at

Kaolin and Hillsborough
Major Defect Set No. Dip / Dip Direction
1 30° / 240°
2 20° / 030°
3 45° / 155°
4 60° / 202°
5 71° / 312°
6 51° / 106°
The results indicate that Major Defect Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 are well developed throughout the deposits
while the remaining sets 5 and 6 are not prevalent.
Wall stability is expected to be predominantly controlled by the orientation and shear strength of
geological structures exposed in or located close behind future walls. Based on the major defect sets
delineated (Table 6) the assessed potential wall failure modes (should walls be mined at too steep an
angle for prevailing ground conditions) are provided in Table 7.
Within slightly weathered to fresh rock the highest potential for wall stability will be from Major
Defect Set 3 which is a well developed joint set at Kundip.

Kundip Geotechnical Assessment - 10 - December 2010
Table 7 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Kaolin and Hillsborough
Wall Location Mode of Failure Defect Set Comments
Sliding on moderate South Southeast dipping defects with

Sliding 3
release on Defect 4 & 5.
North Wall
Toppling 5 Toppling on steep Northwest dipping defects.
Wedge 3-4-5 Wedge sliding out on Defect 3
Possible sliding on steeper outliers of North Northeast dipping

Sliding 2
defects with release from Defect 4.
Localised sliding on steep Northwest dipping defects with

Sliding 5
release from Defect 6
South Wall
Possible toppling on steeper Outliers of South southeast dipping
Toppling 3
defects
Sliding on moderate West Southwest dipping defects with

Sliding 1
potential release from multiple defects.
East Wall
Wedge 1-5 Sliding out along Defect Intersection
Possible sliding on steeper outliers of North Northeast dipping

Sliding 2
defects with release from Defects 1 & 4.
West Wall
Sliding on East Southeast dipping defects with release from
Sliding 6
multiple defects.
2.4.8 Mining Rock Mass Rating Scheme

The Mining Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) 7 classification was introduced as a development of the CSIR
Geomechanics Classification System (RMR) 6 with the aim of predicting how the rock mass will
behave in a mining environment. The system is based on adjustments to the RMR for weathering,
mining induced stresses, joint orientation, and blasting effects:
MRMR = RMR x Adjust Factors (Weathering x Joints x Blasting x Stress)
The Mining Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) classification originally developed by Laubscher 7 and
subsequently adapted by Haines and Terbrugge 8 was used to assess suitable overall wall angles that
could reasonably be mined within rocks exhibiting variable degrees of weathering and competence.
The relationship between MRMR values and stable pit walls is empirically based, but has been shown
by experience in Africa, Australia and South America to provide a realistic assessment of maximum
wall angles that may be safely mined in rock masses of variable quality 8.
Input into the MRMR classifications comprises typical intact rock material strengths, fracture
frequency (FF) values, and defect characteristics for the different rock mass domains at Kundip.
‘Damp’ ground conditions were assumed, as were the presence of at least three (3) inclined defect sets
locally within all parts of the rock mass. Good conventional blasting practices during mining were
also assumed to be relevant.
A summary of the results obtained from the MRMR rock mass classification system and derived slope
angles obtained from geotechnical borehole data, is provided in Table 8 with calculation shown in
Appendix C.
In all cases, results are applicable to slopes that do not contain major geological structures such as
faults that are oriented in a manner which could adversely influence wall stability.

2.4.9 Q-System Classification

The Q-System 9, 10, an empirical rock mass classification scheme has been used to characterise ground
conditions for the Kaolin lodes occurring within the potential underground mining area. For these
assessments Q-Values were estimated using data derived from the borehole core for geometrical
domains, the boundaries of which are based on proximity to the Kaolin Lode and Kaolin Footwall
Lode orebodies. The domains assessed are defined in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 2.
Borehole
Trace
KML
HWKML
HW3KML
KFWL
FWKML
FW3KML
FW3KFWL HW3KFWL
FWKFWL
Figure 2 Schematic Diagram Showing Geometric Domains at Kaolin Deposit
Q Values were calculated in the following manner:

à The core was divided into rock units based on lithology, intensity of fracturing and faulting,
fracture characteristics (such as alteration and infill) and estimated intact rock strength.
à RQD values were measured for each one metre interval. This data was predominantly supplied
by Tectonic.
à Jn values were assigned based on the number of defect sets identified within the borehole core.
Assessments were made for each rock unit. Defects that were not well defined were categorised
as random. The orientation line was used to assess the number of sets present. When the core
was not oriented and/or cut for sampling a best estimate of the number of defect sets was made.
à The Jr, Ja, Jw and SRF values were assigned for each rock unit according to the Q-System3.
à Stress Reduction Factor (SRF) selected according to influence of structure otherwise a value of
one (1) was assigned.
à Q-System parameters were assessed for each rock unit and assigned to each one metre interval
within the unit.
à Q-Values were then calculated using the measured RQD and assessed Q-System parameters for
each one metre interval.
Since Q-Values are non-linear, conventional measures of dispersion (such as standard deviation) are
inappropriate. For this assessment the distribution of the Q Values and Modified Q Values has been
described using quartile values. To obtain a general understanding of ground conditions at the Kaolin
quartiles were calculated for each of the geometrical domains identified in Table 9 with results
presented in Table 10.

Table 8 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating Assessment of Kaolin and Hillsborough Open Pit Walls
IRS FF JRC Parameters JRC Value Adjustment Parameters

Domain Case MRMR Slope Angle
Value Value
A B C D (40 X A x B x C) Weathering Joints Blasting
Best 6 11 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 0.86 0.8 0.94 25.0 42.5°
Moderate to Highly
Weathered Rock
Worse 1 5 0.7 0.55 1.0 0.2 3.1 0.86 0.8 0.94 5.9 33.0°
Best 20 11 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 1.0 0.8 0.94 39.5 49.8°
Slightly Weathered
to Fresh Rock
Worse 8 4 0.70 0.60 1.0 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.8 0.94 11.6 36.0°
Table 9 Geotechnical Domains Assessed for Kaolin using the Q-System
Domain Code Description
HWKML Far field country rocks overlying the shallow dipping lodes at Kaolin.
HW3KML Hangingwall rock mass, immediately overlying (within 3m) of the shallow dipping Kaolin Main Lode.
KML Kaolin Main Lode, minimum mining width 3m.
FW3KML Footwall rock mass, immediately underlying (within 3m) of the shallow dipping Kaolin Main Lode.
FWKML Rock mass located between Kaolin Main Lode and Kaolin Footwall Lodes.
HW3KFWL Hangingwall rock mass, immediately overlying (within 3m) of the shallow dipping Kaolin Footwall Lode.
KFWL Kaolin Footwall Lode, minimum mining width 3m.
FW3KFWL Footwall rock mass, immediately underlying (within 3m) of the shallow dipping Kaolin Footwall Lode.
FWKFWL Far field country rocks underlying the shallow dipping lodes at Kaolin.

Ground Support According to Q-System

Barton et al 1 developed the Equivalent Dimension concept which relates Q-Values to tunnel support
requirements on the basis of purpose and service life of development.
The Equivalent Dimension (De) is obtained by dividing the span, diameter, or the wall height of the
excavation by a value called the Excavation Span Ratio (ESR).
The ESR is related to the planned use of the excavation and the degree of safety required. ESR values
for various excavation types are defined by Barton et al 1, and summarised in an Equivalent
Dimension and Q-Value diagram which indicates (nominal) ground support recommendations. More
recent work by Grimstad et al 10 refined this system by including the application of shotcrete,
fibrecrete and rockbolts.
According to the enhanced Q-System Rock Reinforcement Design Chart 10, the different types and
sizes of development proposed for Kaolin will require the reinforcement systems shown in Table 11.
Although this support estimate suggests that development would require spot bolting only, current
guidelines require installation of surface support to within ≤ 3.5m of the floors of access openings.
Accordingly, spot bolting is not recommended.
To comply with current industry guidelines and provide adequate support in actual conditions, the
recommended minimum support and reinforcement requirements for drives should be based on F51
(or equivalent) galvanized weld mesh installed on drive backs and shoulders with pattern bolting
of backs and sidewalls.
Maximum Unsupported Spans

Barton et al 9 developed a relationship between Q-Values and excavation span ratios (ESR) to estimate
maximum unsupported spans for development:
Maximum Unsupported Span = 2 x ESR x Q0.4
The maximum unsupported span for the immediate hangingwall rock mass of Kaolin Main Lode and
Kaolin Footwall Lode using the 2nd Quartile Q-Values (Table 10) and an ESR value of 2.0 were
calculated to be 9.9m and 9.5m respectively. These spans should be considered to be the maximum
hangingwall spans under which personnel can undertake stoping activities.
Modified Stability Graph

The Modified Stability Graph Method 11 developed by Potvin (1988) and comprehensively described
by Hutchinson and Diederichs (1996) has been used to make a preliminary assessment of stable stope
spans. The key input parameters and formulae for determining the stability of a stope is summarised
below:
Modified Q:
RQD Jr
Q' = Jn × Ja
Modified Stability Number, N ':

N ' = Q' × A × B × C
A- Factor relating to rock strength and induced stresses.
B- Measure of relative orientation of dominant jointing to excavation surface.
C- Measure of influence of gravity on the stability of the stope face.
Hydraulic Radius, HR:
HR (m) = Area (m2) ÷ Perimeter (m)

Table 10 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Kaolin Domains
Q'-Value Q-Value
Domain Rock Class
st nd rd th st nd rd th
1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile
HWKML 0.8 2.2 6.5 35.6 0.2 0.7 5.9 35.6 Very Poor – Good
HW3KML 2.8 9.7 13.5 25.0 1.1 9.7 13.5 25.0 Poor – Good
KML 1.3 4.0 15.4 25.0 0.7 3.8 15.4 25.0 Very Poor – Good
FW3KML 5.0 9.3 22.8 25.0 5.0 9.3 22.8 25.0 Fair – Good
FWKML 2.6 6.4 8.3 25.0 2.6 6.4 8.3 25.0 Fair – Good
HW3KFWL 5.8 8.8 12.9 23.2 5.8 8.8 12.9 23.3 Fair - Good
KFWL 6.0 8.4 13.0 24.3 5.2 8.1 13.0 24.25 Fair – Good
FW3KFWL 7.0 9.3 14.7 25.0 5.1 9.3 14.7 25.0 Fair – Good
FWKFWL 3.5 8.6 15.5 25.0 3.5 8.6 15.5 25.0 Poor – Good

Table 11 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Kaolin According to Q-System Design Chart
2nd Quartile
Development Type ESR Domain Q-System Ground Support Requirements
Q-Value
45mm thick fibrecrete (=mesh) and rock bolts on a 1.5m x 1.5m

HWKML 0.7
pattern
Decline
1.3
4.0m W x 4.0m H
FWKFWL 8.6 Spot Bolting
FWKFWL 8.6 Spot Bolting

Ore Accesses
1.6
4.0m W x 4.0m H
FW3KML 6.4 Spot Bolting
Ore Drive – Kaolin Footwall Lode

3.0m W x 3.5m H - Jumbo 1.6 KFWL 8.1 Spot Bolting
2.0m W x 2.0m H – Handheld
Ore Drive – Kaolin Main Lode

3.0m W x 3.5m H - Jumbo 1.6 KML 3.8 Spot Bolting
2.0m W x 2.0m H - Handheld
The input parameters for the assessments and the resulting Modified Stability Number, N are shown in Appendix D. Table 12 shows theoretical achievable HR
values for unsupported and supported stopes according to the Potvin (1988) and Nickson (1992) databases.

Table 12 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Kaolin
Unsupported Supported
Q'
Orebody A B C N'
Value HR HR
(Dip Span x Length) (Dip Span x Length)
(m) (m)
Kaolin Main 40m x 19m 40m x 44m

9.7 1.0 0.25 2.9 7.0 6.5 10.5
Lode (1 sublevel) (2 sublevels)
Kaolin 40m x 17m 40m x 42m

8.8 1.0 0.25 2.9 6.4 6.1 10.3
Footwall Lode (2 sublevels) (2 sublevels)
The HR values shown in Table 12 represent theoretical maximum spans achievable during the retreat
phase of mining of the shallow dipping lodes at Kaolin.

2.5 Open Pit Mining

On the basis of the foregoing assessment, design parameters for a short to medium life 100m deep open pit wall at Kaolin and Hillsborough are shown in Table 13.
Batters within that sector (or sectors) of the pit which strikes sub-parallel with stratigraphy will need to follow stratigraphy, that is, be mined at ∼ 30° overall angle.
Such development is inferred necessary to facilitate extraction to the lode; hence no economic penalty is expected in this respect.
Table 13 Base case slope design parameters (inferred likely rock mass conditions) for Kaolin and Hillsborough Open Pits
Depth Below Batter Angle Berm Width Bench Height Inter-ramp angle
Wall Location/s Rock Type Domain
Surface (°) (m) (m) ()
Completely Weathered to
0m to 60m 65° 4.2m 5m 37°
North Wall
(Follow Footwall)
Slightly Weathered to Fresh
60m to 100m 60° 7m 15m 44°
Rock
0m to 30m 50° 7m 10m 33°

Completely Weathered to
30m to 60m 60° 7m 10m 38°
South, East & West Walls
60m to 90m 60° 7m 15m 44°
Slightly Weathered to Fresh
Rock
90m to 100m 75° - 10m 75°

2.6 Underground Mining

2.6.1 Mining Methods
The geotechnical assessments indicate that ground conditions at Kaolin are generally suitable for both
LHOS and room and pillar mining. It is expected that LHOS will not be suitable for sectors of the
lode dipping at ≤35° as blasted ore will tend to accumulate on the stope footwall rather than rill down
to the bottom ore drive for recovery.
The absence of borehole cores within the proposed underground mining area at Hillsborough has
prevented a geotechnical assessment being undertaken for these steeper dipping lodes. To enable this
work to be completed to feasibility standard a diamond drilling program would be required to enable
geotechnical data to be collected from the recovered borehole cores for characterisation of rock mass
conditions for mine design purposes.
2.6.2 Room and Pillar Mining
The Q System has been used to assess the theoretically possible spans within the potential room and
pillar mining areas. The methods assume that rock mass conditions are uniform with few structural
geology and rock type complications. Results must be closely reviewed and applied with great care.
Based on operational experience and results of the Q-System assessments it is recommended that
during the initial stages of mining within Kaolin Main Lode and Footwall Lodes stopes that spans not
exceed 8m, measured diagonally between adjacent pillars. A conservative approach to design is
considered mandatory for this entry method of stoping. During the retreat phase of mining it may be
possible to recovery some of the pillars by increasing the level of hangingwall support installed
including the use of closely spaced (2m x 2m) wooden props. The degree of wooden prop deformation
(bending) occurring can also provide early warning of pending hangingwall failure.
2.6.3 Longhole Open Stoping
On-screen review in SURPAC of the Kaolin Lodes indicates that the majority of the lodes are too
shallow dipping to implement LHOS. If steeper dipping sections of both lodes are identified then it is
recommended for initial design purposes that stope spans are limited to:
HR = 6.1m (for example, 17m strike span x 40m dip span)
2.6.4 Pillar Design

General experience suggests that pillars should typically have not less than a 1:1 “aspect ratio”
(width : height) to be stable in the expected low stress environment at Kaolin. When pillars are used
in room and pillar mining and LHOS they should be staggered and uniformly distributed to prevent
large, continuous dip spans being formed.
If sill pillars are left they should have a minimum thickness of ~ 1.5 times the width of the orebody.
Ground conditions will need to be assessed for each situation where a sill pillar is planned to be
formed.
Where economic mineralisation in Kaolin Main Lode and Footwall Lodes occurs in close proximity
(≤10m????), it will be important to ensure that the pillars are aligned (superimposed) to maintain
stability.
2.6.5 Mine Infrastructure
Comments about major mine infrastructure are provided:
Main Decline
Where the Main Decline occurs within the hangingwall of the lode/s it should be kept at least 15m
vertically above the future stope voids to minimise the risk of a large scale stope hangingwall failure
compromising decline stability. If this is not feasible then a decline pillar should be left within the
underlying section of the lode/s. The size of the pillar would need to be assessed prior to
commencement of stoping however for preliminary design purposes it is recommended that the pillar
extend at least 5m laterally from the sidewalls of the decline.

Ventilation Shafts and Drives

The current proposal to develop shafts and drives into the lower parts of the open pit for ventilation
purposes is endorsed as ground conditions are expected to be more favourable due to the rock mass
being predominantly fresh. Alternatively, development of shafts through to the original land surface
would require higher levels of ground support (fibrecrete/ steel lining) and reinforcement to ensure
shaft stability within the inherently unstable clay rich weathered rocks.
Additional comments about the current ventilation shaft and drive development are provided:
à The rock mass within the currently proposed shaft location should be predominantly fresh. If
the ventilation shaft is raisebored at a diameter up to ~3m it is expected that shaft sidewalls
should be self supporting. Alternatively if the shaft is developed by handheld mining methods
there will be a requirement to systematically rock bolt and mesh the shaft sidewalls during its
excavation.
à The ventilation drive/s and associated portal can be supported with weld mesh and friction
bolts.
2.6.6 Ground Support and Reinforcement
This section will discuss ground support and reinforcement requirements for development and stoping
areas at Kaolin. Appendix E contains recommended minimum ground support designs for Kundip
mines.
Portal and Adjacent Batters

The loose rock scree that has accumulated on the batters and berms between the portal position and the
overlying sector of the open pit ramp must be cleaned away before commencing any ground support
activities.
The recommended rock reinforcement and support for the Portal Batters is shown in Appendix E, and
should consist of:
Wire Mesh Curtain
A free hanging wire mesh curtain should be hung from the berm directly overlying the Portal.
The mesh curtain should extend at least 10m either side of the Portal.
Fibrecrete and Rock Bolts

The rock surrounding the immediate (within ~5m) Portal entrance should be systematically
supported with a 75mm thick layer of fibrecrete and 3.0m long full column grouted gewie bars.
Short 2.0m length development cuts should be taken in the first 3 or 4 cuts. Ground support consisting
of 2.4m long friction bolts and galvanised mesh should be installed to the face after each cut. The
friction bolts within the Portal entrance area will also require cement grouting to increase there
strength (from ~4 tonnes/m to ~20 tonnes/m) and corrosion resistance.
Having advanced ~10m, cable bolting of the Portal backs will be required. Cable bolt ring spacing
should be 2.0m, with four, 6m length twin strand bulbed cables per ring.

Development
Ground support designs for the development are summarised in Table 14 and discussed in the
following sections.
Main Decline & Accesses
à The Main Decline and accesses will encounter ground conditions that will range from very
poor to good.
à Fair to good quality rock is anticipated within ~50% of decline and access development. An
appropriate minimum ground support standard would be to install, ≥2.4m long friction bolts
and weld mesh over the backs and shoulders of this development.
à The poorer quality rock mass is typically highly structured (≥3 defect set) and is expected to
be exposed within ~50% of decline and access development. Where highly structured
(jointed) rock mass is encounter the most appropriate ground control strategy would be to
install ≥ 2.4m long friction bolts and mesh over the development backs and sidewalls to
within at least 2.0m of floor level.
Ore Drives
à Ground conditions within the Kaolin Main Lode range from very poor to good, however the
assessments indicate that poor or worse quality rock may account for 50% of ore drive
development. Within the remaining ~50% of ore drive development ground conditions are
expected to be fair or better rock quality.
à Ground conditions within the Footwall Lode are rated as fair to good rock quality which
indicates that overall ground conditions are better than those anticipated within the Kaolin
Main Lode.
à Within the poorer (highly structured) ground conditions it is recommended that as a minimum
standard:
Mechanised ore drives (3m wide x 3.5m high) are supported with ≥1.8m long friction bolts
and mesh installed over drive backs and sidewalls to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Handheld ore drives (2m wide x 2m high) are supported with weld mesh and ≥1.5m long
friction bolts installed over the drive backs and shoulders.
à Within the ore drive development expected to be of fair or better rock quality it is
recommended that as a minimum ground support standard:
Mechanised ore drives are supported with ≥1.8m long friction bolts and mesh installed over
drive backs and shoulders.
The backs of handheld developed ore drives are reinforced with ≥1.5m long friction bolts
installed in 1.5m spaced rings with each ring containing three (3) friction bolts.
Intersection Spans
à The current assessments indicate that ~50% of decline and access development will
potentially occur in blocky/ structured ground conditions. This strongly suggests that it would
be prudent to systematically reinforce all decline and access intersections or similar size spans
(≥6m wide) with ≥6m long twin strand cable bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern throughout
the wide span. The cable bolts would be in addition to the standard drive development ground
support installed.
à Within smaller size intersection spans such as those formed between accesses and ore drives
an appropriate reinforcement would be to install ≥3m long, ~20 tonne capacity full column
grouted gewie bars installed on a ~1.5m x 1.5m pattern throughout the wide span.
Alternatively cable bolts installed on a 2.0m x 2.0m pattern could also be used for the purpose.

Stopes Spans
à Within room and pillar stoping areas the types of ground support that can be installed will be
largely dependent on stope heights:
Stopes ≤1.5m high, wooden props installed on a maximum spacing of 2m x 2m would be an
appropriate hangingwall support.
Stopes ≥ 1.5m high, ≥1.5m long resin grouted gewie bars installed on a 1.5m x 1.5m pattern
into the stope hangingwall.

Tectonic Resources NL – Phillips River 09053D?
Table 14 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Kaolin

Development
Dimensions Ground Conditions Drawing Minimum Ground Support Specification
Type
Weakly to Moderately Structured ≥2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the
A2 backs and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Rock Mass (Fair to Good)
Decline and Ore
4.0mW x 4.0mH
Accesses
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock 2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A3
Mass (Very Poor to Poor) and shoulders to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Weakly to Moderately Structured 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A4
Rock Mass (Fair to Good) and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Mechanised
3.0mW x 3.5mH
Ore Drives
A5
Mass (Very Poor to Poor) and sidewalls to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Weakly to Moderately Structured 1.5m long friction bolts installed in 1.5m spaced rings.
A6
Handheld Rock Mass (Fair to Good) 3 friction bolts per ring.
Ore Drives 2.0mW x 2.0mH
A7
Mass (Very Poor to Poor) and sidewalls to within ~1.2m of floor level.
Wooden props installed on a maximum spacing of 2m x 2m under the

Stopes ≤ 1.5m High All Conditions -
Handheld Room stope hangingwall..
and Pillar
Stopes ≥1.5m long resin grouted gewie bars installed on a 1.5m x 1.5m pattern
Stopes ≥ 1.5m high All Conditions -
into the stope hangingwall.
≥6m long twin strand cable bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern

≥ 6m Wide Spans All Conditions -
throughout wide span.
Intersection
Spans
≥3m long, 20mm diameter full column grouted gewie bars installed on a
4-6m Wide Spans All Conditions -
1.5m x 1.5m pattern throughout wide span.

3.0 Harbour View
3.1 Geology
The following summary of the Harbour View and Harbour View North local geology is based on
information 2 supplied by Tectonic:
The mineralisation at Harbour View and Harbour View North is hosted predominantly within
dacitic and to a lesser extent andesitic volcanic rocks of the Annabelle Volcanics. Within the
deposit area the volcanic dip steeply (~75°) towards the northeast.
This sequence of bedded volcanics has been intruded by aphanitic to fine-medium-grained
dacites and dacite porphyries (containing feldspar phenocrysts). Most of the intrusives occur
in discordant broadly tabular bodies that dip toward the south east. The dacite intrusives and
dacitic volcanics (lapilli and breccia tuffs) appear to be comagmatic (similar source).
South dipping granitic rocks have been intersected in boreholes at depths of 90 to 200m in the
South Harbour View areas. The nature and relationship of these granitic occurrences is not
known. Dolerite dykes that are interpreted to post date the granitic rocks outcrop along the
southwestern side of Harbour View.
The rock mass immediately adjacent (within 4m) to mineralised quartz veins exhibits intense
chlorite alteration and typically contains both disseminated and stringer sulphides.
3.2 Previous Mining Experience

Accessible areas of the Harbour View mining area were inspected1 in the 1980s with comments
summarised:
à The ore shoots stoped are ~ 20m to 30m long.
à The upper stope voids have been backfilled with development mullock.
à Within the lower mining areas the hangingwall has been supported with timber stulls.
à The hangingwall exposed within these lower stopes is quite regular and smooth. Where the
hangingwall has been undercut, localised “slabbiness” occurs, however no large scale failures
have occurred.
à Within the Harbour View South mining area a large hangingwall failure occurred within an
~ 20m long x ∼ 40m high stope. This failure penetrated ~ 5m into the hangingwall.
3.3 Proposed Mining

Figure 3 illustrates the spatial relationships between the proposed open pits and underground mining
areas at Harbour View Deposit.
Tectonic are planning to develop a ~500m long x 150m wide x 50-60m deep open pit on the Harbour
View and Harbour View North Lodes (Harbour View Open Pit). Two smaller open pits, the Maydon
and Harbour View South, both approximately 150m long x 100m wide and respectively 60m and 45m
deep will also be excavated at the same time.

Maydon Pit
Portal Ventilation Shaft Collar
Harbour View Pit
Historical
Underground
Harbour View South

N
Harbour View
Ventilation Shaft
Historical Underground
Maydon Pit Workings
Portal Harbour View

South Pit
Harbour
View Lode
Cross Lode
N
Harbour View Lode
Maydon Pit
Harbour View
Pit
Maydon Lode
Cross Lode Harbour View North

Lode
Harbour View Lode

N
Figure 3 Proposed Mine Designs for Harbour View and Maydon

Toward the end of open pit mining, Tectonic are proposing to establish a Portal at ~940mRL on the
southern wall of the Maydon Open Pit to enable development of a mechanised decline mine to extract
primarily the Harbour View Lode and Harbour View North Lodes to ~750mRL (~150mbs). A small
amount of stoping is planned on the Maydon Lode directly beneath the open pit and the 2401 Cross
Lode (Cross Lode) that occurs at the southern end of the deposit.
The decline is currently designed to occur within the mine hangingwall opposite a low grade sector of
the lodes that is currently not planned for extraction From this approximately central decline location
ore accesses at 15-20m vertical intervals will be developed to intersect the Harbour View Lode
structure. On each sublevel ore drives will be developed on the Harbour View Lode to the North and
South.
The Harbour View North Lode which occurs at the Northern end of the deposit will be accessed on
each sublevel via a cross cut developed from the adjacent sub-parallel Harbour View Lode ore drive.
The Cross Lode transgresses across the Harbour View Lode ore drive; hence this lode will be driven
directly from the original ore drive.
It is currently planned to extract the lodes by the LHOS, in a top down direction (overhand manner)
utilising pillars to maintain stope void stability. The stopes will range from 2-7m wide.
Mine air will be exhausted via rises/ shafts off set between sublevels. The upper most shaft interval is
designed between ~930mRL underground workings and a wide flat area located on the eastern wall of
the Harbour View Open Pit at ~960mmRL (~40mbs).
Development sizes and ground support specifications proposed by Tectonic are shown in Table 1.

Summary geotechnical logging to obtain parameters for assessments was undertaken on the borehole
core intervals listed in Table 1.
Table 15 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Harbour View
DD03KP005 UG 210 – 280 DD10KP725 UG 130 – 191
DD03KP029 UG 175 – 234 DD10KP727 UG 176 – 246
DD03KP032 OC 75 – 98 DD10KP731 OC / UG 0 – 135
DD03KP089 UG 165 – 210 DD10KP733 OC 0 – 73
DD03KP091 UG 90 – 120 DD10KP736A UG 174 – 228
DD04KP345 OC / UG 0 – 101 DD10KP739 OC 0 – 160
DD04KP346 OC 0 – 90 DD10KP740 OC 0 – 110
DD08KP481 UG 220 – 322 DD10KP742 UG 70 - 120
DD08KP500 UG 152 – 185 K1N1* UG 100 – 160
DD08KP511 UG 220 – 320 K1N2* UG 60 – 110
DD08KP512 UG 152 – 211 K2N1* UG 70 – 150
DD10KP720 UG 240 – 311 K2N2* UG 170 – 220
Note: * Borehole core not utilised in assessments.

Important points regarding the borehole cores reviewed include:

à With the exception of the K series of boreholes that were drilled by the Hollandia and Unimin
Joint Venture in 1970s, all borehole cores check-logged were from Tectonic drilling programs
undertaken between 2003 and 2010. The DD10KP series of boreholes was designed by
Tectonic to specifically assess ground conditions within potential pit walls and underground
workings at Harbour View.
à Check-logging of the K series boreholes found the core to be strongly fractured (rubble) over
long intervals (≥10m to 20m). It appears that the poor condition of the core is probably
related to breakages induced by drilling, handling and sampling. A Q-System assessment of
the borehole core produced anomalously low Q-Values compared to results from the more
recently drilled and logged borehole cores.
à Due to the above concerns about core quality, the K series boreholes were not included in
characterisation of ground conditions at Harbour View.
The rock mass can be generally described as highly weathered to a depth of ~ 35mbs (ranging from
∼ 30m to 40mbs). From this depth the rock mass weathering grades gradually from slightly weathered
to fresh. The top of fresh rock (TOFR) generally occurs within the interval of 40m to 60mbs.
3.4.3 Rock Quality
The RQD and fracture frequency data collected by the Tectonic Geology Department from the
boreholes cores were assessed according to quartile values, with best and worst case results
summarised in Table 16.
Table 16 Fracture Frequency & RQD Ranges According to Weathering for Harbour View

Highly Weathered to
25 11 10 100
Open Pit
25 12 10 95
Fresh Rock
The results shown in Table 16 indicate that weathered and fresh rocks within the anticipated pit walls
are expected to be strongly fractured which will be unfavourable for batter and berm crest stability.
Within the proposed underground mining area rock mass fracturing tends to decrease with increasing
depth below surface which is inferred to be related to the reduced effects of weathering.
3.4.4 Rock Strength

are presented in Appendix A for (each 1m interval along) the boreholes logged.
A program 12 of rock property testing were also undertaken on representative samples of borehole core
found within the deposit by Fenixx Australia Pty Ltd, Perth with results summarised in Table 17.

Table 17 Summary of Rock Property Results for Harbour View

UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa)
A+C Total
Rock Type
No No
Samples Samples
Dacite 131 72 2 97 62 4
Intermediate Lapilli
111 50 3 85 51 5
Tuff
Granite 246 42 2 246 42 2
Intermediate
97 7 2 97 7 2
Porphyry
Notes-
à The weathered rocks at Harbour View Deposit typically range from ∼ 1 MPa to 50 MPa
(worst and best cases).
à For slightly weathered to fresh rocks, UCS values of ∼ 120 MPa and 80 MPa are considered to
be representative of the best case (highest) and worst case rock strength values respectively
for the volcanic rocks (Dacite, Intermediate Lapilli Tuff and Porphyry).
à Granitic rocks at Harbour View can be classified as extremely strong.
3.4.5 Rock Stress
Given the shallow depth (≤150m) of mining it is expected, however that rock stresses will be low. On
the basis of experience at other mines, the virgin stress field at Kundip is assumed to be defined as:
General experience at other Australian mines suggests that stress magnitudes may be sufficient to
adversely affect the stability of openings if mining proceeds to depths greater than ∼ 550m below
surface.
3.4.6 Hydrogeology
To our knowledge no specific hydrogeological investigations have been performed for Harbour View.
It is inferred that the findings of the 2004 Rockwater investigation for Kaolin will also apply (in a
generalised sense) to Harbour View.
3.4.7 Rock Defects

Table 18 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Harbour View
DD03KP005 7 76° / 258°

1 87° / 317°
DD03KP089 3 60° / 010°
5 45° / 232°
DD03KP091 1 81° / 291°
DD04KP345 5 51° / 170°
DD04KP346 5 42° / 224°
1 74° / 294°
2 49° / 300°
DD08KP481
3 48° / 006°
5 45° / 222°
1 71° / 302°
DD08KP500
5 40° / 223°
1 75° / 284°
2 23° / 358°
DD08KP511 3 69° / 007°
5 46° / 205°
6 37° / 139°
1 68° / 293°
DD10KP725 2 23° / 332°
3 52° / 341°
1 81° / 313°
2 37° / 324°
DD10KP731
3 47° / 007°
4 28° / 055°
1 83° / 109°
DD10KP733 5 26° / 228°
6 55° / 166°
1 77° / 304°
DD10KP736A 2 37° / 326°
4 22° / 043°
1 73° / 305°
2 27° / 319°
DD10KP739
3 69° / 354°
4 32° / 041°
1 89° / 307°
DD10KP740 5 30° / 220°
6 48° / 157°
1 74° / 293°
2 48° / 315°
DD10KP742
3 54° / 341°
4 21° / 088°
Major rock defect orientations defined for the Harbour View Deposit are summarised in Table 19.

Table 19 Summary of Major Rock Defect Orientations Identified at

Harbour View
Defect Set No. Dip / Dip Direction
1 73° / 300°
2 23° / 329°
3 63° / 001°
4 24° / 072°
5 41° / 225°
6 50° / 160°
The results indicate that Major Defect Sets 1, 2, 3 and 5 are well developed throughout the deposit
while the remaining Defect Sets 4 and 6 are not as prevalent. Defect Set 7 (Table 19) was identified
only within Borehole DD05KP005 and hence is considered to be a minor set.
Wall stability is expected to be predominantly controlled by geological structures. Based on the major
defect sets delineated (Table 19) the assessed potential wall failure modes (should walls be mined at
too steep an angle for prevailing ground conditions) are provided in Table 20.
Table 20 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Harbour View
Sliding on moderate South Southwest dipping defects with

Sliding 5
1-6 Sliding out on Defect intersection.
North Wall
5-6 Wedge sliding out on Defect 5.
Wedge
1-5 Wedge sliding out on Defect 5.
3-5-6 Wedge sliding out on Defect 3
Possible sliding on steeper outliers of East Northeast dipping

Sliding 4
defects with release from Defect 5.
South Wall 1-6 Wedge sliding out along defect intersection
Wedge
3-4 Wedge sliding out on steeper outliers, along defect intersection.
Possible sliding on steeper outliers of Northwest dipping defects

Sliding 2
with release from multiple defects.
Toppling 6 Possible localised toppling on steeper outliers of Defect 6

East Wall
2-3 Potential wedge sliding out on steeper outliers of Defects
Wedge
2-5 Potential wedge sliding out on steeper outliers of Defects
3-5 Sliding out along intersection of defects.
Sliding on moderate South southeast dipping defects with

Sliding 6
Toppling 1 Toppling on steep Northwest dipping defects.
West Wall 3-4 Sliding out along Defect 4.

4-6 Sliding out along defect intersection.
Wedge
Potential wedge sliding out on steeper outliers, along defect
3-6
intersection.


Appendix C

Table 21 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating Assessment for Harbour View Open Pit Walls

Value Value
Best 6 10 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 0.86 0.8 0.94 24.3 42.0°
Moderate to Highly
Weathered Rock
Worse 1 3 0.7 0.60 1.0 0.2 3.4 0.86 0.8 0.94 4.8 32.4°
Best 12 9 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 1.0 0.8 0.94 32.05 46°
Slightly Weathered
to Fresh Rock
Worse 8 2 0.70 0.60 1.0 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.8 0.94 10.0 35°


The Q-System 9, 10, an empirical rock mass classification scheme has been used to characterise ground
conditions within the potential underground mining areas at Harbour View.
For these assessments Q-Values were estimated using data derived from the borehole core for
geometrical domains, the boundaries of which are based on proximity to the Harbour View and
Harbour View North Lodes. The domains assessed are defined in Table 22 and illustrated by Figure 4.
Table 22 Geotechnical Domains Assessed for Harbour View using the Q-System
HWHVL Far field country rocks located to the west of Harbour View Lode.
Immediate west wall rock mass, within 3m of Harbour View Lode

HW3HVL
stope wall.
HVL Harbour View Lode, minimum mining width 3m.
FW3HVL Immediate east wall rock mass, within 3m of stope wall.
Rock mass located between Harbour View and Harbour View North
FWHVL
Lodes.
Immediate west wall rock mass, within 3m of Harbour View North

HW3HVNL
Lode stope wall.
HVNL Harbour View North Lode, minimum mining width 3m.
Immediate east wall rock mass, within 3m of Harbour View North

FW3HVNL stope wall.
Far field country rocks located to the east of Harbour View And
FWHVNL
Harbour View North Lodes.
Borehole
Trace HVL HVNL
HWHVL
HW3HVL
FW3HVL
HW3HVNL
FWHVNL FW3HVNL
FWHVNL
Figure 4 Schematic Diagram Showing Geometric Domains at Harbour View Deposit

The methodology used to calculated Q-Values is explained in Section 2.4.9. To obtain a general
understanding of ground conditions at the Harbour View Deposit quartiles were calculated for each of
the geometrical domains identified in Table 22 with results presented in Table 23.

sizes of development proposed for Harbour View Deposit will require the reinforcement systems
shown in Table 24.
Although this support estimate suggests that development would require spot bolting only, current
guidelines require installation of surface support to within ≤ 3.5m of the floors of openings.
Accordingly, spot bolting is not recommended.

Table 23 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Harbour View Domains
Q'-Value Q-Value
Domain Rock Class
HWHVL 2.2 13.3 28.5 100.0 1.3 13.3 28.5 100.0 Very Poor – Very Good
HW3HVL 1.6 6.8 23.7 56.3 0.3 6.8 23.7 56.3 Very Poor – Very Good
HVL 2.1 16.3 33.8 100.0 0.5 16.3 33.8 100.0 Very Poor – Very Good
FW3HVL 1.8 10.0 21.3 75.0 1.5 10.0 21.3 75.0 Poor – Very Good
FWHVL 6.7 12.2 23.8 100.0 6.7 12.2 23.8 100.0 Fair – Very Good
HW3HVNL 4.4 16.7 24.5 37.5 3.5 16.7 24.5 37.5 Poor - Good
HVNL 0.8 11.7 24.5 37.5 0.4 11.7 24.5 37.5 Very Poor – Good
FW3HVNL 0.4 14.9 31.3 48.0 0.1 14.9 31.3 48.0 Extremely Poor – Very Good
FWHVNL 14.0 33.8 38.3 100.0 14.0 33.8 38.3 100.0 Good – Very Good

Table 24 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Harbour View According to Q-System Design Chart
2nd Quartile
Q-Value
Decline
1.3 HWHVL 13.3 Spot Bolting
4.0m W x 4.0m H
Ore Accesses Harbour View Lode

1.6 HWHVL 13.3 Spot Bolting
4.0m W x 4.0m H
Ore Accesses Harbour View North Lode

1.6 FWHVL 12.2 Spot Bolting
4.0m W x 4.0m H
Ore Drive – Harbour View Lode

1.6 HVL 16.3 Spot Bolting
3.0m W x 3.5m H
Ore Drive – Harbour View North Lode

1.6 HVNL 11.7 Spot Bolting
3.0m W x 3.5m H


The Modified Stability Graph Method11 as described in Section 2.4.9 has been used to make a
preliminary assessment of stable stope spans at Harbour View.
The input parameters for the assessments and the resulting Modified Stability Number, N are shown in
Appendix D with results summarised in Table 25.
Table 25 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Harbour View
Q'
Orebody A B C N'
Value HR HR
(Dip Span x Length) (Dip Span x Length)
(m) (m)
Harbour View 20m x 37m 35m x 53m

6.8 0.54 0.3 6.4 7.0 6.5 10.5
Lode (1 sublevel) (2 sublevels)
Harbour View 35m x 36m 35m x 88m

16.7 0.54 0.3 6.4 17.3 8.8 12.5
North Lode (2 sublevels) (2 sublevels)

3.5 Open Pit Mining

On the basis of the foregoing assessment, design parameters for a short to medium life 60m deep open pit wall at Harbour View are shown in Table 26.
Table 26 Base case wall design parameters (inferred likely rock mass conditions) for Harbour View Open Pit
Wall Location Rock Mass Description
Surface (°) (m) (m) (°)
Completely to Moderately
0m to 45m 55° 8 15 39°
Weathered
North, South and East Walls
Slightly Weathered to Fresh 45m to 60m 65° - 15 65°
Completely to Moderately
0m to 45m 55° 8 15 39°
West Wall Weathered
(Follow Footwall)
Slightly Weathered to Fresh 45m to 60m 60° - 15 60°


From a geotechnical viewpoint two stoping methods could be considered for extraction of the Harbour
View and Harbour View North Lodes:
1. LHOS with pillars
2. Bench Stoping (Benching) with rock fill.
The Modified Stability Graph assessments and operational experience at other Western Australian
mines indicates that LHOS with pillars should be geotechnical feasible for Harbour View ground
conditions. If ground conditions are found to less favourable than expected, Bench Stoping with rock
fill could be readily implemented. Preliminary mine design parameters for Harbour View and
Harbour View North Lodes will be outlined in the following sections.
The absence of borehole cores within the proposed underground mining areas on the Maydon and
Cross Lodes has prevented a geotechnical assessment being undertaken for these two lodes. Any
future geotechnical assessment would require diamond drilling programs to be undertaken for the
purpose of collection of geotechnical data.
It is recommended that a conservative approach to stope design be initially adopted at Harbour View.
The following design criteria are recommended for LHOS stopes:
Harbour View HR = 6.5 20m high x 37m long (~1 Sublevel)

Harbour View North HR = 8.8 35m high x 36m long (~2 Sublevels)
Where economic sectors of the sub-parallel Harbour View Lode and Harbour View North Lodes occur
in close proximity (≤5m), consideration should be given to:
à Combining the lodes to form a single (bulk) stope to avoid formation of a slender stope
separation pillar that will become increasingly unstable as the size of the adjacent stope voids
increase. At some point during extraction it would be expected that the pillar would collapse
into the stope voids.
à Extracting the highest grade lode and then undertaking limited (≤ 50% (?)) extraction of the
remaining lode.
à Undertaking selective backfilling of stope voids with development mullock and/ or cemented
rock fill to limit stope spans and assist in maintaining pillar stability. This would probably
require adoption of bench stoping in the affected areas of the mine.
As the separation distance between the potential adjacent parallel stope voids increases the risk of
pillar instability will progressively decrease. It is envisaged that pillars ≥10m wide should remain
reasonably stable provided pillars within the adjacent stopes are aligned.
3.6.3 Pillar Design

General experience suggests that rib pillars should typically have not less than a 1:1 “aspect ratio”
(width : height) to be stable in the expected low stress environment at Harbour View. When rib pillars
are used they should be staggered and uniformly distributed to prevent large, continuous dip spans
being formed.
Typically in a top down stoping sequence, the amount of wall rock dilution progressively increases as
each subsequent sublevel is extracted. At some point the amount of dilution necessitates leaving of a
sill pillar to prevent ingress of wall rock dilution into the planned underlying stopes. For the Harbour
View and Harbour View North Lode stopes it is suggested that for preliminary planning purposes that
sill pillars are left at approximately 80m vertical intervals. If sill pillars are left they should have a
minimum thickness of ~ 1.5 times the width of the proposed underlying stope void.

Decline and Accesses

Decline and lode access development will predominantly occur within good – very good quality rock.
The proposed location of the decline and accesses opposite an uneconomic sector of the lodes means
that this development is unlikely to be affected by stope instability. As a precautionary measure the
decline should be kept ≥30m from the Harbour View Lode structure in case economic mineralisation
is identified at a later stage.
The decline should preferably be oriented approximately northwest-southeast so that it intersects
foliation planes present within the rock mass at an angle ≥30° the aim being to reduce the extent of
decline sidewall overbreak.
Ventilation Shaft
The currently proposed ventilation shaft collar position within the Harbour View Open Pit at ~40mbs
is endorsed as it will most likely eliminate development of the shaft through inherently unstable clay
rich weathered rocks.
Below 40mbs the shaft will occur within slightly weathered to predominantly fresh rock. If the shaft
is excavated by handheld mining methods it is expected that shaft sidewalls could be adequately
supported with rock bolts (friction bolts and gewie bars) and mesh.
The minimum ground support designs are contained in Appendix E and summarised in Table 27.
Important aspects of the designs are as follows:

The Portal entrance into the Harbour View Underground Mine is planned to be developed at a depth of
~ 40mbs from the southern wall of the Maydon Open Pit. At this depth the rock mass is expected to
be slightly weathered hence a similar approach to ground support can be adopted for the Portal and
adjacent Open Pit Batters to that described in Section 2.6.6 for Kaolin.
Main Decline and Accesses
à Good to very good quality rock is anticipated within the majority (~75%) of Main Decline and
ore access development. An appropriate minimum ground support standard would be to
install, ≥2.4m long friction bolts and weld mesh over the backs and shoulders of this
development.
à Poor quality rock is anticipated within the remaining ~25% of development. This blocky/
jointed rock mass will require installation of mesh to within 1.5m of floor level.
Ore Drives
à Ground conditions within the Harbour View and Harbour View North Lode ore drives should
be predominantly (up to 75%) good. For these favourable ground conditions the minimum
ground support standard should be to install 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh across the drive
backs and shoulders.
à The remaining 25% of lode development may encounter poor quality rock that will probably
necessitate installation of additional sidewall mesh to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Intersection Spans
à All wide spans formed at the intersection of large size (≥4m wide) development, in particular
decline intersections should be systematically reinforced with ≥6m long twin strand cable
bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern throughout the wide span. The cable bolts would be in
addition to the standard drive development ground support installed.

à Within lesser intersection spans, such as those formed between accesses and ore drives, an
appropriate reinforcement would be to install ≥3m long, ~ 20 tonne capacity full-column
grouted gewie bars on a ~ 1.5m x 1.5m pattern throughout the span. Alternatively cable bolts
installed on a 2.0m x 2.0m pattern could be used.
Stope Spans
à The sidewalls of the Harbour View and Harbour View North Ore Drives are expected to
intersect unfavourably orientated geological structures and/ or blocky rock mass conditions in
places. In an effort to improve stope wall stability it is recommended that these sector of ore
drive be reinforced with 2-2.5m spaced rings of ≥4m long twin strand cable bolts, with each
ring containing two (2) plated and tensioned cable bolts.
à For costing purposes it is suggested that an allowance be made for 25% of ore drive sidewalls
to be cable bolted.

Table 27 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Harbour View

Development
Type
Weakly to Moderately Structured Rock ≥2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A2 and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Mass (Fair to Good)
Decline and Ore
4.0mW x 4.0mH
Accesses
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock Mass 2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A3
(Very Poor to Poor) and shoulders to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Weakly to Moderately Structured Rock 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A4
Mass (Fair to Good) and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock Mass 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A5
(Very Poor to Poor) and sidewalls to within ~1.5m of floor level.
≥6m long twin strand cable bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern throughout

wide span.
Intersection
Spans
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock Mass

≥4m long, twin stand cable bolts installed in 2-2.5m spaced rings with each
Stope Spans - and/ or unfavourably orientated A7
structures.

4.0 Flag Deposit
4.1 Geology
A brief description of the Flag Deposit local geology based on information2 provided by Tectonic is
provided below:
The Flag Deposit occurs at the southern end of the mineral field predominantly within dacitic
lavas and tuffs of the Annabelle Volcanics. The Flag Main Lode dips at between 40-60°
toward the South. The lode has been displaced ~10-15m laterally by a moderately (60°) south
east dipping fault that contains economic mineralisation (Cross Fault Lode). At the far
western end of the deposit the lodes are hosted within a moderate (~ 45°) south west dipping
granite that overlies dacitic lavas.
Proterozoic cover, consisting of quartzite and conglomerate from the Mount Barren Group,
cover the western end of the Flag Deposit. This contact unconformably overlies sections of
the Annabelle Volcanics and is believed to be the main reason why some of the lode
extensions, beneath the Mount Barren Group, were not exploited by historical mining.
4.2 Previous Mining Experience

Important points about previous mining at Harbour View based on information1 supplied by Tectonic
are summarised:
à The ore shoots are similar in dimensions to those at the other Kundip Deposits.
à The Main Lode stope, which is located within ~ 90m of surface, was partially backfilled
during the original phases of mining in the 1900s. The unfilled areas show no signs of rock
mass failure.
à During the late 1980s mining recommenced with deepening of the main shaft, followed by
development and stoping of the Main Lode. Ground conditions continued to be favourable.
à The Flag mine experienced notably higher water inflows than did the adjacent mines.
4.3 Proposed Mining

Figure 5 illustrates the spatial relationships between the proposed open pits and underground mining
areas at Flag Deposit.
Mining will commence with excavation of the Stage One, Main Pit which is designed to be
approximately 500m long x 80m wide x 40m deep. Stage Two of the excavation entails deepening of
the western half of the Main Pit to a designed final depth of ~70mbs.
The approximately 250m long x 150m wide x 60m deep East Pit is planned to be mined following
completion of the Main Pit. Tectonic are planning to use waste rock from the East Pit to construct a
ramp within the eastern half of the Main Pit. This backfill ramp will be used to re-access the western
end of the Main Pit for the purpose of developing a Portal.
The Portal for the mechanised underground mine is currently designed for the northwest corner of the
Main Pit at ~925mRL. A ~800m long decline straight will be developed from the Portal entrance area
to the main stoping area which occurs underneath the western half of the Main Pit. From this central
location a spiral decline will be developed to access the sublevel levels between ~860mRL and
760mRL (~230mbs). The stope blocks delineated above ~860mRL will be accessed by a series of
inclines developed from the long decline straight.
Stope blocks occurring at the eastern end of the deposit, below the East Pit will be accessed by an
incline ramp developed from the centrally located spiral decline. At the western end of the deposit the
upper stopes are designed with a typical sublevel layout (accesses and ore drives) while an in-ore
decline is proposed for the lower stope blocks.
Tectonics intention is to utilise LHOS, in a top down direction (overhand manner) utilising pillars to
maintain stope void stability. The sublevel intervals are planned to be between 15-20m apart
vertically. The exception being the in-ore decline planned for the bottom section of the western stope

block. It is expected that the in-ore decline will necessitate use of a cut and fill mining method for this
block.
Mine air will be exhausted from:
à The centrally located Main Shaft which was used during the previous phase of mining at Flag.
This shaft extends from surface to the bottom level (~870mRL) of the historical underground
working on Flag Main Lode.
à Shafts located at the eastern and western ends of the mine. It is currently proposed to develop
the Eastern Ventilation Shaft between underground development at ~920mRL and the East Pit
ramp at ~955mRL. The uppermost interval of the Western Ventilation Shaft will extend from
development at ~910m RL to the 935mRL berm located in the southwestern corner of the
Flag Main Pit.
Development sizes and ground support specifications proposed by Tectonic are shown in Table 1.

East Pit
In-Ore Decline Backfill

Stage 2 Main
N
East Pit
Central Ventilation
Shaft Collar
Main Pit
Backfill
N
Portal
Western
Ventilation Shaft
Main Pit
East Pit
Eastern
Central Ventilation Shaft
Ventilation Shaft
Historical
Underground
N
Figure 5 Proposed Mine Design for Flag


The borehole cores geotechnically checked logged for the assessment of ground conditions at Flag are
shown in Table 28.
Table 28 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Flag
DD05KP432 UG 105 – 130 DD10KP788 OC 0 – 69
DD05KP459 UG 110 – 132 DD10KP789 OC 0 – 85
DD05KP471 UG 210 – 233 DD10KP798 UG 125 - 195
DD08KP482 UG 150 – 183 DD10KP800 UG 53 - 100
DD08KP488 UG 105 - 160 FD008* UG 100 – 162
DD08KP520 UG 150 – 180 FD012* UG 110 – 180
DD010KP786A OC 0 – 60 FD016* UG 50 -97
DD10KP787 OC 0 – 60 FD024* UG 120 - 190

Note: * Boreholes not included in assessment
Important points about the check logging program:

à The FD series of boreholes were drilled by Norseman Gold Mines in the late 1980’s with the
remaining boreholes drilled by Tectonic between 2005 and 2010.
à A Q-Value comparison found that the results derived from the Norseman Gold Mines
borehole cores were lower than those calculated from the more recent borehole cores. The
Q-Values were significantly lower for the Flag Main Lode and immediately adjacent rock
mass due to degradation of the core over time, and induced fracturing resulting from handling
and cutting of the core for assaying.
à No borehole core intersects the Cross Fault Lode.
à It was decided to utilise only the geotechnical data collected from the Tectonic borehole cores
as they are more likely to be representative of ground conditions at Flag.
The borehole information indicates that the weathering profile within the long and narrow width Flag
Open Pits is variable.
The southern wall of the pit will occur within weathered rock to ~24-27mbs, where the rock grades
into slightly weathered rock. The top of fresh rock occurs on the southern wall occurs at between ~41-
51mbs.
Along the western half of the pits north wall the weathering profile is relatively shallow with slightly
weathered rock occurring from 6mbs to 38mbs (top of fresh rock).
At the eastern end of the north wall the rock mass is weathered to ~60mbs. The top of fresh rock is
interpreted to occur just below ~85mbs.
4.4.3 Rock Quality
The RQD and fracture frequency data collected by the Tectonic Geology Department from the
boreholes cores were assessed according to Quartile values with best and worst case result summarised
in Table 29.

Table 29 Fracture Frequency & RQD Ranges According to Weathering

Highly Weathered to
25 5 10 80
Open Pit
25 7 29 100
Fresh Rock
The results shown in Table 29 indicate that rock mass fracturing at Flag is less than that assessed for
Kaolin and Harbour View Deposits. The rock mass will most likely be predominantly moderately
blocky.
4.4.4 Rock Strength

are presented in Appendix A for (each 1m interval along) the boreholes logged. Uniaxial compressive
strength testing was also undertaken on a selection of borehole cores with results summarised in
Table 30.
Table 30 Summary of Rock Property Results for Flag

UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa)
A+C Total
Rock Type
No No
Samples Samples
Dacite 103 1 2 80 28 4
Intermediate Volcanic - - - 37 - 1
Granite 208 11 2 208 11 2
Notes-
à The weathered rocks at Flag Deposit typically range from 1-50 MPa (worse and best case).
à For slightly weathered to fresh rocks, UCS values of 103 MPa and 80 MPa are considered to
be representative of the best case (highest) and worse case rock strength values respectively
for the volcanic rocks (Dacite and Intermediate Lapilli Tuff).
à Granitic rocks at Flag can be classified as extremely strong.

4.4.5 Rock Stress

Given the shallow depth (≤150m) of mining it is expected, however that rock stresses will be low. On
the basis of experience at other mines, the virgin stress field at Kundip is assumed to be defined as:
General experience at other Australian mines suggests that stress magnitudes may be sufficient to
adversely affect the stability of openings if mining proceeds to depths greater than ∼ 550m below
surface.
4.4.6 Hydrology
To our knowledge no specific hydrogeological investigations have been performed for the Flag
deposit.
At this stage it is inferred that the findings of the 2004 Rockwater investigation for Kaolin will also
apply (in a generalised sense) to Flag.
4.4.7 Rock Defects

Table 31 Major Defect Sets Identified According to Borehole for Flag
1 42° / 210°
DD05KP432 2 75° / 184°
3 43° / 140°
1 41° / 223°
2 86° / 004°
DD05KP433 3 57° / 157°
4 52° / 299°
6 33° / 064°
1 49° / 204°
2 84° / 187°
DD05KP459
3 59° / 135°
4 12° / 316°
1 43° / 193°
2 81° / 199°
DD05KP471 3 53° / 154°
4 25° / 335°
5 58° / 056°
1 40° / 199°
2 81° / 185°
DD05KP472
3 48° / 140°
5 59° / 057°
1 40° / 217°
DD08KP482
4 25° / 318°
1 27° / 217°
DD08KP488
3 53° / 148°
1 35° / 222°
DD08KP520
3 44° / 165°
1 31° / 208°
DD10KP786A
2 78° / 202°
2 89° / 009°
3 55° / 027°
DD10KP787
4 31° / 286°
6 24° / 111°
1 48° / 203°
DD10KP788
2 79° / 202°
DD10KP789 6 34° / 081°
DD10KP798 1 47° / 209°
1 49° / 210°
DD10KP800
4 39° / 278°
From these assessments the major rock defect orientations were delineated for the Flag Deposit with
results summarised in Table 32. The results indicate that Major Rock Defect Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
well developed throughout the deposit while the remaining Defect Sets 5 and 6 are not as prevalent.

Table 32 Summary of Major Rock Defect Orientations Identified at Flag
Defect Set No. Dip / Dip Direction
1 41° / 206°
2 85° / 194°
3 52° / 145°
4 30° / 310°
5 58° / 056°
6 30° / 090°
Table 33 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Flag
Sliding on moderate South Southwest dipping defects

Sliding 1
with release from Defect 2.
North Wall Toppling on steep North dipping variants of steep South

Toppling 2
Southwest dipping defects.
Wedge 1-3 Potential wedge sliding out along defect intersection.
Toppling 2 Toppling on steep South Southeast dipping defects.

South Wall
Potential wedge on steeper outliers, sliding out along
Wedge 4-5
defect intersection.
Possible sliding on steeper variants of Northwest dipping

Sliding 4
defects with release from multiple defects.
East Wall 2-4 Sliding out on Defect 4.
Wedge
1-4 Sliding out on steeper variants of Defect 4.
Potential sliding on steeper variants of East dipping

Sliding 6
defects with release from Defect 4..
3-5 Wedge sliding out along defect intersection.
2-5 Wedge sliding out along Defect 5.

West Wall
Wedge 2-3 Wedge sliding out along Defect 3.

Appendix C

Table 34 Summary of Mining Rock Mass Rating Assessment for Flag Open Pit Walls

Value Value
Best 6 15 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 0.86 0.8 0.94 27.7 43.8°
Moderate to Highly
Weathered Rock
Worse 1 3 0.7 0.60 1.0 0.2 3.4 0.86 0.8 0.94 4.8 32.4°
Best 10 12 0.8 0.90 1.0 0.75 21.6 1.0 0.8 0.94 32.7 46.3°
Slightly Weathered
to Fresh Rock
Worse 8 2 0.70 0.60 1.0 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.8 0.94 10.0 35.0°


The Q-System 9,10 has been used to characterise ground conditions at Flag according to the geometrical
domain defined in Table 35 and illustrated by Figure 6. The methodology used to characterise ground
conditions within borehole cores is the same as that described in Section 2.4.9 for Kaolin.
Table 35 Geotechnical Domains Assessed using the Q-System for Flag
HWFML Far field country rocks located to the south of Flag Main Lode.
HW3FML Immediate south wall rock mass, within 3m of stope wall.
FML Flag Main Lode, minimum mining width 3m.
FW3FML Immediate north wall rock mass, within 3m of stope wall.
FWFML Far field country rocks located to the north of Flag Main Lode.
Borehole
Trace FML
HWFML
FW3FML
HW3FML
FWFML
Figure 6 Schematic Diagram Showing Geometric Domains at Flag

To obtain a general understanding of ground conditions at the Flag Deposit quartiles were calculated
for each of the geometrical domains identified in Table 35 with Q Values and Modified Q Values
results presented in Table 36.

sizes of development proposed for Flag Deposit will require the reinforcement systems shown in Table
26. The results indicate that spot bolting of development should be adequate, however to comply with
current industry guidelines the development should be supported as a minimum with F51 (or
equivalent) galvanized weld mesh installed on drive backs and shoulders with pattern bolting of
backs and sidewalls.

Maximum Unsupported Spans

Barton et al 9 developed a relationship between Q-Values and excavation span ratios (ESR) to estimate
maximum unsupported spans for development:
Maximum Unsupported Span = 2 x ESR x Q0.4
The maximum unsupported span for the immediate hangingwall rock mass of Flag Main Lode using
the 2nd Quartile Q-Value (9.2) and an ESR value of 2.0 was calculated to be 9.2m.

The Modified Stability Graph Method 11 described in Section 2.4.9 has been used to make a
preliminary assessment of stable stope spans. The key input parameters for the Flag stope stability
assessment and result are summarised in Table 38 with calculations presented in Appendix D.

Table 36 Summary of Quartile Q' and Q-Values for Flag Domains
Q'-Value Q-Value
Domain Rock Class
HWFML 3.8 10.3 22.5 39.0 3.8 10.3 22.5 39.0 Poor – Good
HW3FML 6.7 9.2 21.8 28.3 6.7 9.2 21.8 28.3 Fair – Good
FML 8.3 13.1 22.0 44.5 8.3 13.1 22.0 44.5 Fair – Very Good
FW3FML 13.6 18.0 22.3 25.0 13.6 18.0 22.3 25.0 Good
FWFML 19.8 23.8 25.0 75.0 19.8 23.8 25.0 75.0 Good – Very Good

Table 37 Indicated Ground Support Requirements for Flag According to Q-System Design Chart
2nd Quartile
Q-Value
Decline
1.3 FWFML 23.8 Spot Bolting
4.0m W x 4.0m H
Ore Accesses Flag Main Lode

1.6 FWFML 23.8 Spot Bolting
4.0m W x 4.0m H
Ore Drive – Flag Main Lode

1.6 FML 13.1 Spot Bolting
3.0m W x 3.5m H
Table 38 Summary of Modified Stability Graph Results for Flag
Orebody Q' Value A B C N'
HR (m) (Dip Span x Length) HR (m) (Dip Span x Length)
20m x 40m 35m x 57m

Main Lode 9.2 0.79 0.3 3.3 7.2 6.7 10.8
(1 sublevel) (2 sublevels)

4.5 Open Pit Mining
Table 39 Base case wall design parameters (inferred likely rock mass conditions) for Flag Open Pit
Wall Location Rock Mass Description
Surface (m) (°) (m) (m) (°)
Completely to Slightly
North 0 - 60 60° 7 15 44°
Weathered
0 – 30 60° 7 15 44°
South, East and West Walls Slightly Weathered to Fresh
30 – 60 65° 7 15 47


Tectonics plan to utilise LHOS with pillars to extract Flag Main Lode is considered to be
geotechnically feasible based on current interpretations of ground conditions. Cut and fill mining
proposed for the bottom portion of the western ore block will add further conservatism to the mine
design. If ground conditions are found to less favourable in the LHOS areas than expected, Bench
Stoping with rock fill would be the preferred alternative mining method.
The absence of borehole cores that intersect the Cross Fault Lode has prevented a geotechnical
assessment being undertaken for this lode. For a feasibility level geotechnical assessment to be
undertaken diamond drill core would be required for the purpose of collection of geotechnical data.
Preliminary mine design parameters for Flag Main Lode will be outlined in the following sections.
It is recommended that a conservative HR value be initially adopted for Flag Main Lode Stopes:
Flag Main Lode HR = 6.7m 20m high x 40m long (~1 sub-level)
4.6.3 Pillar Design
General experience suggests that rib pillars should typically have not less than a 1:1 “aspect ratio”
(width : height) to be stable in the expected low stress environment at Flag. When rib pillars are used
they should be staggered and uniformly distributed to prevent large, continuous dip spans being
formed.
As discussed in Section 3.6.3 it is considered advisable to leave sill pillars where top-down open
stoping is applied, the aim being to prevent the downward flow of wall rock dilution into the
underlying stoping areas. The sill pillars should be strategically positioned, preferably where the
strike length of a stope blocks is smallest and/or low grade ore occurs. For Flag stopes it is suggested
that sill pillars are spaced no more than 80m vertically apart and that they have a minimum thickness
of ~ 1.5 times the width of the proposed underlying stope void.
It is also strongly recommended that allowance be made for pillars (ribs and sills) to be left around the
perimeters of the historical stopes. The pillars should aim to prevent the most likely unstable and
collapsed historical stopes from compromising the stability and ore recovery from the proposed new
stopes at Flag.
Comments about major mine infrastructure are provided:
Decline and Accesses

The mine footwall sequence in which the decline and access development will be positioned is
composed of good – very good quality rock. Within this favourable rock mass the decline should be
kept ≥25m from potential stope voids.
Ventilation Shafts
Both the Eastern and Western Ventilation Shafts are expected to be predominantly developed through
fresh rock. Shafts of up to 3m diameter should be reasonably self supporting if raisebored however
installation of mesh and rock bolts will require if developed by handheld drill and blast techniques.
No comments can be provided about the condition of the original Flag Main Shaft that Tectonic
intends to also use to exhaust mine air.
The minimum ground support designs are contained in Appendix E and summarised in Table 40.
Important aspects of the designs will be discussed.


The Portal entrance into the Flag Underground Mine is planned to be developed at a depth of ~50mbs
in the north-western corner of the Flag Main Pit. At this depth the rock mass is expected to be slightly
weathered to fresh. A similar approach to ground support can be adopted for the Portal and adjacent
Open Pit Batters to that described in Section 2.6.6 for Kaolin.
Main Decline and Accesses

à Good to very good quality rock is anticipated within the majority of Main Decline and ore
access development. An appropriate minimum ground support standard would be to install,
≥2.4m long friction bolts and weld mesh over the backs and shoulders of this development.
à The assessments indicate that zones of poor quality rock are not prevalent, however for
budgeting purposes it is suggested that it would be prudent to allow for at least 10% of the
development to be meshed to within 1.5m of floor level.
Ore Drives
à Ground conditions within the Flag ore drives should be predominantly fair to good. For these
favourable ground conditions the minimum ground support standard should be to install 1.8m
long friction bolts and mesh across the drive backs and shoulders.
à For budgeting purposes it is recommended that an allowance be made for 10% of ore drive
development to be meshed to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Intersection Spans
à All wide spans formed at the intersection of large size (≥4m wide) development, in particular
decline intersections should be systematically reinforced with ≥6m long twin strand cable
bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern throughout the wide span. The cable bolts would be in
addition to the standard drive development ground support installed.
à Within smaller size intersection spans such as those formed between accesses and ore drives
an appropriate reinforcement would be to install ≥3m long, ~20 tonne capacity full column
grouted gewie bars on a ~1.5m x 1.5m pattern throughout the span. Alternatively cable bolts
installed on a 2.0m x 2.0m pattern could also be used.
Stope Spans
à For costing purposes it is suggested that an allowance be made for 25% of ore drive
hangingwalls to be reinforced with 2-2.5m spaced rings of ≥4m long twin strand cable bolts,
with each ring containing two (2) plated and tensioned cable bolts.

Table 40 Summary of Ground Support Specifications for Flag

Development
Type
Weakly to Moderately Structured Rock ≥2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A2 and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Mass (Fair to Good)
Decline and Ore
4.0mW x 4.0mH
Accesses
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock mass 2.4m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A3
(Very Poor to Poor) and shoulders to within ~1.5m of floor level.
Weakly to Moderately Structured Rock 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A4
Mass (Fair to Good) and shoulders to within ~3.0m of floor level.
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock mass 1.8m long friction bolts and mesh (3.0m x 2.4m) installed over the backs
A5
(Very Poor to Poor) and sidewalls to within ~1.5m of floor level.
≥6m long twin strand cable bolts installed on a 2m x 2m pattern throughout

wide span.
Intersection
Spans
Highly Structured (Blocky) Rock Mass

≥4m long, twin stand cable bolts installed in 2-2.5m spaced rings with each
Stope Spans - and/ or unfavourably orientated A7
structures.

5.0 Further Work

This section briefly discusses areas that require additional attention:
5.1 Additional Geotechnical Assessment

Tectonic have developed underground mine designs for several lodes that could not be geotechnically
assessed for the current report. For additional assessment to be undertaken to feasibility standard,
borehole core from additional diamond drilling would be required for geotechnical logging.
The lodes identified as requiring assessment will be discussed.
Kaolin and Hillsborough Deposit

For the proposed Hillsborough underground mining area it is recommended that at least seven (7)
additional borehole cores be drilled to intersect the main Hillsborough Lode and adjacent sub-parallel
lodes. It is suggested that these boreholes be drilled on ~40-50m spaced sections with 2-3 drillholes
per section to provide good coverage of the lodes dip extent within the proposed underground mining
area. Some (2-3) of the drillholes should be extended to provide coverage of the mine stratigraphy for
the purpose of characterising ground conditions and optimising the location of decline and access
development.
Harbour View Deposit

At the Harbour View Deposit the smaller secondary lodes of Maydon and Cross Lode may require a
small number of boreholes to characterise ground conditions for development and stoping purposes.
Two small stoping blocks that are ~30-40m long and with dip extents of ~10-20m occur directly
below the floor of the proposed Maydon Open Pit. These lodes could be geotechnically characterised
by undertaking geotechnical window mapping within the bottom parts of the proposed Maydon Open
Pit. If there is possibility that the size of these Maydon Lodes could increase particularly in dip extent
then it is suggested that two geotechnical boreholes be drilled into each stope block to test ground
conditions.
The Cross Lode which is located at the southern end of the Harbour View Deposit is a moderate
(~45°) southeast dipping lode that has a strike length of ~70m and dip extent of ~50-70m. This lode
warrants drilling of four (4) boreholes preferably on two type sections spaced ~30-40m apart. Each
section should have two (2) boreholes positioned to provide even coverage of the lodes dip extent.
Flag Deposit
The moderate (50°) southeast dipping Cross Fault Lode at Flag Deposit has a strike length of ~20-40m
and dip extent of ~50m. This irregular strike length lode may warrant investigation with three (3)
boreholes that intersect the lode at 20-30m spacings apart.
5.2 Monitoring
Monitoring will be required for:
à Open pit access stability assessment.
à Stability of slopes overlying and adjacent to the portal.
à Stope stability, particularly hangingwall stability. Use of simple (short) borehole extensometers
(tell-tales) will be required (at least locally).
à Groundwater inflows and/or chemistry may also need to be checked to assess potential for
corrosion of steel reinforcing (grouted and ungrouted) and support elements.
5.3 Ground Control Management Plan
To comply with Section 10.28 of the Western Australian Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations
1995, development of a formal Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) is required.
The GCMP describes the ground conditions encountered and/or anticipated in the mine, and justifies
the mining methods in use or proposed. It identifies likely failure mechanisms and the means by
which these will be precluded or avoided to permit safe development and production.

The physical and management procedures to be used to ensure appropriate mine design and use of safe
mining practices are also described.
From a geotechnical perspective, the document must show nominal design sections and plans for
layouts of each type of reinforcement/support profile and/or pattern and must include a written
description of the nominal specifications.
The derivations of base case reinforcement and support designs are provided by this report. The
GCMP must also, however, detail how site by site variations to reinforcement and/or support are
determined and justified, particularly where reductions in base case support levels are proposed.
Additionally, the manner in which further structural geological and geotechnical data will be gathered
and analysed and reviewed, and designs confirmed or amended in practice must also be documented.
5.4 Geotechnical Review

Regular geotechnical review of stability conditions during mining operations is recommended. Such
reviews should be conducted at ≤ 50m vertical increments in decline development, depending on
assessment of actual conditions by Tectonic.

6.0 Closure
The foregoing recommendations assume that appropriate techniques are used, and carried out at a
consistently high standard, in all aspects of underground development and stoping, and in ground
reinforcement and support installation, in all future Phillips River mines.
We trust that the information provided meets your current requirements. Should there be any need for
further explanation, please do not hesitate to contact us.
PETER O’BRYAN & Associates

per:
John Keogh Peter O’Bryan

Associate Principal

7.0 References
1. Walker. R., 2006.

Ground Conditions at Kundip, 2006.
Tectonic Resources N.L internal document (unpublish).
2. Smith. G., 2006.
Phillips River Project Feasibility Study, 2006.
Tectonic Resources N.L internal document (unpublish).
3. Keogh. J.T and O’Bryan. P.R., 2006.
Development and Stoping Geotechnical Assessment Phillips River Project ,May 2006.
Peter O’Bryan & Associates letter report 060034 to Tectonic Resources NL.
4. O’Bryan. P.R., 2004.
Proposed Kundip Underground, Preliminary Stope Parameters, February 2004.
Peter O’Bryan & Associates letter report 03028A to Tectonic Resources NL.
5. Diederichs, M.S. and Hoek, E., 2002.
Dips, program for plotting, analysis and presentation of structural data
using spherical projection techniques.
Rock Engineering Group, University of Toronto, Ont, Canada.
6. Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973.
Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses
Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ Engrs, Vol 15.
7. Laubscher,D.H., 1990
A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design
J.S.Afr.Inst.Min.Metall.,vol. 90, no. 10, 257-273.
8. Haines, A. and Terbrugge., 1991
Preliminary Estimation of Rock Slope Stability using Rock Mass Classification Systems.
Proceedings 7th Int. Congr. On Rock Mechanics, ISRM, Aachen.
9. Barton, N., Lien, R and Lunde, J., 1974
Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support
Rock Mech, 6(4), 189-239.
10. Grimstad, E. and Barton, N., 1993
Updating the Q-System for NMT.
Proc. Intl Symp on sprayed Concrete pp46-66.
Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo.
11. Hutchinson, D.J. and Diederichs, M.S., 1996
Cablebolting in Underground Mines.
BTech Publishers Ltd., BC, Canada.
12. Fenixx Australia Pty Ltd., 2010.
Rock Property Testing, Phillips River Project, Kundip Deposits, July 2010.
Fenixx Australia Pty Ltd., 2010 report to Tectonic Resources NL.
13. Rattray. K.J. and Wharton. P.H., 2004.

Kundip Copper and Gold Project, Hydrological Investigation and
Monitoring Bore Completion Report, March, 2004.
Rockwater Pty Ltd report to Tectonic Resources NL.

$33(1',;$
54')5$&785()5(48(1&<:($7+(5,1*$1'
+$5'1(66'$7$
.81',3'(326,76

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
'HSRVLW %RUHKROH )URP 7R 54' )UDFWXUH)UHTXHQF\ :HDWKHULQJ +DUGQHVV
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 1RW&ROOHFWHG

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3$ 1RW5HFRUGHG 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 6
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
)ODJ ''.3$ : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 6
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
)ODJ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ ''.3 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 1RW&ROOHFWHG
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ ''.3 1RW&ROOHFWHG 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
.DROLQ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
+LOOVERURXJK ''.3 : 6
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
.DROLQ %' : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 1RW&ROOHFWHG
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 5
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3 : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3$ 1RW5HFRUGHG 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 5
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3$ : 5
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
+DUERXU9LHZ ''.3 1RW5HFRUGHG 1RW&ROOHFWHG : 6
P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH

P P )UDFWXUHVPHWUH
$33(1',;%
67(5(2*5$3+,&3/276
.81',3'(326,76

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV

.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+LOOVERURXJK

+LOOVERURXJK

+LOOVERURXJK

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV

+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV

)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)ODJ

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
$33(1',;&
0505$1'6/23(&$/&8/$7,216
.81',3'(326,76

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
.DROLQDQG+LOOVERURXJK
0LQLQJ5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ 0505 SDUDPHWHUVDQGFDOFXODWLRQVIRUPRGHUDWHO\WRVWURQJO\
ZHDWKHUHGVLOWVWRQHV
,QWDFW5RFN6WUHQJWK,56
8&6%HVW 03D IURP7DEOH ,56%HVWUDWLQJ

8&6:RUVH 03D IURP7DEOH ,56:RUVHUDWLQJ

6SDFLQJRI)UDFWXUHVDQG-RLQWV54'-6RU))
))%HVW IP -RLQWVSUHVHQW IURP7DEOH ))%HVWUDWLQJ

)):RUVH IP -RLQWVSUHVHQW IURP7DEOH )):RUVHUDWLQJ

-RLQW&RQGLWLRQDQG:DWHU-5&
$FFXPXODWLYHDGMXVWPHQWRISRVVLEOHUDWLQJRI
5RFNPDVVFRQGLWLRQVGHVFULEHGDVGDPS
-5&%HVW
/DUJHVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRUFXUYHG
6PDOOVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRULUUHJXODUURXJK
-RLQWZDOODOWHUDWLRQ ZDOOURFNQRWZHDNHUWKDQILOO
-RLQWILOOLQJ ILQHQRQVRIWHQLQJ
5DWLQJ [ [[[ -5&%HVWUDWLQJ

-5&:RUVH
/DUJHVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRUSODQDU
6PDOOVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRUSODQDUVPRRWK
-RLQWILOOLQJ JRXJHWKLFNQHVV!DPSOLWXGHRILUUHJXODULWLHV
5DWLQJ [ [[[ -5&:RUVHUDWLQJ

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505
505%HVW 505%HVWUDWLQJ

505:RUVH 505:RUVHUDWLQJ

0LQLQJ5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ0505
$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
:HDWKHULQJ PRGHUDWHZHDWKHULQJSLWOLIH\HDUV
1XPEHURIMRLQWV MRLQWIRUPLQJEORFNV
6WUHVV QHJOLJLEOHVWUHVVHVH[SHFWHGDWVKDOORZGHSWK
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
%ODVWLQJ JRRGFRQYHQWLRQDOEODVWLQJ
0505 505u$GMXVWPHQWV
0505%HVW [[[[ 0505%HVWUDWLQJ

0505:RUVH [[[[ 0505:RUVHUDWLQJ


6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
0LQLQJ5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ 0505 SDUDPHWHUVDQGFDOFXODWLRQVIRUVOLJKWO\ZHDWKHUHGWR
IUHVKURFN




-5&%HVW
-RLQWILOOLQJ IRUILQHQRQVRIWHQLQJ

-5&:RUVH
/DUJHVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRUVWUDLJKW
6PDOOVFDOHMRLQWH[SUHVVLRQ IRUSODQDUURXJK

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505


$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
:HDWKHULQJ QRZHDWKHULQJH[SHFWHG
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV



6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ
ZHDWKHUHGVLOWVWRQHV




-5&%HVW

-5&:RUVH

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505


$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV


+DUERXU9LHZ
6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
+DUERXU9LHZ
IUHVKURFN




-5&%HVW

-5&:RUVH

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505


$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV


+DUERXU9LHZ
6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)/$*
ZHDWKHUHGVLOWVWRQHV




-5&%HVW

-5&:RUVH

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505


$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV


)/$*
6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
)/$*
IUHVKURFN




-5&%HVW

-5&:RUVH

5RFN0DVV5DWLQJ505


$GMXVWPHQWVWR505
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV


6ORSH$QJOH
0505
6ORSHDQJOH

6ORSHDQJOH%HVW

6ORSHDQJOH:RUVH

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
$33(1',;'
02',),('67$%,/,7<*5$3+&$/&8/$7,216
.81',3'(326,76

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
7KLV$SSHQGL[FRQWDLQV0RGLILHG6WDELOLW\*UDSK0HWKRGFDOFXODWLRQVIRUWKHSURSRVHG
+DUERXU9LHZ)ODJDQG.DROLQ8QGHUJURXQG0LQHVDWWKHE3KLOOLSV5LYHU3URMHFW
.H\FKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIHDFKPLQLQJEORFNDUHVXPPDULVHGLQ7DEOH'
7DEOH' 6XPPDU\7DEOHRI.H\,QSXW3DUDPHWHUVIRU0RGLILHG6WDELOLW\*UDSK
$VVHVVPHQW
&ULWLFDO'HIHFW
'LSRI 0LG2UHERG\ 'HVLJQ 8&6
0LQH 2UHERG\ 2ULHQWDWLRQ
2UHERG\ 'HSWK PEV 4 9DOXH 03D
'LS'LS'LUHFWLRQ
+DUERXU
1: P
9LHZ/RGH
+DUERXU
9LHZ +DUERXU
9LHZ1RUWK 1: P
/RGH
)ODJ 0DLQ/RGH 66( P
0DLQ/RGH 6 P

.DROLQ
)RRWZDOO
6 P
/RGH
,PSRUWDQWSRLQWVDERXWWKHEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQDUH
à 7KHRUHERG\GLSVZHUHPHDVXUHGIURPDVHWRIVFDOHJHRORJLFDOFURVVVHFWLRQV
SURYLGHGE\7HFWRQLF
à 7KHUHVXOWVRIWKHQG4XDUWLOH PHDQ 4 9DOXHVDVVHVVPHQWVIRUWKHLPPHGLDWH
+: URFNVRIWKHRUHERGLHVZKHUHXVHGLQWKHDVVHVVPHQW
à 7KH8QLD[LDO&RPSUHVVLYH6WUHQJWK 8&6 YDOXHVVHOHFWHGDUHEDVHGRQWKHPHDQ
UHVXOWVIRUIDLOXUHWKURXJKLQWDFWURFNIRUYROFDQLFURFNV 'DFLWHDQG/DSLOOL7XIIVDQG
,QWHUPHGLDWH9ROFDQLFV IRXQGDWWKHGHSRVLWV
5RFN6WUHVV)DFWRU$
7KHIROORZLQJVWUHVVGHSWKUHODWLRQVKLSVDQGRULHQWDWLRQVKDYHEHHQDSSOLHGDW3KLOOLSV5LYHU
0DMRU3ULQFLSDO6WUHVV V |[V 1RUWK6RXWK
,QWHUPHGLDWH3ULQFLSDO6WUHVV V |[V (DVW:HVW
0LQRU3ULQFLSDO6WUHVV V |['HSWKEHORZVXUIDFH 9HUWLFDO
6WRSHZDOOVDW+DUERXU9LHZDQG)ODJZLOOPRVWOLNHO\EHDIIHFWHGE\WKH0DMRUDQG
,QWHUPHGLDWHVWUHVVHVUHVSHFWLYHO\DFWLQJ7RHVWLPDWHWKHPLQLQJLQGXFHGVWUHVVHVDFWLQJRQ
VWRSHZDOOVWKHSUHPLQLQJSULQFLSDOVWUHVVHVZHUHFRQFHQWUDWHGE\DIDFWRURIZLWKUHVXOWV
VKRZQEHORZ
+DUERXU9LHZ0D[LPXP0LQLQJ,QGXFHG6WUHVV +DUERXU9LHZV0D[ 03D
)ODJ0D[LPXP0LQLQJ,QGXFHG6WUHVV )ODJV0D[ 03D
.DROLQ0D[LPXP0LQLQJ,QGXFHG6WUHVV .DROLQV0D[ 03D
(VWLPDWHGDYHUDJHLQWDFWURFNVWUHQJWKRI03DKDVEHHQDVVLJQHG
7KHURFNVWUHVVIDFWRUIRUWKHVWRSHKDQJLQJZDOOVDUH
$+DUERXU9LHZ ıFı0D[ )DFWRU$GHULYHGIURPFKDUW
$)ODJ ıFı0D[ )DFWRU$GHULYHGIURPFKDUW
$.DROLQ ıFı0D[ )DFWRU$GHULYHGIURPFKDUW
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
&ULWLFDO-RLQW)DFWRU%
$FFRUGLQJWRVWHUHRJUDSKLFSURMHFWLRQVRIPDMRUSODQHVWKHFULWLFDOMRLQWIRUKDQJLQJZDOO
VWDELOLW\DW+DUERXU9LHZDQG)ODJ
%+DUERXU9LHZ % 'HIHFWV VXESDUDOOHOWRRUHERG\GLS
%)ODJ % 'HIHFWV VXESDUDOOHOWRRUHERG\GLS
%.DROLQ % 'HIHFWV VOLJKWO\DFXWHWRRUHERG\GLS
)DFH,QFOLQDWLRQ)DFWRU&
&+DUERXU9LHZ 6ODEELQJRQVXEYHUWLFDOIROLDWLRQ'LSRIVWRSH
&)ODJ 6ODEELQJRQPRGHUDWHGLSSLQJGHIHFWV'LSRIVWRSH
&.DROLQ 6ODEELQJRQPRGHUDWHGLSSLQJGHIHFWV'LSRIVWRSH
0RGLILHG6WDELOLW\1XPEHU1 +\GUDXOLF5DGLXV+5
1 4 [$[%[&
7KHLQSXWSDUDPHWHUVIRUWKHDVVHVVPHQWVDQGWKHUHVXOWLQJ0RGLILHG6WDELOLW\1XPEHU1DUH
VKRZQLQ7DEOH'
)URPWKH3RWYLQ DQG1LFNVRQ GDWDEDVHVRIXQVXSSRUWHGVWRSHVWKHIROORZLQJ
K\GUDXOLFUDGLXVDUHWKHRUHWLFDOO\DFKLHYDEOH
7DEOH' 0RGLILHG6WDELOLW\*UDSK$VVHVVPHQW,QSXW3DUDPHWHUVDQG+55HVXOWVIRU
8QVXSSRUWHGDQG6XSSRUWHG6WRSHV
8QVXSSRUWHG 6XSSRUWHG
4
2UHERG\ $ % & 1
9DOXH +5 +5
'LS6SDQ[/HQJWK 'LS6SDQ[/HQJWK
P P
+DUERXU9LHZ P[P P[P

/RGH VXEOHYHO VXEOHYHOV
+DUERXU9LHZ P[P P[P

1RUWK/RGH VXEOHYHOV VXEOHYHOV
)ODJ P[P P[P

0DLQ/RGH VXEOHYHO VXEOHYHOV
.DROLQ P[P P[P

0DLQ/RGH VXEOHYHO VXEOHYHO
.DROLQ P[P P[P

)RRWZDOO/RGH VXEOHYHO VXEOHYHO

3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV
$VVRFLDWHV
$33(1',;(
*5281'6833257$1'5(,1)25&(0(17'(6,*16
.81',3'(326,76

$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

&RQWLQXHVXSWRFUHVWRIRYHUO\LQJEHUP

)UHHKDQJLQJZLUHPHVKFXUWDLQ

P
PORQJIXOOFROXPQ
JURXWHGJHZLHEDULQVWDOOHG
RQDP[PSDWWHUQ
PORQJIXOOFROXPQ
&/ JURXWHGJHZLHEDULQVWDOOHG
PDSDUWRYHU3RUWDO
EDFNVDQGVKRXOGHUUHJLRQV
3RUWDO
PPWKLFNILEUHFUHWH
P

D *URXQGVXSSRUWDQGUHLQIRUFHPHQWIRU3RUWDO
(QWUDQFH2SHQ3LWEDWWHU

PORQJWZLQVWUDQGEXOEHGFDEOH
EROWVLQVWDOOHGLQPVSDFHGULQJV
ZLWKFDEOHVPDSDUW

&/

3RUWDO

E &DEOH%ROWUHLQIRUFHPHQWIRUILUVWPRIGHFOLQH
GHYHORSPHQW

)LJXUH$ 3RUWDODQG6XUURXQGLQJ%DWWHU*URXQG

6XSSRUWDQG5HLQIRUFHPHQW
3HWHU2 %U\DQ $VVRFLDWHV
-RE' 'UDZQ-7. &KHFN32% 'DWH'HF
$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

0HVK
P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

&/

P:[P+

6HFWLRQ P

P

1RWH
P)ULFWLRQ%ROWVLQVHUWHGLQWR
WKHP)ULFWLRQ%ROWVORFDWHG
DORQJWKHPHVKRYHUODSRIWKH
SUHYLRXVFXW

([SDQGHG3ODQ9LHZRI)ULFWLRQ%ROWVDQG0HVK

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

6SHFLILFDWLRQV
0HVK )*DOYDQLVHGP[PVKHHWV
±PRYHUODS
)ULFWLRQ%ROWV *DOYDQLVHG
PORQJPPGLDPHWHULQRYHUODS
PORQJPPGLDPHWHUHOVHZKHUH
±PVSDFLQJ
)ULFWLRQ%ROW3ODWHV *DOYDQLVHG
PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ 'HFOLQHDQG2UH$FFHVV*URXQG6XSSRUW
LQ:HDNO\WR0RGHUDWHO\6WUXFWXUHG5RFN
3HWHU2 %U\DQ $VVRFLDWHV 0DVV

$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW
0HVK

&/

P+[P:

6HFWLRQ P
P
1RWH
SUHYLRXVFXW


P)ULFWLRQ%ROW
P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

6SHFLILFDWLRQV
±PRYHUODS

±PVSDFLQJ

PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ 'HFOLQHDQG2UH$FFHVV*URXQG6XSSRUW
LQ+LJKO\6WUXFWXUHG %ORFN\ 5RFN0DVV

$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

0HVK

&/

P:[P+
6HFWLRQ

P
P

1RWH
SUHYLRXVFXW

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW
P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

6SHFLILFDWLRQV

±PRYHUODS
±PVSDFLQJ

PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ 0HFKDQLVHG2UH'ULYHLQ:HDNWR
0RGHUDWHO\6WUXFWXUHG5RFN0DVV

$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

0HVK

&/

P:[P+
6HFWLRQ
P

P

1RWH
SUHYLRXVFXW

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW
P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

6SHFLILFDWLRQV
±PRYHUODS

±PVSDFLQJ

PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ 0HFKDQLVHG2UH'ULYHLQ+LJKO\

6WUXFWXUHG %ORFN\ 5RFN0DVV
$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

P)ULFWLRQ%ROW

&/

P:[P+

6HFWLRQ

6SHFLILFDWLRQV
PORQJPPGLDPHWHU
±PVSDFLQJ

PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ +DQGKHOG2UH'ULYHLQ:HDNWR
0RGHUDWHO\6WUXFWXUHG5RFN0DVV
&KHFN32% 'DWH'HF
-RE' 'UDZQ-7.
$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

&/ P)ULFWLRQEROW

P:[P+

6HFWLRQ

P
P

3UHYLRXV&XWVP)ULFWLRQ%ROW
P)ULFWLRQ%ROWRQRYHUODS

6SHFLILFDWLRQV

±PRYHUODS
PORQJPPGLDPHWHU

±PVSDFLQJ
PP[PP[PPGRPHGSODWH
%XWWHUIO\SODWH

)LJXUH$ +DQGKHOG2UH'ULYHLQ+LJKO\6WUXFWXUHG
%ORFN\ 5RFN0DVV

$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

P&DEOH%ROW

&/

P:[P+
6HFWLRQ

6SHFLILFDWLRQV
5LQJ6SDFLQJ PDSDUW
&DEOH6SDFLQJ PDSDUW
&DEOHV PORQJWZLQVWUDQGFDEOH
3ODWHV PP[PP[PP
%DUUHODQG:HGJH 2QHVWUDQGRQO\

)LJXUH$ 6WRSH:DOO5HLQIRUFHPHQW+LJKO\
6WUXFWXUHG %ORFN\ 5RFN0DVV
&KHFN32% 'DWH'HF
-RE& 'UDZQ-7.
$VVRFLDWHV
3(7(52·%5<$1 $VVRFLDWHV

CMS16331 Referral Appendix 13 Geotechnical Assessment of Kundip Mine Site

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMS16331 Referral Appendix 13 Geotechnical Assessment of Kundip Mine Site

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMS16331 Referral Appendix 13 Geotechnical Assessment of Kundip Mine Site

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PETER O’BRYAN & Associates

Consultants in Mining Geomechanics

A division of WBG Pty Ltd ABN 94 082 091 236

PHILLIPS RIVER PROJECT

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

4.4.5 Rock Stress ...................................................................................................................................... 47

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

1.1 Sources of Information

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

2.0 Kaolin and Hillsborough

2.2 Previous Mining

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

2.3 Proposed Mining

Figure 1 Proposed Mine Designs for Kaolin and Hillsborough

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

Table 1 Proposed Development Sizes and Minimum Ground Support Specifications

Development Type Dimensions

3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets & 2.4m long, 46mm

3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets & 1.8m long, 46mm

3.0m x 2.4m weld mesh sheets as required & 1.5m

2.4 Ground Conditions

Table 2 Borehole Core Intervals Assessed for Kaolin and Hillsborough

DD04KP342 OC 0 – 110 DD09KP751 OC 0 - 55

DD04KP343 OC 0 – 110 BD015 UG 80 – 133

DD04KP344 OC 0 – 110 BD016 UG 70 – 120

DD05KP473 OC / UG 100 - 117 BD024 UG 80 – 130

DD05KP474 OC / UG 70 – 86 BD025 UG 80 – 130

DD08KP510 OC 45 – 86 BD026 UG 60 – 120

DD09KP748 OC 0 - 115 BD030 UG 60 – 120

DD09KP749 * OC 0 – 126 BD034 UG 83 – 132

DD09KP750 * OC 0 – 72 BD035 UG 90 – 140

Note: * = Hillsborough Boreholes all others Kaolin.

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

Fracture Frequency (f/m) RQD (%)

Underground Fresh Rock 25 8 21 100

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

2.4.4 Rock Strength

Table 4 Summary of Rock Property Results for Kaolin and Hillsborough

Dacite 252 20 3 252 20 3

Diorite 172 129 2 172 129 2

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

Borehole Defect Set Major Defect Set

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

DD09KP710 2 14° / 087°

Table 6 Summary of Major Defect Set Orientations Identified at

Major Defect Set No. Dip / Dip Direction

PETER O'BRYAN & Associates

Table 7 Potential Modes of Wall Failure at Kaolin and Hillsborough

Wall Location Mode of Failure Defect Set Comments

Sliding on moderate South Southeast dipping defects with

Wedge 3-4-5 Wedge sliding out on Defect 3

Possible sliding on steeper outliers of North Northeast dipping

Localised sliding on steep Northwest dipping defects with

Wedge 3-4-5 Wedge sliding out on Defect 5

Wedge 4-5-6 Wedge sliding out on Defect 5

Sliding on moderate West Southwest dipping defects with

Possible sliding on steeper outliers of North Northeast dipping

2.4.8 Mining Rock Mass Rating Scheme