Geotechnical Assessment of Golden Pike Cutback for KCGM Pty Ltd

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK for

KCGM PTY LTD

BFP CONSULTANTS PTY LTD Prepared by: Level 2 Eastpoint Plaza 233 Adelaide Terrace Dr P M Dight PERTH WA 6000 AUSTRALIA Mr P H Lamb Tel: +61-8-9202 1799 Fax: +61-8-9202 1517 Email: [email protected]

JOB NO: 1803035 DATE: February 2004 STATUS: Final

DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL

Title Geotechnical Assessment of Golden Pike Cutback for KCGM Pty Ltd

Document Final Type

Version 1

Date February 2004

Filename L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geotech Assess_GPC

Author(s) BFP Consultants Pty Ltd, Perth

Distribution 1. KCGM Pty Ltd

2. KCGM Pty Ltd

3. BFP Consultants Pty Ltd – Project File

4. BFP Consultants Pty Ltd – Original

5. BFP Consultants Pty Ltd – Library

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Comments Date Issued

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

Title Geotechnical Assessment of Golden Pike Cutback for KCGM Pty Ltd

Version 1

Approval Dr P M Dight

Position Partner & Geotechnical Director, WA

Date February 2004

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1

2.0 SCOPE...... 1

3.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1

4.0 GEOLOGY ...... 2

5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ...... 2

6.0 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY...... 3

7.0 DRILL CORE AND TRAVERSE MAPPING DATA ...... 3

8.0 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION ...... 4

9.0 STEREOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ...... 5

10.0 SEISMICITY ...... 6

11.0 WILLIAMSTOWN DOLERITE EXPOSURES NORTH OF KALGOORLIE ...... 6

12.0 ABANDONMENT BUND...... 7

13.0 ASSESSMENT OF KINEMATIC FAILURE POTENTIAL FOR GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK...... 7

14.0 REVIEW OF GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DESIGN ...... 8

15.0 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS...... 9

16.0 TASKS OUTSTANDING...... 9

17.0 CONCLUSIONS...... 10

REFERENCES...... 11

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde

TABLES

1. Summary of Drillhole Survey Data

2. Summary of Geotechnical Drillhole Logging and Photography

3. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Summary (after Bieniawski, 1989)

4. Discontinuity Set Orientations for the Golden Pike Cutback

FIGURES

1. Plan of Pits showing Major Geological Features

2. SEZ and Mine Abandonment Exclusion Zone

3. Typical Cross Section A-A'

4. Typical Cross Section B-B'

5. Typical Cross Section C-C'

6. Location of Mapping and Major Lithological Boundaries

7. Design Discontinuity Set Orientations

8. Williamstown Dolerite Discontinuity Patterns

9. Kinematic Stability Rosette

10. Cross Section 48900 mN showing the Low Angle Lodes

11. Haines & Terbrugge Slope Angle from RMR

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde

APPENDICES

A. DoIR Pit Abandonment Guidelines

B. SEZ History

C. Geotechnical Logging from Core Photographs

D. Stereographic Projections

E. Cross Sections and Plan (In Separate Folder)

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of Mr Gary Lye of KCGM Pty Ltd (KCGM), BFP Consultants Pty Ltd (BFP) has reviewed the proposed pit wall design for the Golden Pike Cutback at KCGM's Super Pit in Kalgoorlie. This report also assesses the implications of the Golden Pike Cutback in relation to Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) pit abandonment guidelines (Reference 1 and Appendix A).

The cutback will be undertaken on the west wall of the proposed final pit between 48200 mN and 49500 mN (Figure 1). The west wall in this area extends to a proposed final pit depth of 600 metres.

All orientations in this report, unless otherwise noted are quoted with respect to mine grid north which is 38.3º west of magnetic north.

2.0 SCOPE

The scope for this study is as follows:

• Review the proposed slope design for the Golden Pike Cutback area,

• Confirm the overall slope stability and the possible slope controlling mechanisms for the Golden Pike cutback, and

• Consider DoIR guidelines in relation to mine abandonment, and identify the appropriate distance from the crest that should be maintained to accommodate any potential long-term pit slope deterioration.

The following was undertaken in this study:

• Examination of geotechnical data from 41 oriented diamond drillholes and 4 non- oriented diamond drillholes (Tables 1 and 2),

• Examination of KCGM face mapping data from the current pit,

• A review of design and review reports (References 2 to 6),

• A review of the Vulcan 3D model of stratigraphic surfaces and major structures, and

• A review of the available geotechnical testing database.

3.0 BACKGROUND

The KCGM Super Pit has been mined for approximately 14 years. Over this time pit walls have generally performed well, with geotechnical studies not identifying any overall controlling mechanism of failure. This has particularly been the case for the west wall. Overall slope stability has been controlled by the stability of individual mining faces, the local influence of underground workings and the requirement to maintain safe operating conditions on the pit floor. Pit wall designs have also been refined through field trials, resulting in a "performance based design approach".

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 2

Due to the proximity of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder township, the government has imposed a 400 metre safety exclusion zone (SEZ) around the open pit (Figure 2). The projected location of the abandonment/noise reduction bund is also shown in this figure. The SEZ zone was originally intended to prevent the likelihood of any injury or damage caused by fly- rock associated with blasting in the pit. Details of the SEZ are contained in Appendix B.

4.0 GEOLOGY

The Golden Pike Cutback follows an ore zone which develops along the Golden Pike Fault (Figure 1). The geology in the vicinity of the cutback consists of a sequence of dolerites, basalts, shales, sandstones, siltstones and porphyries dipping steeply to the west.

The majority of the cutback area will be mined in the Golden Mile Dolerite (GMD), with the Williamstown Dolerite (WD) to the west of the Golden Pike Fault, as shown in Figure 1. The Black Flag Bed (BFB) shale sequence is confined to the GMD.

The BFB unit is approximately 20 to 30 metres thick and is underlain by a further sequence of GMD to the base of the existing pit.

The Paringa Basalt (PB) is found north of 49100 mN in the cutback. The Vulcan 3D model of this unit is highly convoluted , reflecting the experience in the pit.

There is currently no exposure of WD in the Super Pit. The nearest exposures of this material are at the Union Club Pit at Mt Percy, approximately 5 kilometres to the north of the proposed Golden Pike cutback. However, five drill holes in the cutback and one just south of the cutback intersect WD..

5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

The engineering geology in the proposed cutback area is characterised by weathering (extremely to highly weathered) extending to a depth of approximately 50 metres, followed by moderately weathered rock to a depth of approximately 70 metres, where slightly weathered to fresh rock is encountered. Although WD and the GMD will predominantly be exposed in this weathered zone, Paringa Basalt and Black Flag Beds will also be exposed in the north of the cutback.

There is no rock strength data available for WD, but observations from core photographs indicate a medium to strong rock when fresh.

Rock strength data for the GMD indicates that the dolerite is very strong, with an average UCS, calculated from point load data, of 145 MPa for samples in fresh rock to a depth of 600 metres.

BFB rock strength data indicates that it is a moderate to strong rock, with a Point Load Strength Index of 3.8 MPa. No UCS equivalent has been determined as all tests were diametral.

Rock strength data for the PB indicates that the basalt is strong to very strong, with an average UCS, calculated from point load data, of 105 MPa for samples in fresh rock to a depth of 600 metres.

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 3

6.0 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

A number of faults are interpreted in the proposed cutback area (Figure 1).

The approximate orientations of these structures are as follows:

• Golden Pike Fault dips at 70º towards 293º.

• Drysdale and Drysdale Interpreted Faults dip at 85º towards 288º.

• Golden Mile Fault dips at 90º towards 276º north of 48350 mN, and 85º towards 260º south of 48350 mN.

KCGM advise that the Golden Pike Fault (GPF) is an “open” structure.

In the cutback area the fault is intersected by five drillholes (CSGD014, CSGD015, ENGD043, ENGD045A and HMGD028). In CSGD014 and CSGD015, the fault is located near zones of high FF and low RQD, with logged fault widths of 1.7 – 3.2 m. In ENGD043 the fault was recorded having a width of 0.1 m. With the exception of ENGD045A, no core photographs for these holes were made available by KCGM to allow visual inspection of the GPF.

The modelled GPF intercepts the holes EWGD045A and HMGD028 in the weathered zone. ENGD045A was logged by BFP from core photographs, although identification of the fault was difficult due to the presence of a number of weathered and broken zones and the interpreted narrow width of the fault. A core loss of 4-8 m was recorded in HMGD028 in the area of the fault. In viewing these results, BFP concur with KCGM's view that the GPF is an "open" structure.

The Drysdale Fault (Figure 1) and the newest interpretation of the Drysdale Fault are intercepted by 20 drill holes (CTGD030, CTGD044, CTGD046, HMGD023, HMGD024, HMGD031, HMGD032, HMGD022, HMGD028, HMGD029, HMGD030, ENGD020, CSGD014, ENGD043, ENGD053, ENGD030, ENGD044, ENGD058, GGGD052 and GGGD009). Only 5 of these intercepts were located near zones of high FF and low RQD that would indicate an open structure. Although KCGM pit mapping indicates the Drysdale Fault is an open structure, BFP’s inspection of core photos suggests that the fault is variably open and a healed structure.

The Golden Mile Fault (GMF) (Figure 1) intercepts 20 drillholes (CTGD030, CTGD046, HMGD023, HMGD024, HMGD031, HMGD032, HMGD015, HMGD022, HMGD028, HMGD029, HMGD030, ENGD020, CSGD014, ENGD043, ENGD053, ENGD030, ENGD045B, GGGD006, GGGD052 and GGGD009). Again only 5 of these intercepts were located near zones of high FF and low RQD, and were located in the vicinity of the BFB/GMD contact. It is therefore BFP’s view that the GMF is a healed structure.

7.0 DRILL CORE AND TRAVERSE MAPPING DATA

The geotechnical data for 45 drillholes were examined. Only three of the holes intersected the WD. The location of the drillhole collars is shown in Figure 6 with a list of drillhole survey data provided in Table 1. The data consisted of:

• Defect data,

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 4

• RQD,

• Fracture frequency,

• Lithology and oxidation, and

• Core photographs

A summary of the data made available to BFP by KCGM is provided in Table 2.

Core photographs were made available for ten drillholes in the cutback area and only one of these intersected the WD (ENGD045A). Two drillholes, ENGD045A and ENGD040 were logged by BFP from core photos in the area of concern, as BFP were not provided with geotechnical log data for these drill holes. The resultant geotechnical logs for these two holes are presented in Appendix C. Where drill hole RQD data was not provided, RQD values were determined from fracture frequency data using the Priest/Hudson correlation (Reference 7). Other photos were used to fill in gaps and discrepancies in the data.

A spot audit of drillhole data was carried out by BFP using core photos. The audit shows that the majority of logging carried out by KCGM, apart from a few problems outlined below, was within acceptable error margins.

Histograms of RQD and fracture frequency are plotted on the drill hole traces in Figures 3 to 5 and Appendix E.

Some holes had gaps in fracture frequency data. High RQD’s would be expected if these gaps indicated zero fractures per metre. However, in drill holes where RQD data was available adjacent to these gaps, low and high RQD’s were recorded. It should therefore not immediately be assumed that gaps in fracture frequency or RQD data on the drillhole traces indicate zones of good rock or poor rock respectively.

The locations of the geotechnical mapping traverses undertaken by KCGM are shown in Figure 6. Mapping data has been used to assess discontinuity sets in the GMD and BFB, to obtain information on discontinuity characteristics.

Overall, RQD and fracture frequency data shows that the majority of the Golden Pike cutback is in competent rock, with lesser zones of fractured/weak rock present in all units. Analysis indicates that there are no new large-scale open structures, and that zones of weakness are localised.

8.0 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

A rock mass classification has been undertaken using the RMR system (Reference 8) to allow an assessment of the likely pit wall slope geometry using a method developed by Haines and Terbrugge (Reference 9).

For the purpose of classification the GMD unit was divided into "GMD west of BFB" and "GMD east of BFB". WD, PB and GMD west of BFB occurr in the weathered zone in the west wall of the design.

Table 3 summarises the rock mass classification parameters used in the analysis, and presents the resulting RMR values.

The classification is based on five parameters, covering:

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 5

• Rock strength, • RQD, • Joint spacing, • Joint conditions, and • Joint water.

Rock strength test results were available for the fresh GMD, BFB and PB. It has been assumed that WD has similar strength to GMD.

An assessment of the strength of WD in the weathered horizons has been based on Reference 10, prepared by KCGM, which states that at the Union Club Pit, “WTD is competent almost to the surface – rock is oxidised but retains significant strength”. This observation, and a review of the available core photographs from holes intersecting WD indicate a strength of 70% of the fresh material is appropriate.

The RQD parameter was obtained from length- weight averaging the borehole data for each of the units to a depth of 600 metres, between 48200 mN and 49500 mN.

As the fracture frequency in the borehole data is already length weighted, as confirmed by the core photo audit, the joint spacing parameters were obtained from straight averaging this data to a depth of 600 m, between 48200 mN and 49500 mN.

Areas of known stoping were removed from the data sets for both of these parameters. To determine the impact, the RQD data for the GGGD series of boreholes in the GMD east of BFB were averaged, with the stope areas retained. The result was an RQD of 94%, as opposed to 96% from the RMR results.

The joint condition parameters were obtained from the face mapping in fresh GMD and BFB rock. Defects in the GMD west of BFB were slickensided, with a thickness of greater than 5mm. The mixture of chlorite, calcite and quartz carbonate infills was classified as 53% soft material and 47% hard material. For the BFB and GMD east of BFB, the majority of defects were smooth and had a thickness of greater than 5 mm. The majority of BFB infill consisted of soft material.Mapping of major structures in the PB on the west wall has been conducted. Pit exposures indicate the PB is highly foliated, and particularly schistose in the weathered section of the western wall (Reference 11)

KCGM advise (Reference 11) that the average defect length of shears and veins on the western wall is greater than 30 m, and 5 to10 m on prominent joint planes. BFP adopted a value of 15 to 20 m for the rock mass classification, and assumed that these parameters would be similar in WD as for GMD west of BFB.

Current pit slopes are dry and it is assumed that similar conditions will occur in the cutback.

The rockmass rating determined that the weathered material was “Fair Rock”, while the classification in the fresh material was “Good Rock”.

9.0 STEREOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

A stereographic analysis has been undertaken for the oriented data to obtain a discontinuity design set for pit wall stability analysis. This data was sourced from drill hole logs and traverse mapping (except for WD and PB). There are currently no exposures of WD in the Super Pit.

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 6

The majority of the pit wall exposure will be within GMD, although 16% of the pit wall exposure will be within WD. For the weathered pit walls, 57% will be in the WD, with the balance predominantly in GMD.

Discontinuity patterns for the rock masses have been interpreted from both pit mapping and core logging, with due consideration given to drillhole azimuth bias and pit mapping sampling bias. Stereographic projections for each of the rock types and data sources are presented in Appendix D, while Table 4 lists the interpreted discontinuity sets and resulting interpreted design orientations. The stereographic projections show Terzaghi-corrected contours of the data, with an approximation of the “blind zone” resulting from drill hole azimuth bias. The interpreted “design” discontinuity patterns are summarised on the compilation stereographic projection shown in Figure 7.

Six discontinuity sets are interpreted for the WD, GMD and BFB rock masses, with a seventh for the PB rockmass. The discontinuity pattern is dominated by north-northwest to north-northeast striking sub-vertical discontinuities (sets 4 and 2) and by low angle dipping structures, with dips less than 25º to 30º and variable dip direction (set 6). A further sub- vertical discontinuity set (set 1) is interpreted to strike approximately east – west. There are two moderate-dipping sets; discontinuity set 3, which dips at a moderate angle toward the west, and discontinuity set 5, which dips at a moderate angle toward the southwest. Set 7 is only associated with PB, and dips at a moderate angle to the south east.

10.0 SEISMICITY

KCGM has experienced both mining-induced and natural seismic events. The effect of seismic loads on pit slope stability can be addressed using pseudo-static loading or by examining dynamic stability. There are few examples of pit slope failures in hard rock that can be attributed solely to the effects of seismicity. Most seismically induced failures occur in highly to extremely weathered materials, or silts, which liquefy during an event. Natural seismic events have very long wave lengths, much greater than the size of the pit wall. Hence experience has confirmed that such events have little impact on hard rock slopes.

Blasting in the intermediate field (approximately 500 metres) would be more likely to shake loose blocks from individual batters.

11.0 WILLIAMSTOWN DOLERITE EXPOSURES NORTH OF KALGOORLIE

The nearest exposure of the WD is at the Union Club Pit, approximately 5 kilometres to the north of the proposed cutback. On KCGM’s advice, a brief assessment of the geotechnical conditions and pit wall performance of the WD at this pit (Reference 12) has been made in an attempt to correlate its performance with the proposed Golden Pike cutback.

The WD at the Union Club Pit is exposed in the south wall of the pit and is highly to moderately weathered to a depth of approximately 60 metres. The total pit wall depth in this area is 105 metres, with a pit wall geometry as follows:

• Batter angle 61.5º

• Berm width 10 m

• Batter height 20 m

• Inter-ramp slope angle 44º

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 7

The pit was mined from 1987 to 1991 and has undergone survey, groundwater and visual monitoring since the completion of mining. To date no instability issues have been reported in the WD. While KCGM has identified some major structures in the south wall, the orientation of the structures is such that they do not affect stability of the pit wall.

Minor structures have been assessed to have trace lengths of less than 5 metres, and have orientations as shown on the stereographic projection presented in Figure 8. A comparison of these orientations with those recorded in the WD in the region of the Golden Pike cutback indicates that there is good correlation between the two data sources, and emphasises the significance of design discontinuity sets 1, 4 and 6.

No kinematic failure mechanisms were identified in the WD in the Union Club Pit. KCGM undertook circular failure stability analyses in the weathered WD, and derived a factor of safety of 1.08.

The parameters used were representative of lower bound results (i.e. at limit equilibrium). Based on 10 years experience, it appears that these results are too low, as no failures have taken place in that time.

In summary, it is concluded that the geotechnical rockmass conditions at the Union Club Pit are similar to those at the proposed Golden Pike cutback. It is therefore interpreted that the pit wall geometry adopted at Union Club would, as a guide, be successful at Golden Pike.

12.0 ABANDONMENT BUND

Using the DoIR guidelines (Reference1) in relation to mine abandonment, BFP have determined that the Golden Pike cutback area would require an abandonment bund 86 m from the pit crest, to potentially accommodate any potential long term slope deterioration (Figure 2).

13.0 ASSESSMENT OF KINEMATIC FAILURE POTENTIAL FOR GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK

The design discontinuity set interpretation has been used to assess kinematic failure potential (KFP) for the cutback, which will have final walls that dip toward the east, south- southeast and northeast. An assessment of KFP with identified mechanisms is presented as a rosette of slope dip and slope dip direction on Figure 9. The dominant slope dip directions are shown on the figure. The assessment can be summarised as follows:

East Dipping Slopes

Cutback slopes with easterly dip directions are interpreted to have no kinematic failure potential. However, mapping within GMD and drill core logging within WD and GMD show a small cluster of veins and fewer number of faults or shears with moderate dips (30º to 40º) toward the northeast to east-northeast (identified as “set 10” on the design stereographic projection). In drill hole data these features are however healed. These sets also appear to relate to the lode system shown in Figure 10.

Southeast Dipping Slopes

Cutback slopes which dip toward the southeast have a KFP of wedge failure on sets 10 and 5. This wedge has a low angle of intersection, and batter scale failure of this

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 8

type has been observed in the present pit. The failures are typically very low volume and unlikely to control slope angles.

Drill core logging within PB show a small number of shears with moderate dip (55º to 60º) towards the southeast (identified as "set 7" on the design stereographic projection). These shears are only likely to cause low volume batter scale failures, and are therefore also unlikely to control slope angles.

North-Northeast Dipping Slopes

Cutback slopes which dip toward the north-northeast have a KFP of planar failure on a shallower dipping (55º) cluster (set 11) of discontinuity set 1.

The interpreted stability rosette shows that for inter-ramp slope angles less than 65º there are no kinematic failures governing the slope angle for the pit wall orientations, except for the north-northeast dipping slope, where the inter-ramp slope angle should not exceed 55º. Localised batter failure should be anticipated for batter angles in excess of 55º within this slope.

14.0 REVIEW OF GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DESIGN

At KCGM the major controls on slope stability, to date, have been related to structure and orientation/location of old workings. Groundwater has not presented a stability problem due to the drainage effect of the workings, although there are pockets of perched water. The pit design in the GMD is based predominantly on experience, as the effect of structural controls on the existing west wall has been minimal.

The present design comprises:

Oxide/weathered zone

• Batter angle 50º

• Berm width 10 m

• Batter height 20 m

• Interramp slope angle 40.5º

Transition/fresh zone

• Batter angle 75º

• Berm width 10 m

• Batter height 30 m

• Interramp slope angle 63.9º

The proposed depth of the cutback is 600 m.

To the west of the Golden Pike Fault, there is a limited history of underground mining, so a phreatic surface could be intersected in the cutback area. The oxide design is more conservative than was used previously at the Union Club Pit (Reference 11). (i.e. IRSA –

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 9

Golden Pike = 40.5º, IRSA – Union Club = 44º). Hence Kalgoorlie experience would confirm that the design is stable.

The results of the rock mass classification have been plotted on a stability chart, shown in Figure 11. The GMD has a design slope exposure of greater than 300 m, therefore the data was not plotted on the stability chart in Figure 11. The positions indicate that the possibility of an overall failure in both the weathered and fresh rocks is low.

The presence of BFBs in the wall should not signify any major stability issues, due to the limited thickness of this unit. While toppling may be a local issue, this is unlikely to influence the overall slope. Recent KCGM microseismic results (J. Jiang personal communication) indicate that this unit may be susceptible to flexure however, and microseismic monitoring is recommended.

A review of the rock mass failure mechanisms and kinematic failure mechanisms confirm that this design, when combined with experience at KCGM, is conservative and has low risk of instability.

Taking into account these results, BFP found that the Noise Abatement Bund had negligible influence on overall pit slope stability.

15.0 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Figure 10 shows the Golden Pike lode on cross section 48900 mN. It appears that the development shown (shaft, level development and stoping) has not yet been digitised into Vulcan, and should be undertaken if not already done.

16.0 TASKS OUTSTANDING

The following work should be undertaken for the West Wall appraisal:

• Obtain discontinuity infill data for design discontinuity sets,

• Examine existing west wall pit slopes, and determine the presence, continuity and geotechnical properties of discontinuity set 11,

• Sample and test WD for rock strength, especially shear strength of any low angle defects,

• Review BFB for strength anisotropy,

• Review slope monitoring data (prism movements),

• Review material properties of the Golden Pike Fault, and if possible obtain samples for testing,

• Carry out stress analysis to ascertain the influence of extensional strain and the likely generation of new (i.e. unmapped) structures that could influence stability (e.g. in BFB),

• Examine groundwater conditions to the west of the Golden Mile Fault,

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 10

• Undertake further strength testing to establish valid Point Load correlations in the other units, and

• Assess blasting procedures in the proposed Golden Pike Cutback area.

17.0 CONCLUSIONS

The geotechnical assessment of the Golden Pike cutback undertaken in this report has been based on:

• A review of available data,

• A review of experience in the WD,

• Examination of seismicity issues,

• Examination of kinematic and rock mass stability, and

• Correlations with existing experience.

It is concluded that for cutback pit slopes with east and southeast dip directions the proposed pit design conforms with KCGM experience and may be considered conservative. However, for cutback slopes with north-northeast pit slope dip directions inter-ramp slope angles of up to 55º would be acceptable, recognizing that localized batter scale slope instability may occur.

The stability of the oxide wall is not compromised by the presence of the Noise Abatement Bund.

Although there are outstanding issues (summarised in Section 16) that should be resolved to confirm that these conclusions remains correct, these issues are considered unlikely to change the general design parameters.

Yours faithfully BFP CONSULTANTS PTY LTD

Phil Dight Partner and Geotechnical Director, WA

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde KCGM Pty Ltd 1803035 Geotechnical Assessment Golden Pike Cutback Page: 11

REFERENCES

1. Guidelines on the Safety Bund Walls around Abandoned Open Pits. Mining Engineering Division, Department of Mines Western Australia, January 1991.

2. Review of Fimiston Operations, SRK Report, 1995

3. Geotechnical Status Report, Oroya Cutback - KCGM, April 2001.

4. Drysdale Geotechnical Report, Bilki, F., July 1992.

5. Pit Slope Stability Review - Nov. 2001. Golder Associates Ltd., Letter Report, February 7 2002.

6. Geotechnical Data for KCGM., J. Jiang, September 2003. [Letter Report]

7. Priest, S. D., Hudson, J. A., 1981, Estimation of Discontinuity Spacing and Trace Length using Scanline Surveys, Int. J. Rock Mech, Min. Sci Geomech. Abstr., Vol 8 pp 183 to 197, Printed in Great Britain., Pergamon Press Ltd.

8. Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., Bawden, W.F., 1995, Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam / Brookfield.

9. Haines, A., Terbrugge, P.J., 1990, Preliminary Estimations of Rock Slope Stability Using Rock Mass Classification Systems.

10. Email from G Lye to P. Dight, PowerPoint Presentation at Union Club Pit, 18 November 2003.

11. Email from K Sonnekus to P.Dight, Geotechnical Comments on BFP Report “Geotechnical Assessment of Golden Pike Cutback”, 16 February 2004.

12. Geotechnical Status Report - South Wall Mystery and Union Club Pits - Mt Percy Mine, G. N. Lye, 19 December 1996.

L:\All Projects\1803035\0221_KCGM_Geot ech Assess_GPC\pmd\gvb\sc:cde

TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Drillhole Survey Data

Borehole ID E N RL Dip Range Azimuth Pre-collar Top Bottom ( º) (º ) (º ) (m) CSGD014 18771.09 48590.26 -55.99 -49 -32 83 96.1 CSGD015 18770.65 48590.21 -55.95 -59 -59 83 95.9 CTGD027 18692.45 48170.53 -53.11 -50 -29 84 - CTGD030 18743 48296.06 -57.12 -58 -45 91 150.5 CTGD040 18689.25 48169.99 -53.19 -55 -34 84 - CTGD044 18744.48 48294.73 -57.16 -56 -45 90 75.9 CTGD046 18744.58 48294.61 -57.02 -50 -44 91 76.2 ENGD020 18869.87 48540.11 -43.75 -57 -46 86 268.1 ENGD030 18902.81 48889.8 -54.27 -61 -56 90 306 ENGD031 18976.32 48887.95 -52.19 -59 -50 90 331 ENGD040 19017.91 48948.98 -52.4 -51 -46 90 190 ENGD043 18838.58 48649.3 -54.29 -65 -43 87 69.2 ENGD044 19024.29 48949.39 -52.32 -44 -38 90 100 ENGD045A 18977.59 48888.81 -50.6 -45 -34 90 71.8 ENGD045B 18977.59 48888.81 -50.6 -45 -42 90 251.3 ENGD053 18943.38 48710.08 -49.65 -52 -45 90 56.1 ENGD058 19024.39 48949.1 -52.28 -50 -50 90 66 GGGD009 19001.01 49098.14 -53.38 -62 -51 89 229 GGGD014 19098.36 49262.11 -53.7 -58 -48 90 271 GGGD017 19163.82 49368.64 -53.86 -68 -59 90 207 GGGD024 19078.81 49038.1 -51.31 -55 -52 90 354 GGGD026 19075.78 49038.03 -51.26 -58 -55 90 180 GGGD030 19151.79 49252.09 -52.13 -58 -49 90 59 GGGD032A 19230.18 49369.85 -52.65 -56 -44 88 73.9 GGGD044 19082.66 49127.53 -51.99 -56 -46 91 51.5 GGGD045 19069.25 48993.13 -51.4 -55 -37.5 87 - GGGD048 19130.55 49189.78 -51.88 -57 -54 91 45.1 GGGD051 19130.8 49190.28 -51.93 -56 -49 91 45.7 GGGD052 19095.2 49067.85 -51.16 -55 -44.5 87 51.5 HMGD015 18915.9 48410 -71.04 -59 -51 90 150.8 HMGD022 18847.08 48412.85 -55.95 -58 -51 91 53.5 HMGD023 18849.28 48352.5 -54.8 -58 -45 91 38.4 HMGD024 18847.23 48352.34 -55 -60 -51 87 28.5 HMGD028 18847.99 48487.24 -55.05 -57 -50 88 61.5 HMGD029 18862.27 48489.6 -55.06 -55 - 87 81 HMGD030 18850.26 48488.95 -55.14 -55 - 87 75.8 HMGD031 18849.43 48352.41 -54.82 -50 -41 87 28 HMGD032 18760.7 48351.39 -56.48 -56 -32 90 86.8 HRD0035 18679.84 48199.64 -54.16 -49.5 -51 95 - NKGD019 19221.75 49369.85 -52.57 -63 -54 87 159 NKGD023 19231.05 49371.33 -52.46 -52 -47 90 67.15 NKGD024 19192.31 49310.12 -52.36 -55 -48 89 - NKGD025 19191.1 49310.19 -52.31 -58 -56 90 71.8

L:\All Proj\1803035\0221_Table 1 Table 2 – Summary of Geotechnical Drillhole Logging and Photography

Lithology and Data for ID RQD FF Defect Photo Oxidation WD GMD West GMD East BFB PB CSGD014 Y Y Y Y Y CSGD015 Y Y Y CTGD027 Y Y CTGD030 Y Y Y Y Y Y CTGD040 Y Y CTGD044 Y Y Y Y CTGD046 Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD020 Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD030 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD031 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD040 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD043 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD044 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD045A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD045B Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD053 Y Y Y Y Y Y ENGD058 Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD009 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD014 Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD017 Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD024 Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD026 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD030 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD032A Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD044 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD045 Y Y GGGD048 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD051 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GGGD052 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD015 Y Y Y Y HMGD022 Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD023 Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD024 Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD028 Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD029 Y Y Y Y Y HMGD030 Y Y Y Y Y HMGD031 Y Y Y Y Y Y HMGD032 Y Y Y Y Y Y HRDO035 Y Y Y NKGD019 Y Y Y Y Y Y NKGD023 Y Y Y Y Y Y NKGD024 Y Y NKGD025 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LEGEND: WD: Williamstown Dolerite BFB: Black Flag Beds GMD: Golden Mile Dolerite RQD: Rock Quality Designation PB: Paringa Basalt FF: Fractures Frequency

L:\All Proj\1803035\0221_Table 2 Table 3 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System (after Bieniawski, 1989)

Rock Mass WD GMD (west of BFB) BFB GMD (east PB Parameter of BFB) Weathered Fresh Weathered Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh 1.0 Strength UCS UCS (MPa) 70% of Fr As for GMD 25-50 80 - 171 80 - 171 67-182 Average (MPa) 96.6 138 138 PI=3.84 138 107 Rating 7 12 4 12 7 12 12 2.0 RQD Ave % 72 93 86 95 92 96 98 Rating 13 20 17 20 20 20 20 3.0 Joint Spacing Fpm 7.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 1.7 1.4 Spacing(mm) 132 213 287 310 270 596 737 Rating 8 10 10 10 10 10 15 4.0 Joint Condition 4.1 Persistence 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 Rating 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.2 Aperture(mm) >5mm >5mm >5mm >5mm >5mm >5mm 1-5mm Rating 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

L:\All Proj\1803035\0221_Table 3 Table 3 Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System (after Bieniawski, 1989) - (Continued)

Rock Mass WD GMD (west of BFB) BFB GMD (east PB Parameter of BFB) Weathered Fresh Weathered Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh 4.3 Roughness Slick Slick Slick Slick Smooth Smooth Smooth Rating 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 4.4 Infill CH CH CH CH GR/SE/CH Soft/Hard Hard Soft(>5mm) Soft(>5mm) Soft(>5mm) Soft(>5mm) Soft(>5mm) >5mm <5mm Rating 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4.5 Weathering Weathered Fresh Weathered Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh Rating 3 6 3 6 6 6 6 5.0 Groundwater Assume Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Rating 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

∑ RMR 47 62 58 64 62 68 77 (UNADJUSTED) Fair Rock Good Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Good Rock Good Rock Good Rock

LEGEND: WD: Williamstown Dolerite UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) GMD: Golden Mile Dolerite PI: Point Load Strength Index (MPa) PB: Paringa Basalt RQD: Rock Quality Designation BFB: Black Flag Beds Fpm: Fractures per metre RMR: Rock Mass Rating

L:\All Proj\1803035\0221_Table 3

Table 4 - Discontinuity Set Orientations for the Golden Pike Cutback

Discontinuity Set # Orientation (wrt mine grid) Dip Dip Direction 1 77º 006º 11 56º 006º 2 68º 290º 3 48º 272º 4 81º 272º 41 84º 068º 5 63º 221º 6 13º 291º 7 58º 120º 10 36º 068º

L:\All Proj\1803035\0221_Table 4

FIGURES

E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6

50200 mN 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 50200 mN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

50000 mN 50000 mN

49800 mN 49800 mN

t l u a F e l a 49600 mN d 49600 mN s y r D

49400 mN N 49400 mN

PARINGA 49200 mN BASALT 49200 mN C

49000 mN 49000 mN

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK 48800 mN C’ 48800 mN B

48600 mN 48600 mN

GOLDEN MILE A DOLERITE

48400 mN B’ 48400 mN

48200 mN DYKE 48200 mN BFB WILLIAMSTOWN A’ DOLERITE

48000 mN 48000 mN GOLDEN MILE DOLERITE t l t l u u a 47800 mN a F 47800 mN F d e e t k e i r P p r n e e t d n l I o e l 47600 mN G a 47600 mN d s y r D

l d

47400 mN n 47400 mN

i l e

l 47200 mN t 47200 mN

47000 mN 47000 mN

46800 mN 46800 mN E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED PLAN GOLD MINES PTY LTD GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 1:10000 1803035 Fig 1 users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig1.pdf E E E E E E m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 8 0 2 4 8 8 8 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1

49600 mN 49600 mN

49400 mN 49400 mN

Safety Exclusion Zone 86 (SEZ) m Abandonment Bund Golden Pike Cutback Pit

49200 mN 49200 mN 90 m 40 0m

49000 mN 49000 mN

86m

48800 mN 48800 mN

48600 mN 48600 mN

86 m

48400 mN 48400 mN N

48200 mN 48200 mN

48000 mN 48000 mN E E E E E E m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 8 0 2 4 8 8 8 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED SEZ AND MINE GOLD MINES PTY LTD ABANDONMENT EXCLUSION ZONE

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 1:5000 1803035 Fig 2 users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig2.pdf E E E N E E N E E N m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 80 00 20 20 40 00 60 80 80 48 18 19 48 19 19 48 19 19 47

0 mRL 0 mRL

BOTTOM OF OXIDATION 3 D00 VG 4 3 1 H 02 02 D00 D GD TD G M G HM H

HVGD003 2 03 GD HM TOP OF -100 mRL FRESH ROCK -100 mRL

6 02 DO HMGD023 GT HMGD024

-200 mRL -200 mRL

WILLIAMSTOWN DOLERITE

6 04 GTDO026 DD GTDD001 CT

HMGD032

4 04 DD PARINGA BASALT CT -300 mRL -300 mRL

0 03 DD CT PIT DESIGN

DRYSDALE FAULT INTERPRETATION GOLDEN USING MILE LATEST DATA FAULT (GMF)

-400 mRL -400 mRL

CTDD046

GOLDEN PIKE FAULT (GPF) CTDD044 7 02 DD CT

-500 mRL -500 mRL

DRYSDALE FAULT CTGD030 CTDD027 GOLDEN MILE DOLERITE

0 04 GD CT

-600 mRL -600 mRL

CTGD040

-700 mRL -700 mRL E E E N E E N E E N m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 80 00 20 20 40 00 60 80 80

-800 mRL 48 18 19 48 19 19 48 19 19 47 -800 mRL

LEGEND

Lodes ENGD043 Black Flag Beds (BFB) Drill Hole Golden Pike Fault (GPF) Fracture Frequency RQD Golden Mile Fault (GMF) (fpm) % 0 - 3 0 - 25 Drysdale Fault 3 - 6 25 - 50 6 - 10 50 - 75 Drysdale Fault Interpretation 10 - 24 75 - 90 Bottom of Oxidation 24+ 90 - 100 Top of Fresh Rock Geological Boundary Proposed Super Pit Profile CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD SECTION A - A’

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2003 1:1250 1803035 Fig 3 users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig3.pdf E N E E N E E N E m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 60 00 20 40 40 60 20 80 18 48 19 19 48 19 19 48 19

0 mRL 0 mRL

BOTTOM OF OXIDATION 1 D00 3 RG 04 O GD EN

TOP OF FRESH ROCK

-100 mRL -100 mRL

8 00 DO GT

6 O05 WILLIAMSTOWN PARINGA BASALT D DOLERITE GT

ENGD043 GTDO008

GTDO056 -200 mRL -200 mRL 4 D01 CSG

0 02 GD EN

DRYSDALE GOLDEN PIKE FAULT FAULT (GPF) GOLDEN MILE FAULT (GMF)

-300 mRL -300 mRL

CSGD014

ENGD020 9 DRYSDALE 02 FAULT GD INTERPRETATION M USING H LATEST DATA

-400 mRL -400 mRL 0 03 GD HM

8 02 GD HM

-500 mRL -500 mRL

HMGD029

PIT DESIGN

HMGD030

HMGD028

-600 mRL -600 mRL

1 D03 GOLDEN MILE G DOLERITE HM

5 01 GD HM

2 02 GD M -700 mRL H -700 mRL HMGD031

HMGD022 E N E E N E E N E m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 60 00 20 40 40 60 20 80

-800 mRL 18 48 19 19 48 19 19 48 19 -800 mRL

HMGD015

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD SECTION B - B’

KCGM SITE VISIT DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 1:1250 1803035 Fig 00

Users\1803035_0221\Jan04_reportfig0 Sect B.pdf E N E E N E E N E m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 20 40 80 60 80 60 00 19 49 19 19 48 19 19 48 20

0 mRL 0 mRL

BOTTOM OF OXIDATION

9 D00 4 G D02 GG G GG 6 02 GD GG

-100 mRL -100 mRL

WILLIAMSTOWN TOP OF DOLERITE FRESH ROCK 5 04 GD GG

GGGD024

GGGD009 -200 mRL -200 mRL 1 00 DO PARINGA BASALT GT GGGD026

DRYSDALE FAULT GGGD045

8 D05 NG -300 mRL E -300 mRL 4 04 GOLDEN PIKE GD FAULT (GPF) EN

GOLDEN MILE FAULT (GMF)

PIT DESIGN

5A 04 GD EN -400 mRL -400 mRL

DRYSDALE ENGD045A FAULT INTERPRETATION ENGD058 USING LATEST DATA

ENGD044

5B 04 GD EN

0 04 GD EN -500 mRL -500 mRL

1 03 GD EN

ENGD045B

-600 mRL -600 mRL

GOLDEN MILE DOLERITE

ENGD040 ENGD031

-700 mRL -700 mRL

0 03 GD EN E N E E N E E N E m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 20 40 80 60 80 60 00

-800 mRL 19 49 19 19 48 19 19 48 20 -800 mRL

LEGEND

Lodes ENGD043 Black Flag Beds (BFB) Drill Hole Golden Pike Fault (GPF) Fracture Frequency RQD Golden Mile Fault (GMF) (fpm) % 0 - 3 0 - 25 Drysdale Fault 3 - 6 25 - 50 6 - 10 50 - 75 Drysdale Fault Interpretation 10 - 24 75 - 90 Bottom of Oxidation 24+ 90 - 100 Top of Fresh Rock ENGD030 Geological Boundary Proposed Super Pit Profile CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD SECTION C - C’

GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 1:1250 1803035 Fig 5

Users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig5.pdf E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6

50200 mN 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 50200 mN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

50000 mN 50000 mN

49800 mN 49800 mN

t l u a F e l a 49600 mN d 49600 mN s y r D

49400 mN 49400 mN NKGD019 N GGGD017 NKGD023 GGGD032A NKGD024 NKGD025 GGGD014 GGGD030 PARINGA 49200 mN BASALT 49200 mN GGGD051 GGGD048 GGGD044 GGGD009 GGGD052 GGGD026 49000 mN GGGD024 49000 mN GGGD045 ENGD040 ENGD044 ENGD058 GOLDEN PIKE ENGD030 ENGD045A&B CUTBACK ENGD031 48800 mN 48800 mN

ENGD053

ENGD043 48600 mN 48600 mN CSGD014 CSGD015 ENGD020 HMGD030 GOLDEN MILE HMGD029 HMGD028 DOLERITE

48400 mN HMGD022 HMGD015 48400 mN HMGD032 HMGD023 HMGD031 CTGD030 HMGD021 CTGD044 CTGD046 48200 mN HRDO035 DYKE 48200 mN CTGO027 WILLIAMSTOWN CTGD040 DOLERITE

48000 mN 48000 mN

BFB t l t l u u a 47800 mN a F 47800 mN F d e e t k e i r P p r n e e t d n GOLDEN MILE l I o e DOLERITE l 47600 mN G a 47600 mN d s y r D

l d

47400 mN n 47400 mN

i l e

LEGEND l 47200 mN t 47200 mN Golden Pike Fault (GPF)

Golden Mile Fault (GMF)

Drysdale Fault 47000 mN 47000 mN Drysdale Fault Interpretation

Geological Boundary

ENGD043 Drill Hole Collar Position

46800 mN Traverse Data 46800 mN E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0

1 1 Shear 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Joint Contact For further detail refer to drawing E28 (Appendix E) Cleavage CLIENT Vein KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED LOCATION OF MAPPING AND Fault GOLD MINES PTY LTD MAJOR LITHOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES Foliation KCGM SITE VISIT DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 1:10000 1803035 Fig 6 Users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig6.pdf ORIENTATIONS ID DIP/DIRECTION

1 77/006

11 56/006

2 68/290 Equal Angle 3 48/272 Lower Hemisphere 4 81/272

41 84/068

5 63/221

6 13/291

7 58/120

10 36/068

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED DESIGN DISCONTINUITY SET GOLD MINES PTY LTD ORIENTATIONS GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 NTS 1803035 Fig 7 Users\1803035_0221jan2004reportfig7.pdf 0o

o o o 10 10 20 TYPE 20o Union Club Pit Planes (6)

Foliation (16)

Joint (44)

Shear (10)

Vein (1)

Alpha Angles o 20o 0 20o

20o “Blind zone” caused by drill hole azimuth bias o 20 0o

Equal Angle 20o Lower Hemisphere

o 77 Poles o 10 20 10o o 77 Entries 0

ORIENTATIONS ID DIP/DIRECTION

1 85/020

2 65/290

4 80/262

41 85/065

5 65/215

6 20/105

61 25/310

Equal Angle Lower Hemisphere 77 Poles 77 Entries

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED WILLIAMSTOWN DOLERITE GOLD MINES PTY LTD DISCONTINUITY PATTERNS GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 NTS 1803035 Fig 8 Users\1803035_0221jan2004reportfig8.pdf o 000 Planar Failure 010o Set II 020o 030o Slope Dip 040o Direction NE 050o

o Possible 060 Planar Failure Set 10

070o

080o

o o o o o o o o o Slope 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 o 090 Dip Direction E 100o

110o Planar Failure

o on Shear Set 7 120 and Steep Wedge Failures 130o

140o

150o 160o o 170 Steep Wedge 180o Failure Sets 5, 41

Slope Dip Direction ORIENTATIONS S ID DIP/DIRECTION

19000 mE

20000 mE 1 77/006 SE 11 56/006 S 2 68/290

3 48/272 49000 mN 49000 mN 4 81/272 E 41 84/068

5 63/221 NE 6 13/291

7 58/120

10 36/068

19000 mE

20000 mE

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD KINEMATIC STABILITY ROSETTE GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK DATE SCALE JOB No BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 NTS 1803035 Fig 9 Users\1803035_0221jan2004reportfig7.pdf users -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -5 0 m 00 50 00 50 00 0 R \1803 m m m m m m L

18650 mE R 18650 mE R R R R R L L L L L L

035_0

N N N N N N

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

O O O O O O

221\ja

2 2 2 2 2 2

I I I I I I

S S S S S S

0 0 0 0 0 0

E E E E E E

m m m m m m

R R R R R R

n2004

F F F F F F

E E E E E E

R R R R R R

D D D D D D

O O O O O O

repor

U U U U U U

M M M M M M

C C C C C C

P P P P P P

T T T T T T

tfig10

I I I I I I

T T T T T T

O O O O O

18700 mE O 18700 mE

N N N N N N

C C C C C C

.pdf

R R R R R R

B B B B B B

E E E E E E

U U U U U U

S S S S S S

BOTTOM OF

N N N N N N OXIDA

T T T T T T

( ( ( ( ( ( Fr

48500 mN 49000 mN

S S S S S S

D D D D D D

A A A A A A

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

F F F F F F

4 4 4 4 4 4

E E E E E E

0 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

(fp

T T T T T T

TION

m m m m m m

Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 3 6 10 24 Go Ge T Bo Dr Dr Go Go Un Lo Bl Dr De Lo

F F F F F F -3 -6 -1 -2 +

E E E E E 19000 mE E ys ys ill ) w de LE olo sig tto lde lde lde de

R R R R R R

X X X X X X k F da da s An Ho rg 0 4 m n P n P gic n M

n P

O O O O O O Fr G

C C C C C C

le le

S S S S S S rou lag of gle

M M M M M M

18750 mE it P 18750 mE

E E E E E E EN ike

ike

L L L L L L esh Fa Fa cy 19500 mE ile nd Ox B

Z Z Z Z Z Z

U U U U U U

ult ult C Fa

rof

P P P P P P Fa R ed W D efe

ida

S S S S S S

I I I I I I utb In oc ile s (

ult

T T T T T T

ult

I I I I I I ork ct tio

O O O O O O k

ter

ac BF (G FRESH ROCK

20000 mE (G

C C C C C C RQ ry ing

N N N N N N pre k % 90 75

25 0

R R R R R R B) PF

48500 mN 49000 mN

Z Z Z Z Z Z D TOP OF -1

-9

-7 -5 -2

E E E E E E tat F)

)

O O O O O O

S S S S S S ion 00

5 0 5

T T T T T T

N N N N N N

E E E E E E

) ) ) ) ) )

18800 mE 18800 mE GOLDEN PIKECUTBACK 18850 mE 18850 mE PIT DESIGN

18900 mE 18900 mE EN

WILLIAMSTOWN 03 0 DOLERITE GOLDEN PIKE (WD) CUTBACK

CLIEN 18950 mE 18950 mE T

B GD EN F KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED 03

P GD 1 GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK A

Geotechnical, Mining andGeologicalConsultants 04

G G G G G G

S S S S S S GOLD MINESPTYLTD

R R R R R R

O O O O O O

T T T T T T 5A

E E E E E E

O O O O O O

L L L L L L

19000 mE A 19000 mE

S S S S S S

D D D D D

D /B

C C C C C C

O O O O O O

E E E E E E

K K K K K K

U U U U U U

N N N N N N

W W W W W W

R R R R R R

S S S S S S

P P P P P P

O O O O O O

T T T T T T

C C C C C C

D D D D D D

IK IK IK IK IK IK

R R R R R R

O O O O O O

R R R R R R

E E E E E E

U U U U U U

K K K K K K

C C C C C C

O O O O O O

E E E E E E

N N N N N N

K K K K K K

S S S S S S

L L L L L L

WILLIAMSTOWN

S S S S S S

W W W W W W

O O O O O O

IN IN IN IN IN IN

K K K K K K

O O O O O O

GOLDEN MILE

P P P P P P

E E E E E E

R R R R R R

DOLERITE

G G G G G G

S S S S S S

5L 5L 5L 5L 5L 5L DOLERITE

K K K K K K L (WD) (GMD) D E

19050 mE N 19050 mE P

G G G G G G

P P P P P P E

P P P P P P

2L 2L 2L 2L 2L 2L

6L 6L 6L 6L 6L 6L H A F INTERPRETA T LA

GOLDEN MILE

G G G G G G DRYSDALE

GOLDEN PIKE

FAUL

P P P P P P TEST DA DOLERITE

FAUL USING

4L 4L 4L 4L 4L 4L (GMD) DA 19100 mE 19100 mE

T (GPF) TE JAN 2

I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 TION

2 2 2 2 2 2 004 CROSS SECTION48900 mN SCAL GOLDEN FAUL (GMF) MILE 1:1500 E 19150 mE 19150 mE T DRYSDALE G FAUL T JOB N D BLACK FLAG (BFB) BEDS 0 1803035 0 T 4 o 8

E N G 192D00 mE 19200 mE 0 4

Fig 0 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -5 00 50 00 50 00 0 0 10 m m m m m m m R R R R R R R L L L L L L L DESIGN CHART TO DETERMINE SLOPE ANGLE USING RMR CLASSIFICATION DATA 300

S LO GMD OUTSIDE FO P 280 R E EXPERIENCE F A SL O N O S G FO P = L R E A 1 ES 260 F N .2 O G S = L 1 E 4 .5 S 0 o

240 3 0 o 4 SLOPES IN THIS AREA REQUIRE 5 o ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS 3 220 5 o 5 0 o PB height 211m GMD - Golden Mile Dolerite 4 200 0 o 5 MARGINAL ON 5 o o PB - Paringa Basalt

) CLASSIFICATION ALONE X47 Inferred Stability and 4 o m 5 ( 180 6 Design for Fresh PB - Williamstown Dolerite 0 o WD T

H 5 0 o G BFB - Black Flag Beds I 160 6 o 5 E

5 o X Experience Points 5

E 140 Inferred Stability and P o 7 45 X 0 o O CLASSIFICATION ALONE MAY Design for Fresh WD L 6 o S BE ADEQUATE 0

120 7 5 o

o 6 X69 5 o NOTE: 100 This chart is not suitable for GMD o o 8 X 0 o 40 X44 because of height limitations o o 7 o 80 X46 X55 0

o X o o 7 45 o 60 X48 X72 5

X47o X55o 40 o o o X42o X45 X53 X59 o 20 X45 X52o X56o o o o X57 o X 30 o X51 X57 35o 40 45o 50o 55o 60o 65o 70o 75o 0 X X X X X X X X X 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Inferred Stability for RMR Inferred Stability Weathered WD for Fresh BFB

CLIENT KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED HAINES AND TERBRUGGE GOLD MINES PTY LTD SLOPE ANGLE FROM RMR SOURCE: Haines, A., Terbrugge, P.J. 1990 GOLDEN PIKE CUTBACK “ Preliminary Estimation of Rock Slope Stability DATE SCALE JOB No Using Rockmass Classification Systems“ ISRM. BFP Geotechnical, Mining and Geological Consultants JAN 2004 AS SHOWN 1803035 Fig 11 users\1803035_0221\jan2004reportfig11.pdf

APPENDIX A

DoIR Pit Abandonment Guidelines

1.6 Current Guidelines for Pit Abandonment

In January 1991 DME released its "Guidelines on Safety Bund Walls around Abandoned Open Pits. This document is still valid and its intent is to define the criteria for establishing a 'safety zone' around open pits at the end of mining. The recommendations have been based on field investigations of failures and tension cracks around pit edges in operating and abandoned open pit gold mines in Western Australia.

It is noted that the guidelines apply to open pits that exceed 5 metres depth and have wall angles steeper than 25°, see Figure 1. The DME stresses the guidelines do not address safety exclusion zones for active mining operations. The document does, however, recognise the area most prone to instability is the weathered zone. The implication is deeper-seated failures tend to be rare and localised, and have usually occurred within the operating life of the mine. In this situation specific geotechnical studies would have been required in order to define a safe boundary for abandonment.

Figure 1 Guideline for calculating a geotechnical 'safety zone' around an abandoned pit with walls excavated in weathered and unweathered rock.

Applying the Guidelines to the West Wall excavated with an overall slope of 45° and an average 60 metres depth of weathering results in a bund wall/fence line being some 78 metres from the pit crest, regardless of the overall slope height.

APPENDIX B

SEZ History

1. CURRENT SEZ SITUATION

1.1 What is the SEZ?

The government imposed a 400-metre safety exclusion zone (SEZ) around our open pit operations at Fimiston to prevent the likelihood of any injury or damage caused by fly-rock from any blasting within the pit. The SEZ commences from the pit perimeter and radiates out 400 metres. No permanent residential dwellings were to remain however commercial and industrial properties could stay within this zone provided they were vacant at the time of any blasting occurring.

The imposition of this SEZ has necessitated an ongoing property acquisition programme by KCGM. Apart from two light industrial sites, all property within the 1992 SEZ has been acquired by KCGM and either demolished or leased.

The 1992 version of the SEZ was made public and included in the City of Kalgoorlie- Boulder's town planning scheme. The DME was advised of small changes to the outline in 1994, but no public declarations have been made since 1992.

It is important to investigate whether the SEZ has ever been legally established as a fixed line on the ground. Rather, the intention appears to be that the Fimiston open pit must maintain a 400-metre safety zone around its operations at all times. As a consequence the outer limit of the SEZ can be expected to advance with time. The onus is on KCGM to manage the acquisition of property within the zone at each stage and ensure periodic inclusion of the zone in the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder's town planning scheme.

1.2 Background

24 October 1991

Minister for the Environment, Bob Pierce, established conditions for 'Fimiston Project Stage II - Mine and Waste Dumps' in response to a mining proposal provided by KCGM:

"Subject to these conditions (referring to the commitments made in the Consultative Environmental Review), the manner of detailed implementation of the proposal shall conform in substance with that set out in any designs, specifications, plans or other technical material submitted by proponents to the Environmental Protection Authority with the proposal. Where in the course of that detailed implementation, the proponent seeks to change those designs, specifications, plans or other technical material in any way that the Minister for the Environment determines on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority, is not substantial, those changes may be effected."

There is no reference to the SEZ in this document. The announcement of the SEZ appears to have come from the DME almost 12 months later. It does appear, however, from the Environment Ministers perspective that KCGM could be restricted to the latest submitted and approved long-term mine plan.

2 September 1992

In a letter from Jim Torlach (State Mining Engineer) to Ian Burston (CEO KCGM) notification was given that a 400 metre SEZ would be applied to the 'Super Pit(s)'. It stated:

"This will require that the distance from the perimeter of any section of the open pit (or pits) where blasting operations are taking place at or adjacent to that perimeter, to any occupied dwelling, will be maintained at 400m."

The linkage of the SEZ to blasting practices and fly rock was highlighted:

"The basis of the 400 metre distance is determined by the potential for fly-rock from blasting, as a lesser distance would have sufficed to provide- security from future subsidence of the final pit wall perimeters."

"As the pit perimeter in any locality advances, it will be the responsibility of the company to take the appropriate action to maintain this safety zone, and ensure that no persons are within the area during blasting operations at or near the relevant perimeter zones."

1 October 1992

Jim Torlach responds to a request for clarification of the SEZ by Ian Burston. In this letter it is reinforced that fly-rock is the issue:

"The Safety Exclusion Zone was determined on the basis of fly-rock potential deriving from the primary production blasting ... "

The 400 metres are to be measured in plan from the area of blasting. Significantly it is implied that as the pit increases in depth and the production area moves further away from the community then the SEZ could close in on the pit perimeter:

"As the Safety Exclusion Zone is measured in Plan, effectively from the line or the outermost blastholes, it would reach its greatest width from the pit perimeter when the line of blast holes is at or near the surface and closely adjacent to the perimeter."

There is hope for reducing the safe distance from controlled blasting in the weathered zone:

"Smaller scale primary blasting or 'shake-tip' shots fired to allow ripping and scraping of overburden or weathered rocks would obviously be subject to lesser separation distances from dwelling, although the normal stringent controls on the executions of such blasting would apply."

The Golden Mile Mining Development Planning Committee - 1992

The Golden Mile Mining Development Planning Committee (GMMDPC) was chaired by the Jim Torlach (State Mining Engineer) and had representatives from the DME, the EPA, The Department of State Development, the Department of Conservation and Land Management, the Goldfields Esperance Development Authority, the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, KCGM and Kaltails. The GMMDPC was established to address the issues confronting mining companies and the community as a result of large- scale mining in the near vicinity of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.

Three documents have been released into the public arena:

¾ The Golden Mile Environmental Strategy" in January 1988; ¾ A second document in July 1989 detailed mining activities and infrastructure developments; ¾ The final publication from the GMMDPC came in and was aimed at alerting the community of the social aspects associated with the large scale/long term mining activity. For the first time details of the Safety Exclusion Zone were made public.

The 1992 document provided a map of the 'Ultimate 500 metre Pit crest' and an 'approximate position of the Safety Exclusion Zone'. There were no coordinates on the map but the outlines were spliced onto an aerial photograph so that the position of the SEZ with respect to community infrastructure could be appreciated. Public safety was cited as the reason for the SEZ with fly-rock and pit wall subsidence noted as the issues. It was noted that the SEZ was a DME recommendation, which was endorsed by State Cabinet in December 1991. Significantly it was stated:

"The SEZ has been defined to address the unique conditions at the Fimiston Open pit and will extend 400 metres from the boundary of any active pit excavation involving primary blasting at or near that boundary. In line with a cabinet decision any residential properties occurring within the SEZ are to be purchased by KCGM, who may enter into arrangements with the occupants of those premises, allowing residents to remain living in the area subject to strict adherence to safety requirements to ensure nobody is injured during blasting activity. In addition all properties likely to be affected by future pit wall subsidence will be vacated and removed."

The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder was to review is town planning and establish a special zoning to cover the SEZ. Development of residential properties in the SEZ was to be prohibited. DOLA would not release any further land within the zone nor convert to freehold any existing alienated blocks within the SEZ.

October 1992

KCGM distributed a 1:2000 plan showing the SEZ in relation to the DOLA Kalgoorlie townsite plan, to DME, DOLA and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.

February 1993

Ian Burston wrote to the Minister for Lands and Mines, the Won S.G.E. Cash, addressing confusion expressed by several residents over the position of the SEZ. Plans showing the SEZ with the standard Australian Map Grid were included.

March 1993

Sly and Weigall provided KCGM with a legal opinion on the claims of the 'Hainault Road Residents' who resided outside the 400 metre SEZ but claimed they were being adversely affected by the mining activity. Noise, dust and vibration were cited by the residents as being the main issues. On the noise and dust issue the legal opinion stated that residents could mount a claim for nuisance under the Common Law. They could also have mounted a claim under the Mining Act 1978 if it could be shown that the mining activity caused 'injury or depreciation' to property.

April 1997

The SEZ is addressed in the Government Gazette, Western Australia. The objective of the SEZ is defined as: "(a) To provide a buffer between the Super Pit Gold Mine and the urban area in order to maintain the safety, health and welfare of the surrounding residents and the population in general. (b) To allow for the continuing development and operation of the Super Pit Gold Mine with minimum impact upon the amenity of the adjoining urban and residential areas."

It is significant that the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder supports the SEZ concept and encourages KCGM to purchase land in the zone. It will also only consider applications for planning approval over properties in the zone, made by KCGM.

In regard to General Development in the SEZ:

"Where buildings, residences, or land uses located within the SEZ are considered to be at risk from hazards associated with mining activity, such buildings, residences or land uses shall be removed and/or relocated to the satisfaction of the Council. The costs .....shall be met by KCGM."

"Non-residential uses may be approved by the Council provided that the purpose, safety and amenity of the Zone shall not be compromised."

April 1997

Gary Lye contacted the DME to ascertain what was the scientific basis for the SEZ, i.e. were there any technical reports to support 400 metres.

Mr. Hugh Jones, DME's Assistant Director Research and Technical Services, confirmed in a letter dated 29 April 1997, that the basis for establishing 400 metres as the width of the Safety Exclusion Zone (SEZ) was the potential for fly rock from blasting.

Mr. Jones notes that the determination of the SEZ was first described in a letter dated 2 September 1992, from the State Mining Engineer to KCGM's CEO. In this letter it was stated that the SEZ: "... distance is determined by the potential for fly rock from blasting, as a lesser distance would have sufficed to provide security from future subsidence of the final pit wall perimeters".

There are no DME Geotechnical reports or data pertaining to the SEZ. It is understood that one of the DME's geotechnical officers visited KCGM for discussions on the stability of a final west wall pit slope. He apparently concluded a distance somewhat less than 400 metres would have been sufficient if slope instability was the paramount issue.

It is believed an empirical approach was used to assess the safe horizontal distance from blasting. The State Mining Engineer apparently reviewed all DME records with respect to fly rock incidents and determined 400 metres as the safe limit.

KCGM has been passively acquiring properties within the SEZ since 1992.

APPENDIX C

Geotechnical Logging from Core Photographs

Page 1

GEOTECHNICAL CORE LOG JOB NO: 1803035 BFP CLIENT: KCGM DATE: 1/12/03 GEOTECHNICAL, MINING & PROJECT: Golden Pike Cutback LOGGED BY: sc GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS LOCATION: Fimiston Open Pits, Kalgoorlie CORE SIZE: FILE NAME:CORE_PHOTO_LOGGING ORIENT. LINE:

INTERVALBHID FROM TO CORE REC CORE ROCK WEATH'G ALTR'N STRENGTH RQD RQD % NO OF FRAC DEFECTTYPE QTY ORIGIN ALPHA BETA ROUGHINFILL WIDTH INFILL COMMENTS MARKER LENGTH LENGTH LOSS TYPE LENGTH DEFECTS / m SETS** / SET MIN mm STR * ENGD040 101.2 102.0 0.8 MD Fr 0.65 81 4 5.00 * ENGD040 102.0 103.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 103.0 104.0 1 MD Fr 0.92 92 4 4.00 * ENGD040 104.0 105.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 105.0 106.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD040 106.0 107.0 1 MD Fr 0.92 92 6 6.00 * ENGD040 107.0 108.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 108.0 109.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 0 0.00 * ENGD040 109.0 110.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 110.0 111.0 1 MD Fr 0.92 92 3 3.00 * ENGD040 111.0 112.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD040 112.0 113.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 5 5.00 * ENGD040 113.0 114.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 114.0 115.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD040 115.0 116.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 116.0 117.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 117.0 118.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 118.0 119.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 119.0 120.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 120.0 121.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 121.0 122.0 1 MD Fr 0.79 79 6 6.00 * ENGD040 122.0 123.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 123.0 124.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 5 5.00 * ENGD040 124.0 125.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 125.0 126.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 126.0 127.0 1 MD Fr 0.82 82 4 4.00 * ENGD040 127.0 128.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 128.0 129.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 129.0 130.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 130.0 131.0 1 MD Fr 0.87 87 5 5.00 * ENGD040 131.0 132.0 1 MD Fr 0.92 92 4 4.00 * ENGD040 132.0 133.0 1 MD Fr 0.84 84 6 6.00 * ENGD040 133.0 134.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD040 134.0 135.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 5 5.00 * ENGD040 135.0 136.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 136.0 137.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD040 137.0 138.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 138.0 139.0 1 MD Fr 0.96 96 4 4.00 * ENGD040 139.0 140.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD040 140.0 141.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00

Page 2

INTERVALBHID FROM TO CORE REC CORE ROCK WEATH'G ALTR'N STRENGTH RQD RQD % NO OF FRAC DEFECTTYPE QTY ORIGIN ALPHA BETA ROUGHINFILL WIDTH INFILL COMMENTS MARKER LENGTH LENGTH LOSS TYPE LENGTH DEFECTS / m SETS** / SET MIN mm STR * ENGD040 141.0 142.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 5 5.00 * ENGD040 142.0 143.0 1 MD Fr 0.59 59 6 6.00 * ENGD040 143.0 144.0 1 MD Fr 0.7 70 8 8.00 * ENGD040 144.0 145.0 1 MD Fr 0.69 69 5 5.00 * ENGD040 145.0 146.0 1 MD Fr 0.79 79 5 5.00 * ENGD040 146.0 147.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD040 147.0 148.0 1 MD Fr 0.83 83 5 5.00 * ENGD040 148.0 149.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD040 149.0 150.0 1 MD Fr 0.55 55 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 71.8 73.0 1.2 MD MW 0.57 47 10 8.33 * ENGD045A 73.0 74.0 1 MD MW 0.09 9 30 30.00 ENGD045A 73.0 73.9 FZ * ENGD045A 74.0 75.0 1 MD MW 0.56 56 7 7.00 * ENGD045A 75.0 76.0 1 MD MW 0.8 80 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 76.0 77.0 1 MD MW 0.66 66 10 10.00 ENGD045A 76.9 77.0 FZ * ENGD045A 77.0 78.0 1 MD MW 0.7 70 7 7.00 ENGD045A 77.5 77.5 FZ * ENGD045A 78.0 79.0 1 MD MW 0.75 75 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 79.0 80.0 1 MD MW 0.8 80 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 80.0 81.0 1 MD MW 0.42 42 12 12.00 ENGD045A 80.9 81.0 FZ * ENGD045A 81.0 82.0 1 MD MW 0.75 75 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 82.0 83.0 1 MD MW 0.69 69 10 10.00 ENGD045A 82.6 82.8 FZ * ENGD045A 83.0 84.0 1 MD MW 0.7 70 7 7.00 ENGD045A 83.7 83.9 FZ * ENGD045A 84.0 85.0 1 MD MW 0.6 60 9 9.00 * ENGD045A 85.0 86.0 1 MD MW 0.89 89 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 86.0 87.0 1 MD MW 0.93 93 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 87.0 88.0 1 MD MW 0.65 65 9 9.00 * ENGD045A 88.0 89.0 1 MD MW 0.75 75 7 7.00 * ENGD045A 89.0 90.0 1 MD MW 0.45 45 10 10.00 ENGD045A 89.8 90.8 FZ * ENGD045A 90.0 91.0 1 MD MW 0.18 18 20 20.00 * ENGD045A 91.0 92.0 1 MD SW 0.8 80 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 92.0 93.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 93.0 94.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 8 8.00 * ENGD045A 94.0 95.0 1 MD Fr 0.81 81 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 95.0 96.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 5 5.00

Page 3

INTERVALBHID FROM TO CORE REC CORE ROCK WEATH'G ALTR'N STRENGTH RQD RQD % NO OF FRAC DEFECTTYPE QTY ORIGIN ALPHA BETA ROUGHINFILL WIDTH INFILL COMMENTS MARKER LENGTH LENGTH LOSS TYPE LENGTH DEFECTS / m SETS** / SET MIN mm STR * ENGD045A 96.0 97.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 97.0 98.0 1 MD Fr 0.75 75 8 8.00 * ENGD045A 98.0 99.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 99.0 100.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 100.0 101.0 1 MD Fr 0.68 68 7 7.00 * ENGD045A 101.0 102.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 102.0 103.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 103.0 104.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 104.0 105.0 1 MD Fr 0.81 81 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 105.0 106.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 106.0 107.0 1 MD Fr 0.81 81 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 107.0 108.0 1 MD Fr 0.85 85 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 108.0 109.0 1 MD Fr 0.83 83 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 109.0 110.0 1 MD Fr 0.72 72 9 9.00 * ENGD045A 110.0 111.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 111.0 112.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 112.0 113.0 1 MD Fr 0.93 93 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 113.0 114.0 1 MD Fr 0.8 80 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 114.0 115.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 115.0 116.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 116.0 117.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 117.0 118.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 118.0 119.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 119.0 120.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 120.0 121.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 121.0 122.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 122.0 123.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 123.0 124.0 1 MD Fr 0.75 75 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 124.0 125.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 125.0 126.0 1 MD Fr 0.91 91 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 126.0 127.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 127.0 128.0 1 MD Fr 0.63 63 7 7.00 * ENGD045A 128.0 129.0 1 MD Fr 0.8 80 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 129.0 130.0 1 MD Fr 0.7 70 9 9.00 * ENGD045A 130.0 131.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 131.0 132.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 132.0 133.0 1 MD Fr 0.86 86 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 133.0 134.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 134.0 135.0 1 MD Fr 0.82 82 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 135.0 136.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00

Page 4

INTERVALBHID FROM TO CORE REC CORE ROCK WEATH'G ALTR'N STRENGTH RQD RQD % NO OF FRAC DEFECTTYPE QTY ORIGIN ALPHA BETA ROUGHINFILL WIDTH INFILL COMMENTS MARKER LENGTH LENGTH LOSS TYPE LENGTH DEFECTS / m SETS** / SET MIN mm STR * ENGD045A 136.0 137.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 137.0 138.0 1 MD Fr 0.88 88 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 138.0 139.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 139.0 140.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 140.0 141.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 141.0 142.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 142.0 143.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 143.0 144.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 144.0 145.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 145.0 146.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 146.0 147.0 1 MD Fr 0.79 79 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 147.0 148.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 148.0 149.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 149.0 150.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 150.0 151.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 151.0 152.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 152.0 153.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 0 0.00 * ENGD045A 153.0 154.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 154.0 155.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 155.0 156.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 156.0 157.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 157.0 158.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 158.0 159.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 159.0 160.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 160.0 161.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 161.0 162.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 162.0 163.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 163.0 164.0 1 MD Fr 0.98 98 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 164.0 165.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 165.0 166.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 166.0 167.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 167.0 168.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 168.0 169.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 169.0 170.0 1 MD Fr 0.92 92 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 170.0 171.0 1 MD Fr 0.83 83 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 171.0 172.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 172.0 173.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 173.0 174.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 174.0 175.0 1 MD Fr 0.75 75 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 175.0 176.0 1 MD Fr 0.9 90 3 3.00

Page 5

INTERVALBHID FROM TO CORE REC CORE ROCK WEATH'G ALTR'N STRENGTH RQD RQD % NO OF FRAC DEFECTTYPE QTY ORIGIN ALPHA BETA ROUGHINFILL WIDTH INFILL COMMENTS MARKER LENGTH LENGTH LOSS TYPE LENGTH DEFECTS / m SETS** / SET MIN mm STR * ENGD045A 176.0 177.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 177.0 178.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 178.0 179.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 179.0 180.0 1 MD Fr 0.85 85 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 180.0 181.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 181.0 182.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 182.0 183.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 183.0 184.0 1 MD Fr 0.89 89 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 184.0 185.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 185.0 186.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 186.0 187.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 187.0 188.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 188.0 189.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 189.0 190.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 190.0 191.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 191.0 192.0 1 MD Fr 0.85 85 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 192.0 193.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 193.0 194.0 1 MD Fr 0.95 95 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 194.0 195.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 195.0 196.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 196.0 197.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 197.0 198.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 198.0 199.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 199.0 200.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 200.0 201.0 1 MD Fr 0.88 88 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 201.0 202.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 202.0 203.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 203.0 204.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00 * ENGD045A 204.0 205.0 1 MD Fr 0.86 86 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 205.0 206.0 1 MD Fr 0.85 85 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 206.0 207.0 1 MD Fr 0.86 86 6 6.00 * ENGD045A 207.0 208.0 1 MD Fr 0.28 28 11 11.00 * ENGD045A 208.0 209.0 1 MD Fr 0.7 70 7 7.00 * ENGD045A 209.0 210.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 210.0 211.0 1 MD Fr 0.79 79 5 5.00 * ENGD045A 211.0 212.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 212.0 213.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 4 4.00 * ENGD045A 213.0 214.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 2 2.00 * ENGD045A 214.0 215.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 1 1.00 * ENGD045A 215.0 216.0 1 MD Fr 1 100 3 3.00

Page 6

APPENDIX D

Stereographic Projections

LIST OF STEREOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS

D1 Golden Pike Cutback Discontinuity Set Orientations D2 GMD (West Wall) Drill Core Data D3 GMD (West of BFB) Mapping Data D4 GMD (West of BFB) Drill Core Data D5 GMD (West of BFB) Major Structure Drill Core Data D6 GMD (East of BFB) Mapping Data D7 GMD (East of BFB) Drill Core Data D8 GMD (East of BFB) Major Structure Drill Core Data D9 BFB (West Wall) Mapping Data D10 BFB (West Wall) Drill Core Data D11 BFB (West Wall) Major Structure Drill Core Data D12 PB (West Wall) Major Structure Drill Core Data

APPENDIX E

Cross Sections & Plan

(In Separate Folder)

LIST OF CROSS SECTIONS

E1 Cross Section 48200 mN E2 Cross Section 48250 mN E3 Cross Section 48300 mN E4 Cross Section 48350 mN E5 Cross Section 48400 mN E6 Cross Section 48450 mN E7 Cross Section 48500 mN E8 Cross Section 48550 mN E9 Cross Section 48600 mN E10 Cross Section 48650 mN E11 Cross Section 48700 mN E12 Cross Section 48750 mN E13 Cross Section 48800 mN E14 Cross Section 48850 mN E15 Cross Section 48900 mN E16 Cross Section 48950 mN E17 Cross Section 49000 mN E18 Cross Section 49050 mN E19 Cross Section 49100 mN E20 Cross Section 49150 mN E21 Cross Section 49200 mN E22 Cross Section 49250 mN E23 Cross Section 49300 mN E24 Cross Section 49350 mN E25 Cross Section 49400 mN E26 Cross Section 49450 mN E27 Cross Section 49500 mN E28 Location of Mapping and Major Lithological Boundaries