REPORT ON THE GEOCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR ROCK TYPES AND PROCESS RESIDUE FROM THE SOUTHDOWN MAGNETITE DEPOSIT WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Transcription

1 Pty Ltd A.B.N Havelock Street, West Perth, WA 6005 Australia (PO Box 1914, West Perth, WA 6872 Australia) Telephone (08) Fax (08) REPORT ON THE GEOCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR ROCK TYPES AND PROCESS RESIDUE FROM THE SOUTHDOWN MAGNETITE DEPOSIT WESTERN AUSTRALIA Submitted to: Grange Resources Limited 221 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000 DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies - Grange Resources Limited 1 Copy - Pty Ltd Brisbane Office (Electronic Copy Only) 2 Copies - Pty Ltd February R01-Rev2 OFFICES IN ADELAIDE, BRISBANE, CAIRNS, MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE, PERTH, SYDNEY, TOWNSVILLE INDONESIA, NEW CALEDONIA, NEW ZEALAND, PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PHILIPPINES, SINGAPORE OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA

2 February i R01-Rev2 RECORD OF ISSUE COMPANY CLIENT CONTACT VERSION DATE ISSUED METHOD OF DELIVERY Grange Resources Alex Nutter Final Electronic Grange Resources Alex Nutter Rev0 19/01/06 Electronic Grange Resources Alex Nutter Rev1 02/02/06 Electronic Grange Resources Alex Nutter Rev2 17/02/06 Hardcopy & Electronic

3 February ii R01-Rev2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grange resources Limited (GRL) contracted (Golder) to conduct geochemical analysis of waste rock and process residue samples from the Southdown Magnetite deposit in Western Australia for its feasibility study. The objective of the study was to characterise the geochemistry of the Southdown Magnetite deposit using static acid base accounting analysis and recommend how the waste from the deposit can be managed to minimise adverse environmental effects. The study has identified certain waste materials that have the potential to produce acid leachate (Type 2 and Type 4 rock types (Table 1), however these rock types can be adequately managed using conventional waste rock management practices. When the results of this study are combined with geological models, estimates on the actual proportions of each rock type can be developed. The results in Table 6 show that the overall proportion of waste is; NAF (92%); AF (4%); and PAF (3%). In total 88 samples of rock and 5 samples of process residue were analysed using acid base accounting and metal leaching procedures. The results on the tested samples show that: Six rock types are non-acid forming (NAF). Six rock types are potentially acid forming (PAF). Two rock types are acid forming (AF). Approximately 20% of the samples had the potential to produce greater than 20 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. Approximately 10% of the samples had the potential to produce greater than 100 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. There is little potential for long term acid neutralisation in the waste rock. There is a low potential for leachate to contain environmentally toxic elements.

4 February iii R01-Rev2 The leachate from AF waste rock that is poorly managed has the potential to contain elevated concentrations of aluminium and iron. Aluminium and iron was leached at elevated concentrations from alkaline through to acid samples. The data suggests that further sampling would be required to enhance the characterisation and classification of the deposit. The five samples analysed from the -3 mm process residue showed little variation in the results suggesting that this material was adequately sampled and characterised. The data from the process residue analysis shows that the process residue would have low PAF capacity and a low potential for leachate containing environmentally toxic elements.

5 February iv R01-Rev2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Scope UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT Geology Project Overview Deposit Size Waste Rock Management Process Residue Topsoil Revegetation Pit Lake Development GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS Scope of Work Waste Rock Classification Acid Base Accounting (ABA) Total Metal Content SPLP Metal Leachability Rock Type and Process Residue Summary Pal Type Type 1g Type Type Type 3a Type Type 4a Type Type 5a Type Type 6a Type PR CONCLUSIONS Acid Rock Drainage Metal Leachate RECOMMENDATIONS IMPORTANT INFORMATION... 26

6 February v R01-Rev2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of the 13 Main Rock/Soil Types and 1 Process Residue in the Southdown Magnetite Deposit... 3 Table 2: SPLP Leachable Metals for Waste Rock Samples Table 3: SPLP Leachable Metals for Process Residue (-3 mm) Composite Samples Table 4: Metal SPLP Concentrations for Each Waste Rock Type Table 5: Salt SPLP Concentrations for Each Waste Rock Type Table 6: Waste Rock Summary LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Relationship between Leco-S and CRS-S for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit... 8 Figure 3-2: Relationship between Leco-C and Organic C for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit... 9 Figure 3-3: Leco-S vs ph for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit LIST OF ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABA ABCC AF ANC CAi CRS EAL GRL MPA NAF PAF SPLP TC TS Acid Base Accounting Acid Buffering Characteristic Curves Acid Forming Acid Neutralising Capacity Acid Insoluble Carbon Chromium Reducible Sulphur Environmental Analysis Laboratory Grange Resources Limited Maximum Potential Acidity Non-Acid Forming Potentially Acid Forming Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure Total Carbon Total Sulphur LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Acid Base Accounting and Metal Leachate Data Important Information About Your Geo-environmental Report

7 February R01-Rev2 1.0 INTRODUCTION (Golder) was requested by Grange Resources Limited (GRL) to undertake an initial, feasibility stage, geochemical assessment of the waste rock and the -3 mm process residue from the GRL Southdown project. 1.1 Scope In total 88 samples of the major rock types and 5 process residue samples were analysed. Golder proposed to test the static geochemistry of the major rock types by using representative samples from existing core and the < 3 mm course rejects. It is noted that there was intentional bias in the sampling process conducted by GRL and Golder Perth to include additional samples from the likely ARD units as it was recognised that these rocks types would have the greatest potential to cause ARD. Representative samples were collected by GRL and Golder and sent to Norsearch Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) in Lismore, Australia for the following acid base accounting (ABA) test work: Sample preparation, including crushing the sample to < 5 mm, riffle splitting the sample and pulping a sub sample to < 100 micron. ph and Electrical Conductivity using a 1: 5 solid/solution ratio. Chromium Reducible Sulphur (CRS) to measure maximum potential acidity (MPA). Total Carbon (TC) by LECO and Acid Insoluble Carbon (CAi) to measure the acid neutralising capacity (ANC) of the waste. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedures (SPLP) to measure the leachable metal fractions likely to be released from a sample at field conditions. Acid buffering characteristic curves (ABCC). This report provides the results of this work and includes the following other aspects: Suggestions on how the waste rock can be managed to minimise ARD. Suggestions on the scope of works required for kinetic ARD tests.

8 February R01-Rev2 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT 2.1 Geology The Grange Resources Southdown Deposit (Southdown) consists of quartz-magnetiteclinopyroxene gneiss (Type1) interbanded with feldspar-pyroxene-magnetite gneiss (Type3), quartz-garnet-orthoclase gneiss and (Type4) quartz-feldspar-orthopyroxene-garnet gneiss (Type5a). The deposit is hosted by quartz-feldspar-orthopyroxene-biotite gneiss (Type5) interbanded with feldspar-pyroxene-magnetite gneiss (Type3). Oxidation of the deposit is typically limited to the upper 5-20 m. Southdown occurs within a gently east-plunging, overturned tight to isoclinal syncline with a steeply south dipping axial surface. The deposit is approximately 85 m wide and has been demonstrated to be open to depths of 460 m below surface. Southdown is offset by moderately north-east dipping dextral reverse faults and subsidiary steeply south-east dipping sinistral faults. Late brittle reactivation of the moderately north-east dipping faults has resulted in zones of dense fracturing and crushing. Metamorphism is dominantly granulite facies with localised eclogite facies associated with some of the major NW-trending/NE dipping faults. The deposit is unconformably overlain by a m thick sequence of siltstone, sandstone, spongelite and conglomerate (basal conglomerate derived from the underlying gneiss) ascribed to the Late Eocene Pallinup Formation. Golder (pers. comm. James Farrell Golder -Perth) has viewed two petrography reports (one from 1987 and one from 2005). The mineral identification in these reports forms the basis of the geology Types as listed in Table 1. We believe the protolith for Southdown Type 1 to be BIF (Type1g impure BIF, Aluminium rich). It is possible the protolith for Type3 and Type3a is pelite (possible with a mafic volcanic input). Type5 and Type5a were probably of psammitic origin. Type4 is unusual and there are possibly two varieties: an OPX/feldspar/quartz rich variety that is of similar origin to Type5 and an OPX/biotite rich variety which is of similar origin to Type3. Type6 and Type6a are alterations of Type5. Type7 represents local partial melting, this is dominantly stratabound in the west. Partial melts are cross-cutting and stratabound in the east. Type2 is unusual, it appears sulphur is filling low pressure space in the core of the fold (perhaps sulphidising the overlying sequence Type5+/-Type3). It is believed the sediments were derived from the uplifting Yilgarn block. The sediments were then caught up in the Albany-Fraser Orogen during NNW directed thrusting. While metamorphism is very intense, deformation is not all that complicated and the stratigraphy has not been badly disrupted (most deformation pre-metamorphism). Individual bands can be traced for m without difficulty.

9 February R01-Rev2 Table 1: Summary of the 13 Main Rock/Soil Types and 1 Process Residue in the Southdown Magnetite Deposit Code of rock/soil type Pal Type1 Type1g Type2 Type3 Type3a Type4 Type4a Type5 Type5a Type6 Type6a Type7 Process Residue Description Soil laterite and Pallinup Formation Coarse grained quartz-magnetite-clinopyroxene Coarse grained quartz-magnetite-garnet-orthopyroxene Fine grained quartz-sulphide-garnet-orthopyroxene-biotite-sillimanite Plagioclase-clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-magnetite-quartz Plagioclase-clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-garnet-orthoclase-magnetite-quartz Quartz-garnet-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-biotite-magnetite Coarse grained clinopyroxene-biotite-(garnet) Quartz-plagioclase-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-biotite Quartz-plagioclase-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-garnet-epidote Plagioclase-quartz-hornblende Epidote-quartz-prehnite-hornblende Quartz-orthoclase-plagioclase -3mm slimes collected by ProMet Engineers Pty Ltd 2.2 Project Overview The following information was considered Deposit Size GRL supplied Golder (Perth) with the following information regarding the proposed mine: Strike length of pit 6 km. Depth of pit 250 m Mt of ore is to be mined. Production rate 18 Mtpa ore feed producing approximately 6.6 Mtpa saleable product. The stripping ratio is estimated to be in the order of 2.5 : 1. GRL have three leases over the property, M70/718, M70/719 and M70/433 some 1,700 ha in extent. Infrastructure is to be contained within leases where possible, any additional requirements to be placed on farms 6832 and 6833 where possible.

10 February R01-Rev2 Product to be pumped to Albany as a slurry, with water pumped back to site Waste Rock Management An initial proposal to place all waste externally was rejected by GRL. The current proposal to manage waste includes combining external waste placement with backfilling. Under the current proposal at the completion of the project approximately 46% of the waste will be placed in an external dump that would have a surface area of 620 ha. Because of the location of the mine, the mine and waste rock dump are likely to have stringent environmental conditions imposed upon them and thus the following points have been taken into consideration: The design of the dump has taken into consideration the need for drainage patterns to ensure that no single part of the dump has to discharge excess amounts of water. All surface water from the dump would be directed towards the pit. Hence the irregular shape of the dump which includes measures to ensure that the dump is not subject to erosion. The inter berm slope will be shaped to mimic local landforms where practicable. A detailed waste dumping schedule will be required to determine at what stage backfilling of the pit can commence. It must be borne in mind that the swell factor could impact on this operation at various points in the project and may force dumping on external waste dumps if insufficient space is available in the pit. A sulphidic shear which appears to dip parallel with the ore bodies has been identified in drill holes and separates the ore bodies in the western part of the deposit. The extent of this shear is difficult to quantify at this stage but it is expected to be present in the other parts of the pit. The total volume of waste rock is estimated to be 1050 Mt Process Residue It is estimated that approximately 190 Mt of process residue will be generated during the life of the project. While it is not known at this stage what forms the waste products from the process plant will ultimately take, it is understood that the following parameters best describe the likely process residue product: Process residue will be generated in the form of a wet slurry.

11 February R01-Rev2 The particle size distribution of the process residue (by mass) will probably be similar to the following: - 100% less than 3 mm - 80% less than 1 mm - 40% less than 40 μm. Co-disposal of approximately 50% of the process residues with backfilled waste rock will be undertaken. This will reduce the final size of the tailings storage facility (TSF) Topsoil Topsoil will be stockpiled as mining progresses and used in the final cover of the waste rock dumps or on the final landform of backfilled areas of the open pit. Topsoil is an integral part of waste rock dump covers and should therefore be stored appropriately so that is available for use when required. Assuming a depth of 0.3 m, the amount of topsoil will be: Pit 1.0 Mm 3 Waste Dump 1.8 Mm 3 Process residue 2.1 Mm 3 ROM pad and Stockpiles 0.1 Mm 3 Total topsoil 5.0 Mm Revegetation The strategy for re-vegetation is to use vegetation covers tolerant to drought, fire, grazing and flooding and to create an environment suitable for the vegetation chosen. Impediments to revegetation are likely and may require either physical or chemical amelioration to effect long term sustainable ecosystem development. Suitable revegetation strategies will ensure that waste rock dump covers are able to reduce the potential for ARD discharging from the waste rock dumps by limiting erosion which would reduce the structural integrity of the waste rock dump and allow rainfall to infiltrate through the waste rock dump Pit Lake Development A pit lake may exist at closure, even with the use of backfilling.

12 February R01-Rev2 3.0 GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Scope of Work A total of 93 rock/residue samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit were analysed. Sample selection was undertaken by James Farrell (Golder Perth) with input from GRL. The sample details are listed in Appendix A. These samples represent 13 major rock/residue types in the study area (see Table 1). In addition, samples of process residue (PR) were also analysed. The process residue samples were supplied by ProMet Engineers Pty Ltd and are believed to have been collected from a 20 tonne bulk metallurgical sample. Based on the known geology it was anticipated that the bulk of the waste rock would be NAF therefore sample bias was centred on the likely ARD units as it was recognised that these rocks types would have the greatest potential to cause ARD. The results of this study have ascertained that the bulk of the waste rock is NAF and geochemically inert. Static acid base accounting (ABA) and metal leaching (ML) tests were conducted to characterise the waste materials from this deposit with a focus on their sulphide-derived acid producing capacity and their potential to leach environmentally significant metals or major cations. The analyses of rocks/soils included: Leco-Sulphur (Leco- S); Inorganic reduced sulphur (CRS-S); Leco-Carbon (Leco- C); Organic carbon (Organic C); ph (1:5 solid water); Electrical conductivity (EC) (1:5 solid water); Total metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, potassium, sodium, calcium and magnesium); and Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure (SPLP) leachable metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, potassium, sodium, calcium and magnesium). For the above items, Leco-S, ph, EC, Leco-C and organic C were determined for all the 93 samples. Selected samples were analysed for SPLP leachable metals (Table 2 to Table 5) and total metal content (Appendix A).

13 February R01-Rev2 The samples arrived at the EAL (Lismore, NSW) in three consignments on the (11 rock samples), (77 rock samples) and the (5 process residue samples). All rock samples arrived as coarsely crushed, < 10mm diameter, composites. The process residue samples arrived coarsely ground. All samples were prepared in the laboratory by drying the samples at 70 C for 24 hours, compositing individual samples then grinding the samples in a ring mill to < 75 µm particle diameter. The final analyses were received from EAL on the Waste Rock Classification The classification of waste rock is generally site specific; however some mine sites use a NAPP classification of greater than 6 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne (or 0.2% total sulphur) to designate waste as acid forming. Due to the alkaline nature of the samples and hence their ability to neutralise some acidity, Golder proposes that the following interim waste rock classification scheme could be used to classify waste for the purposes of defining waste rock and process residue management strategies: ACID FORMING WASTE > 20 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne POTENTIALLY ACID FORMING WASTE < 20 to > 6kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne NON-ACIC FORMING WASTE < 6 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne Note: This classification scheme is based on the analysis of the samples in this report. Further work is recommended using kinetic tests which could change or redefine classification boundaries. This classification scheme is provided to allow estimates of volumes of each waste rock type within the deposit to be inferred so that initial management strategies can be developed. 3.3 Acid Base Accounting (ABA) ABA was conducted on all 93 samples to provide an indication of the net acid producing potential (NAPP) of the waste rock, soil and process residue. NAPP = MPA (Total sulphur) - ANC (Total Carbon) Leco-S and Leco-C were estimated by sulphur and carbon contents obtained from measurements of sulphur and carbon in a solid sample using a Leco CNS Analyzer (known as Leco-S and Leco-C hereafter). Inorganic reduced sulphur was estimated using the chromium reducible sulphur method. Organic C was determined by a Leco CNS Analyzer after treatment of a sample with HCl to remove carbonates. ph and EC were determined in a 1:5 (soil: water) extract using a calibrated ph and EC meter, respectively. Total metals were estimated using a hydrochloric/nitric acid microwave digestion and analysis using an ICP-AES.

14 February R01-Rev2 Sulphur speciation was undertaken on selected samples to determine whether sulphur was present as sulphide sulphur or other non-acid generating sulphur species such as elemental sulphur or minerals such as gypsum (CaSO 4 ). It is clear from Figure 3-1 that a good correlation exists between Leco-S and CRS-S, therefore the bulk of sulphur is present as sulphide sulphur. The slope of the trend line is about 0.89, indicating that, in general, CRS-S content was only slightly lower than Leco-S for the tested samples. This suggests that the Leco-S can be reasonably used for estimation of sulphide-s for acid base accounting calculation CRS-S y = x R 2 = Leco-S Figure 3-1: Relationship between Leco-S and CRS-S for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit The acid neutralising capacity (ANC) of the samples was estimated from the inorganic C content: this was obtained as the difference between Leco-C and organic C. Maximum potential acidity (MPA) (kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne) was obtained by conversion calculation based on Leco-S. Net acid producing potential (NAPP) (kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne) was obtained by difference between MPA and ANC. Because the bulk of the carbon was determined to be organic carbon ABCC tests were not conducted. A plot of Leco-C vs organic C (Figure 3-2) also shows a very good correlation between both parameters. The slope of the trend line is 0.91, indicating that a large proportion of Leco-C was in organic forms. Therefore, the inorganic C or carbonate-c content of the investigated rocks/soils was generally low. This indicates that the samples for the bulk of the rock types have a low potential for long term neutralising capacity. However many of the samples do have neutral to alkaline ph suggesting they have some limited potential to buffer acidity.

15 February R01-Rev y = 1.005x R 2 = Leco-C (%) Organic C (%) Figure 3-2: Relationship between Leco-C and Organic C for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit ph Leco-S (%) Figure 3-3: Leco-S vs ph for the rock/soil samples collected from the Southdown Magnetite Deposit.

16 February R01-Rev2 Figure 3-3 shows that a number of the samples had ph below 6, suggesting that sulphide oxidation has occurred in these samples. All samples with Leco-S greater than 5% had ph below 6 while most of the samples with Leco-S content less than 5% had ph above 6. It is uncertain whether this oxidation has taken place before or after sample collection because the sample handling information is not available. The results show there were differences in mean NAPP values among the various rock types. For most of the 13 rock/soil types, mean NAPP content showed little variation among samples collected from the same rock type. This suggests that sulphide sulphur is generally associated within specific rock types. 3.4 Total Metal Content In total 41 of the 93 rock samples were subjected to total metal analysis. Total metal results (refer to Appendix A) show that, except for the major metals (aluminium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and iron), the concentrations of metals with the potential for adverse effects such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc were relatively low. 3.5 SPLP Metal Leachability The same 41 samples (Appendix A) subjected for total metal analysis were subjected to the Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure (SPLP). The SPLP is a US EPA approved method for measuring the metals that are removed from the solid phase into solution. The method is indicative of results that are likely from waste rock that is leached with dilute acidic runoff in the short to medium term. The SPLP leachable metals were estimated by tumbling a sample with ph 5 solution for 18 hours followed by measurement of various metals by ICP-AES or ICP-MS. The SPLP results show low concentrations of environmentally significant heavy metals being released. However, liberation of aluminium and iron upon acidification caused by sulphide oxidation is likely to be a problem for some rock types if the appropriate management of waste rock is not in place. The SPLP results are generally favourable for the waste rock and process residue because the potential for leachate containing environmentally toxic elements such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead, is limited (Table 2 to Table 5). Aluminium is elevated in the Pal rock type and iron is elevated in the Pal, Type 1g and Type 2 rock types.

17 February R01-Rev2 Table 2: SPLP Leachable Metals for Waste Rock Samples This table shows the average, median and standard deviation (Stdev) for metals that are likely to be leached from the waste rock under slightly acidic solutions. The data in this table show the combined results for all waste rock types. They can be considered indicative of water quality likely to be encountered in the short to medium term if adequate waste management strategies are not implemented. Aluminium (mg/l in Arsenic (mg/l in Cadmium (mg/l in Average Median Stdev NA 1 NA Chromium (mg/l in Cobalt (mg/l in Copper (mg/l in Average Median Stdev Iron (mg/l in Mercury (mg/l in Manganese (mg/l in Average Median Stdev NA Nickel (mg/l in Lead (mg/l in Zinc (mg/l in Average Median Stdev NA = not applicable

18 February R01-Rev2 Table 3: SPLP Leachable Metals for Process Residue (-3 mm) Composite Samples This table shows the average, median and standard deviations for metals that are likely to be leached from the process residue under slightly acidic solutions. They can be considered indicative of water quality likely to be encountered in the short to medium term if adequate waste management strategies are not implemented. Aluminium (mg/l in Arsenic (mg/l in Cadmium (mg/l in Average BDL 2 BDL Median NA NA Stdev NA NA Chromium (mg/l in Cobalt (mg/l in Copper (mg/l in Average Median Stdev Iron (mg/l in Mercury (mg/l in Manganese (mg/l in Average BDL Median NA Stdev NA Nickel (mg/l in Lead (mg/l in Zinc (mg/l in Average Median Stdev BDL = below detection limit

19 February R01-Rev2 Table 4: Metal SPLP Concentrations for Each Waste Rock Type This table shows the average SPLP leachable metal concentrations for each waste rock type. Aluminium (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Arsenic (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Cadmium (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Chromium (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Cobalt (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Copper (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Pal BDL Type BDL BDL Type1g BDL Type BDL BDL Type BDL Type3a BDL BDL Type BDL BDL Type4a BDL BDL Type BDL BDL Type5a BDL BDL Type BDL BDL Type6a BDL BDL BDL Type BDL BDL BDL Iron (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Mercury (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Manganese (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Nickel (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Lead (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Zinc (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 Pal Type BDL Type1g BDL Type BDL Type BDL Type3a BDL Type BDL Type4a BDL Type BDL Type5a BDL Type BDL Type6a BDL Type BDL

20 February R01-Rev2 Table 5: Salt SPLP Concentrations for Each Waste Rock Type. This table shows the average SPLP leachable salt concentrations for each waste rock type. Sodium (mg/l in Potassium (mg/l in Calcium (mg/l in Magnesium (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 Pal Type Type1g Type Type Type3a Type Type4a Type Type5a Type Type6a Type If the SPLP leachable concentrations are taken in isolation for the various rock types there would most likely be some exceedances for aluminium and iron. However, when appropriate waste management practices are used, that include encapsulation of AF waste within isolated cells in the waste rock dump, then the potential for environmental exceedances is likely to be reduced considerably. The overall potential for environmental exceedances associated with metal leachate from the waste rock is considered to be low as long as appropriate waste management practices are undertaken. 3.6 Rock Type and Process Residue Summary The following is a summary of the results for the thirteen major rock types and the process residue listed in Table Pal Five samples of Soil laterite/pallinup Formation collected from 3.3 to 17 m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.01% to 0.09% with a mean value of 0.03%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was therefore 1.04 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne.

21 February R01-Rev2 The low Leco-S content and low ph suggests that oxidation has occurred in this rock type. The mean negative NAPP also suggests that this rock type contains some carbonate materials that are able to neutralise acidity. The presence of leachable magnesium indicates that the source of the neutralising minerals is associated with magnesium minerals. The SPLP salts results show that this rock type has the greatest leachable sodium, potassium and magnesium concentrations. Further work could be conducted on this rock type to determine whether adverse effects due to the development of sodic soil profiles are likely where this material is used in the root zone of revegetated areas. In terms of metal leachate this rock type also has the highest SPLP leachable aluminium, chromium, iron and lead. However, at the reported concentrations these elements are not considered to be likely to cause environmental harm. Further work could be undertaken to determine its suitability as a growth medium for revegetation and its potential to leach aluminium and iron from the solid phase. The leachability of aluminium in particular could lead to acidification of the soil and adverse conditions for establishing vegetative caps. It is however likely that the SPLP leachable concentrations of metals and salts from this rock type are indicative of background baseline conditions and that vegetative species have adapted to and possibly require this type of soil chemistry. This rock type contains topsoil in the upper soil horizon and offers the best potential for waste rock dump exterior capping/revegetation material and is classified as NAF Type 1 Five samples of coarse grained quartz-magnetite-clinopyroxene collected from 70.6 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.18% to 0.38% with a mean value of 0.30%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 9.23 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 8.57 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. This rock type also has a low EC and low concentrations of salts and metals indicating that this material may also be suitable as capping material. The moderately alkaline ph and low positive NAPP indicate this rock type has limited potential to cause ARD and is classified as PAF. This rock type is the principal mineralised unit. Additional work using kinetic tests is required to determine how this material may impact on water quality if this material is open to the atmosphere at mine closure.

22 February R01-Rev Type 1g Five samples of coarse grained quartz-magnetite-garnet-orthopyroxene collected from and m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.26 to 15.84% with a mean value of 3.48%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. The median value was 12.8 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. It is noted that the single sample with an elevated positive NAPP of kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne occurred at a depth of m, which is the depth range where the majority of samples with elevated positive NAPP occur. This anomaly may be explained through ongoing work. If the single sample with the elevated NAPP is removed from this rock group then classification of this waste rock type changes from AF to PAF. This rock type is designated as the subordinate mineralised units. Additional work using kinetic tests is required to determine how this material may impact on water quality if this material is open to the atmosphere at mine closure Type 2 Ten samples of fine grained quartz-sulphide-garnet-orthopyroxene-biotite-sillimanite collected from 52.5 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.47% to 16.53% with a mean value of 9.45%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. This rock type is characterised by elevated positive NAPP values, low ph, low leachable aluminium and elevated leachable iron. The high MPA and low ph indicate that oxidation of these samples has occurred. It is uncertain whether oxidation occurred in situ or after sample collection and this could be determined. The reason for determining this is to ascertain if the oxidation of this rock type has occurred in situ and if this is the case then consideration of the incorporation of alkaline media with this waste rock may be required during its placement in the waste rock dump or backfilled area. This would be done to increase ph to neutral or mildly alkaline conditions thereby reducing the potential for the accelerated oxidation of this waste rock and the subsequent release of acid and metals. This rock type generally has low concentrations of salts and metals. However, because this material has a high sulphide sulphur content it has the potential to generate significant metal leachate over time as the oxidation of the sulphide minerals occurs and if the material is exposed to water that could translocate the metals from the rock. This is particularly true for aluminium, iron, cobalt, manganese and nickel. This rock type is classified as AF.

23 February R01-Rev2 The management of this waste would include placement in dedicated cells or in backfilled areas of the open pit and could also include mixing with alkaline materials, compaction or co-disposal with tailings to reduce internal pore space Type 3 Ten samples of plagioclase-clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-magnetite-quartz collected from 58.1 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.1% to 0.62% with a mean value of 0.20%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 6.08 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 6.01 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The moderately alkaline ph and low positive NAPP value results in a NAF classification. This material has a low potential to generate acid and leach metals. This material may be suitable as encapsulating material to isolate AF material that is placed in dedicated ARD cells Type 3a Ten samples of Plagioclase-clinopyroxene-orthopyroxene-garnet-orthoclase-magnetite-quartz collected from to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.03% to 1.34% with a mean value of 0.52%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. Other than one sample having a ph of 6.34 the samples in this rock type group has moderately alkaline ph. The distribution of NAPP results ranges from 1.5 to 38.5 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. This rock type is classified as PAF. This material has a low potential to leach metals. This material may be suitable as encapsulating material Type 4 Ten samples of Quartz-garnet-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-biotite-magnetite from 37.8 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.38% to 3.05% with a mean value of 0.93%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne.

24 February R01-Rev2 The distribution of ph for this rock type ranged from 5.32 to 9.43, indicating that some oxidation of these samples has occurred; it is uncertain whether oxidation occurred in situ or after sample collection. In terms of metal leachate the samples from this rock type have a low potential to leach metals. However, upon oxidation these samples could leach metals due to the presence of sulphide minerals. There was little distribution in the NAPP results and the average NAPP of kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne give this rock type an AF classification. It is likely that this material would be required to be placed in ARD cells, but that these cells are not likely to require alkaline addition Type 4a Ten samples of coarse grained clinopyroxene-biotite-(garnet) from 68.8 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.1% to 0.72% with a mean value of 0.29%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 8.81 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 8.42 kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. The distribution of ph for this rock type ranged from 4.18 to 9.55, indicating that some oxidation of these samples has occurred; it is uncertain whether oxidation occurred in situ or after sample collection. In terms of metal leachate the samples from this rock type have a low potential to leach metals. However, upon oxidation these samples could leach metals due to the presence of sulphide minerals. This rock type is classified as PAF. This could be suitable as encapsulating material with the waste rock dump or open pit Type 5 Seven samples of Quartz-plagioclase-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-biotite from 91.1 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.01% to 0.11% with a mean value of 0.05%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 1.55 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 0.8 kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. This rock type has a moderately alkaline ph and has NAPP values ranging between to 3.42 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. These samples also have a low potential to leach metals.

25 February R01-Rev2 This rock type is classified as NAF. This material would be suitable to encapsulate AF material within engineered ARD cells or in backfilled areas of open pits Type 5a Seven samples of Quartz-plagioclase-orthoclase-orthopyroxene-garnet-epidote from 50.9 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.04% to 1.01% with a mean value of 0.36%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. This rock type has a moderately alkaline ph and has NAPP values ranging between -0.6 to 30.3 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. In terms of metal leachate the samples from this rock type have a low potential to leach metals. However, upon oxidation these samples could leach metals due to the presence of sulphide minerals. This rock type is classified as PAF. This material would be suitable for use within the waste rock dump as encapsulating material Type 6 Three samples of Plagioclase-quartz-hornblende from to 185.6m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.02% to 0.05% with a mean value of 0.04%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 1.08 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 0.88 kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne The samples from this rock type have moderate alkalinity, low leachable metals and are classified as NAF. This material would be suitable to encapsulate AF material within engineered ARD cells or in backfilled areas of open pits Type 6a Three samples of Epidote-quartz-prehnite-hornblende from 88.7 to m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.01% to 0.14% with a mean value of 0.08%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 2.46 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 1.38 kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne.

26 February R01-Rev2 The samples from this rock type have moderate alkalinity, low leachable metals, would be suitable as an outer layer capping material and are classified as NAF. This material would be suitable to encapsulate AF material within engineered ARD cells or in backfilled areas of open pits Type 7 Three samples of Quartz-orthoclase-plagioclase from 87.2 to 134.5m depth were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.01% to 0.17% with a mean value of 0.06%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was 1.94 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was 1.36 kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. The samples from this rock type have moderate alkalinity, low leachable metals, would be suitable as an outer layer capping material and are classified as NAF. This material would be suitable to encapsulate AF material within engineered ARD cells or in backfilled areas of open pits PR Five samples of process residue with a particle size less than 3mm were analysed. The Leco-S content ranged from 0.35% to 0.58% with a mean value of 0.51%. The mean MPA by conversion calculation was kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. The mean NAPP after taking into account the internal acid neutralising capacity was kgh 2 SO 4 per tonne. There was little distribution in the results for the range of parameters tested for the -3 mm PR. The PR samples had neutral to low alkalinity and low leachable metal concentrations. The NAPP values for the PR ranged between 13.1 to 17.8 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne and this material is classified as PAF. The process residue could be suitable for co disposal with waste rock. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Acid Rock Drainage The general focus of managing ARD waste is to reduce the oxidation of ARD material either by encapsulating the material above ground or by placing the waste in backfilled areas of open pits that will ultimately be below the rebounding phreatic surface at post closure. If limiting the oxidation of the waste cannot be effectively managed then ARD waste management should be then be focused on limiting the discharge of ARD leachate from waste rock dumps. This is commonly achieved by designing engineered cover systems that limit the

27 February R01-Rev2 infiltration of water into or through the waste rock dump. Providing geotechnical details on the suitability of the waste rock types sampled in this report as construction materials is beyond the scope of this report. However, these data can readily be acquired and combined with suitable modelling software such as VadoseW to design effective cover systems. In instances where the ingress of oxygen or infiltrating waters into waste rock dumps cannot be effectively managed then the management of ARD materials ultimately leads to treating ARD leachate. The NAPP classification scheme used in this report is provided as an inferred classification system and could be refined by testing a number of samples from the rock types using kinetic analysis. From the analysis of the samples described in this report it is apparent that the waste rock in general terms has little carbonate content. Any in situ alkalinity is likely to be readily soluble and the waste rock is likely to have little or no long term capacity to neutralise acidity. In summary: Six rock types (Pal, Type 3, Type 5, Type 6, Type 6a and Type 7) are NAF. Topsoil which forms the upper Pal profile would be retained for the outer cover material to provide suitable revegetation. The Pal rock type would be most suitable as capping material used in isolation or in combination with available topsoil, whereas the remaining rock types in this group could be used to encapsulate AF material within the waste rock dump. Six rock types (Type 1, Type 1g, Type 3a, Type 4a, Type 5a and the PR) are PAF. Whereas Types 1 and 1g are 100% ore the remaining rock types could be used as construction material in the waste rock dump. Two rock types (Type 2 and Type 4) are AF and could be placed in dedicated ARD cells or placed back in the open pit below the anticipated groundwater levels. Approximately 20% of the tested samples have greater than 20 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne and 10% of the tested samples have greater than 100 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. After combining the static analyses of the samples in this report with available geological models the majority of waste rock analysed in this report is NAF (92%) whereas 3% was PAF and 4% was AF (Table 6).

28 February R01-Rev2 Table 6: Waste Rock Summary This table shows the volumes, tonnages and proportions of waste and ore for each rock type and is based on September 2005 Geological Block Model. Type ARD Potential Rock Ore Waste Tonnag e Volum e Tonnag e Volum e Tonnag e Volum e Mt Mm3 Mt Mm3 Mt Mm3 Type 1 PAF Type 1g AF/PAF Type 2 AF Type 3 NAF Type 3a PAF Type 4 AF Type 4a PAF Type 5a PAF External (Type 3 & Type 5) NAF Type 6 NAF Type 6a NAF Type 7 NAF Oxide NAF Pallinup NAF Total 1, , ARD Potential Rock Ore Waste Tonnag e Volum e Tonnag e Volum e Tonnag e Volum e Mt Mm3 Mt Mm3 Mt Mm3 AF % PAF % NAF % Pro p Note Total 1, , % Given the ratio of NAF to PAF + AF waste (Table 6) the overall potential for adverse environmental effects associated with ARD and metal leachate is considered to be low. Adequate planning and management using conventional waste rock management strategies can mitigate long term adverse environmental impacts from the waste rock or process residue.

29 February R01-Rev2 4.2 Metal Leachate The SPLP results (Table 4 and Table 5) show that there is a low potential for leachate from the waste rock or process residue to contain significant concentrations of environmentally toxic elements such as arsenic, cadmium or mercury. The highest SPLP leachable aluminium and iron concentrations occur in the Pal rock type (Table 5). Given that this rock type is typical of the overburden in the region these concentrations are likely to be indicative of background baseline conditions are not considered to be likely to cause environmental harm. It is noted that the SPLP method is a static test and therefore only provides an indication of metals that are likely to be released from the solid phase under the conditions of the analytical procedure. Kinetic tests would provide realistic long term data on the rate at which waste rock oxidises, the rate at which metals are transferred from the solid phase to the aqueous phase and the concentration of metals in the leachate over time. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Waste management for the AF material will require adequate management to selectively place AF material (particularly in respect to AF material with greater than 100 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne) either in dedicated cells within waste rock dumps or within backfilled areas of the open pit. Although the overall volumes of AF waste are small, suitable waste management practices will be required to limit the effects of ARD. There are two options for managing this waste: 1. Placing the AF waste in conventional waste rock management structures such as engineered cells within the waste rock dump; or 2. Returning AF waste into the open pit below anticipated post closure groundwater levels. This is considered to be the preferable waste management procedure for the AF (Type 2 and Type 4) waste rock types. Given that relatively small volumes of AF material would be uncovered during the first four or five years of the operation this option could be considered and would effectively limit the potential for ARD at this site. In either of the above cases geohydrological studies would be required and could consider: 1. the potential for infiltrating, upward and lateral water movement within the waste rock dump; and 2. the likely impacts on the water table within the open pit during and post closure. If above ground encapsulation of AF waste is required and if geohydrological modelling indicates that there is the potential for infiltration or lateral movement of water through the AF cells in the waste rock dump then a guard layer of acid consuming material (lime) may be required at the base or lower walls of the cells in the waste rock dump to neutralise any

30 February R01-Rev2 acid that is leached from the cells. Alternatively it may be applicable to consider in situ immobilisation techniques to achieve long term dump integrity in terms of reducing acid and metal leachate from the waste rock that have greater than 100 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne. This could include the addition of and mixing of acid consuming material with the waste rock as it is placed in the cells. Depending on the physical structure of the waste, the co-disposal of tailings with the AF material in the cells could also be considered to fill any pore spaces generated during the placement of the waste rock in the cells. This would significantly reduce the potential for the oxidation of the AF material in the waste rock dumps and could help to reduce the overall storage requirements of the TSF. If co-disposal of tailings with AF material cannot be conducted in the waste rock dump cells then compaction of the AF waste with heavy rollers could be undertaken to maximise compression thereby reducing the internal pore spaces within the waste rock the and potential for ongoing oxidation. It is understood that the backfilled pit will be level with the ground surface at closure thus it is unlikely that a pit lake will be likely at the completion of the project. However, if a pit lake was to exist at closure the pit walls would most likely be Type 1 material, which is generally geochemically inert and should not contribute to ARD into the pit lake. Golder recommends the following work be undertaken during the next phase of the project: An increased sampling density and further static ARD work to further characterise and classify the deposit. The refinement of the block model with the results of ongoing static sampling and analysis to determine waste rock volumes for each waste rock type. Kinetic tests using fresh core samples, in preference to existing core samples, to determine the rate at which metals and acid are likely to be mobilised from the waste rock. This is particularly relevant to the Type 2 and Type 4 waste rock groups. This would also provide information on the rate of release and likely concentration of other potentially toxic trace elements such as nickel and copper. The inclusion of in situ immobilisation techniques 3 in the kinetic testing program to provide GRL with management strategies for AF waste with greater than 100 kg H 2 SO 4 per tonne these techniques are becoming increasingly accepted and used and significantly reduce the long term liability associated with waste rock or process residue dam contributing to long term ARD. 3 In situ immobilisation techniques would include the incorporation of neutralising agents such as lime with the AF waste as it is placed into dedicated cells to maintain a neutral to alkaline ph. This procedure significantly reduces the long term potential for ARD being discharged from the waste rock. This approach can readily be tested using kinetic test work.

31 February R01-Rev2 Geotechnical analysis of the waste rock types that would be placed in waste rock dumps or backfilled areas of open pits to determine their suitability as construction materials. Unsaturated soil cover modelling (using VadoseW) to design suitable waste rock covers. If a pit lake is likely to exist at closure geochemical modelling is recommended to assess what the long term water quality may be like so that reuse potential and or suitable closure strategies could be determined. If a pit lake is likely at closure the potential for the pit lake to be transformed to a wetland to receive all drainage from the waste rock dump could be investigated this could act as a passive ARD treatment strategy. Further studies could identify potential capping materials to be used in revegetation works and include chemical characterisation to determine whether these materials will present problems for sustainable revegetation. Revegetation work be undertaken to determine which species would be most suitable in the remediation phases to achieve sustainable ecosystem development. Mineralogical identification of AF rock types could be done to determine the mineralogy of the AF forming minerals which can be used to improve ARD management.

32 February R01-Rev2 6.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION Your attention is drawn to the document - Important Information about your Geoenvironmental Report, which is included in Appendix B of this report. This document has been prepared by the ASFE (Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences), of which is a member. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the groundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing. We would be pleased to answer any questions about this important information from the reader of this report. GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Greg Maddocks Senior Environmental Geochemist Marshall Lee Associate J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\ R01-Rev2-Geochemical Assessment GRL Southdown Magnetite Project GM-1.doc

33 APPENDIX A ACID BASE ACCOUNTING AND METAL LEACHATE DATA

34 February A R01-Rev2 EAL Sample Number GEOL GRL - GOLDER SampId Hole_Id mfrom mto LITH Total Carbon (%TC) LECO CNS2000 Analyser Total Organic Carbon (%TOC) HCL Addition- LECOCNS2000 Total Inorganic Carbon (%TIC) TC-TOC ANC kg H2SO4 per tonne Total Sulphur (%S) LECO CNS2000 Analyser E4696-Sample 7 Pal SM00079 SDD SD E4696-Sample 8 Pal SM00080 SDD CY E4696-Sample 9 Pal SM00081 SDD CY E4696-Sample 10 Pal SM00082 SDD CY E4696-Sample 11 Pal SM00083 SDD SN E4849-Sample 1 Process Residue A E4849-Sample 2 Process Residue A E4849-Sample 3 Process Residue A E4849-Sample 4 Process Residue A E4849-Sample 5 Process Residue A E4765-Sample 49 Type1 S04460 SDD GN E4765-Sample 64 Type1 S05389 SDD GN E4765-Sample 72 Type1 S05562 SDD GN E4765-Sample 81 Type1 S05780 SDD GN E4765-Sample 85 Type1 S05875 SDD GN E4765-Sample 48 Type1g S04459 SDD GN E4765-Sample 52 Type1g S05122 SDD GN E4765-Sample 65 Type1g S05393 SDD GN E4765-Sample 80 Type1g S05767 SDD GN E4765-Sample 88 Type1g S05893 SDD GN E4765-Sample 42 Type2 S03270 SDD GN E4765-Sample 44 Type2 S03834 SDD GN E4765-Sample 46 Type2 S04036 SDD GN E4765-Sample 51 Type2 S04914 SDD GN E4765-Sample 53 Type2 S05131 SDD GN E4765-Sample 57 Type2 S05215 SDD GN E4765-Sample 59 Type2 S05331 SDD GN E4765-Sample 71 Type2 S05557 SDD GN E4765-Sample 73 Type2 S05643 SDD MY E4765-Sample 77 Type2 S05744 SDD GN E4765-Sample 14 Type3 S00287 SDD GN E4765-Sample 15 Type3 S00472 SDD GN E4765-Sample 16 Type3 S00510 SDD GN E4765-Sample 18 Type3 S00578 SDD GN E4765-Sample 22 Type3 S00695 SDD GN E4765-Sample 28 Type3 S01003 SDD GN E4765-Sample 41 Type3 S01674 SDD GN E4765-Sample 47 Type3 S04451 SDD GN E4765-Sample 56 Type3 S05138 SDD GN E4765-Sample 58 Type3 S05227 SDD GN E4765-Sample 17 Type3a S00560 SDD GN E4765-Sample 21 Type3a S00681 SDD GN E4765-Sample 23 Type3a S00732 SDD GN E4765-Sample 24 Type3a S00801 SDD GN E4765-Sample 29 Type3a S01015 SDD BR E4765-Sample 31 Type3a S01068 SDD GN E4765-Sample 40 Type3a S01668 SDD GN E4765-Sample 61 Type3a S05372 SDD GN E4765-Sample 78 Type3a S05753 SDD GN E4765-Sample 82 Type3a S05796 SDD GN E4765-Sample 30 Type4 S01050 SDD GN E4765-Sample 43 Type4 S03795 SDD GN E4765-Sample 45 Type4 S04018 SDD GN E4765-Sample 50 Type4 S04473 SDD GN E4765-Sample 54 Type4 S05135 SDD GN E4765-Sample 60 Type4 S05367 SDD GN E4765-Sample 66 Type4 S05412 SDD GN E4765-Sample 70 Type4 S05547 SDD GN E4765-Sample 74 Type4 S05661 SDD GN E4765-Sample 86 Type4 S05878 SDD GN E4765-Sample 19 Type4a S00599 SDD GN E4765-Sample 20 Type4a S00616 SDD GN E4765-Sample 25 Type4a S00818 SDD MY E4765-Sample 26 Type4a S00917 SDD MY E4765-Sample 32 Type4a S01145 SDD GN E4765-Sample 55 Type4a S05136 SDD MY E4765-Sample 67 Type4a S05419 SDD GN E4765-Sample 69 Type4a S05488 SDD GT E4765-Sample 76 Type4a S05732 SDD GN E4765-Sample 87 Type4a S05885 SDD GN E4765-Sample 27 Type5 S00933 SDD GN E4765-Sample 33 Type5 S01247 SDD GN E4765-Sample 36 Type5 S01528 SDD GN E4765-Sample 39 Type5 S01665 SDD GN E4765-Sample 62 Type5 S05374 SDD GN E4765-Sample 79 Type5 S05756 SDD GN E4765-Sample 83 Type5 S05798 SDD GN E4765-Sample 12 Type5a S00055 SDD GN E4765-Sample 35 Type5a S01526 SDD GN E4765-Sample 37 Type5a S01529 SDD GN E4765-Sample 63 Type5a S05386 SDD GN E4765-Sample 68 Type5a S05461 SDD GN E4765-Sample 75 Type5a S05712 SDD GN E4765-Sample 84 Type5a S05814 SDD GN E4765-Sample 13 Type6 S00181 SDD GN E4765-Sample 34 Type6 S01250 SDD GN E4765-Sample 38 Type6 S01537 SDD GN E4696-Sample 1 Type6a SM00073 SDD GN E4696-Sample 2 Type6a SM00074 SDD GN E4696-Sample 3 Type6a SM00075 SDD GN E4696-Sample 4 Type7 SM00076 SDD GN E4696-Sample 5 Type7 SM00077 SDD GN E4696-Sample 6 Type7 SM00078 SDD GN J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\Full Data SetFull Data Set

35 February A R01-Rev2 EAL Sample Number Reduced Inorganic Sulfur (%S) MPA NAPP Soil ph (1:5 water) Soil Conductivity (1:5 water ds/m ) Sodium (mg/kg) Potassium (mg/kg) Calcium (mg/kg) Magnesium (mg/kg) Chromium Reducible kg H2SO4 per tonne kg H2SO4 per tonne Rayment and Higgins 4A1 Rayment and Higgins 4B1 Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest E4696-Sample 7 < E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample 10 < E4696-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample 3 < E4696-Sample 4 < E4696-Sample 5 < E4696-Sample J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\Full Data SetFull Data Set

36 February A R01-Rev2 EAL Sample Number Aluminium (mg/kg DW) Arsenic (mg/kg DW) Cadmium (mg/kg DW) Chromium (mg/kg DW) Cobalt (mg/kg DW) Copper (mg/kg DW) Iron (mg/kg DW) Mercury (mg/kg DW) Manganese (mg/kg DW) Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.1 < E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.1 < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.1 < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\Full Data SetFull Data Set

37 February A R01-Rev2 EAL Sample Number Nickel (mg/kg DW) Lead (mg/kg DW) Zinc (mg/kg DW) Sodium (mg/l in Potassium (mg/l in Calcium (mg/l in Magnesium (mg/l in Aluminium (mg/l in Arsenic (mg/l in Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest Totals- Acid Digest SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4849-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample <0.001 E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4696-Sample <0.1 < <0.001 E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample <0.001 E4696-Sample E4696-Sample <0.001 J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\Full Data SetFull Data Set

38 February A R01-Rev2 EAL Sample Number Cadmium (mg/l in Chromium (mg/l in Cobalt (mg/l in Copper (mg/l in Iron (mg/l in Mercury (mg/l in Manganese (mg/l in Nickel (mg/l in Lead (mg/l in Zinc (mg/l in SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 SPLP Extract 2 E4696-Sample 7 < < E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample 11 < E4849-Sample 1 < < E4849-Sample 2 < < E4849-Sample 3 < < E4849-Sample 4 < < E4849-Sample 5 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 72 < < E4765-Sample 81 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample < E4765-Sample 65 < < E4765-Sample 80 < < E4765-Sample 88 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 44 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 51 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 57 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 71 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 14 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 18 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 28 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 58 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 23 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 40 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 78 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 30 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 45 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 60 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 70 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 86 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 20 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 32 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 67 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 87 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 36 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 79 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 12 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 37 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 68 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4765-Sample 13 < < E4765-Sample E4765-Sample E4696-Sample 1 < < < E4696-Sample E4696-Sample E4696-Sample 4 < < < E4696-Sample E4696-Sample 6 < < < J:\Jobs405\ENVIRON\ Grange ABA Assessment\Report\Full Data SetFull Data Set

39 APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

40

41