final: simple site water balance - yoongarillup mineral

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited

ABN 80 078 004 798

Level 5 503 Murray StreetPerth WA 6000PO Box 7181Cloisters Square WA 6850AustraliaTel: +61 8 9489 9700Fax: +61 8 9489 9777Email: [email protected]

www.pbworld.com

Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801A GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2011

Our ref: 2200516A-RES-LTR-002 RevB

By [email protected]

2200516A-RES-LTR-002 RevB:GN/GN: 1/14

24 January 2014

Amy WaltonProject Manager - YoongarillupDoral Mineral SandsLot 7 Harris RoadPICTON WA 6229

Dear Amy

FINAL: Simple site water balance - Yoongarillup mineral sands project

1. Introduction

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (Parsons Brinckerhoff) were engaged by Doral Mineral Sands PtyLtd (Doral) to conduct a simple site water balance for the proposed Yoongarillup mineral sands project.Concurrently, Parsons Brinckerhoff have been undertaking both a surface water and groundwaterassessment as part of the environmental approvals process. Results obtained from these assessments havebeen used in developing a site water balance model in GoldSim. This report outlines our approach anddetails findings of the water balance modelling exercise.

2. Objective and scope of works

The objective of the site water balance assessment is to satisfy the EPA requirements prescribed in the ESD(dated January 2013). This assessment satisfies the requirement to “devise a simple site water balance todemonstrate water security for the life of the mine.”

A simple site water balance has been developed to establish a monthly water balance for the life of the mineshowing how demand for groundwater abstraction (specifically that derived from the Yarragadee aquifer)changes at various stages through the mine schedule.

The output is a series of monthly charts/tables consisting of nett groundwater abstraction (Yarragadee),water derived from pit inflows and water demand.

3. Methodology

GoldSim was used to develop a site water balance on a monthly basis to estimate water requirementsthroughout the life of the mine. GoldSim is a computer simulation software widely used for mine site waterbalance studies. The GoldSim model was used to calculate the volume of water in storages at the end ofeach day, accounting for daily rainfall-runoff inflow, pit inflows and evaporation from the storage, water usageand pumping from storages to meet demands. Figure A attached shows a simple schematic of the storages.


The model was simulated using 53 realisations (i.e. sequences) of rainfall and evaporation data, developedby ‘stepping through’ the historical climate data for the period July 1957 to end October 2013. The firstrealisation started on 1 July 1957, the second realisation on 1 July 1958 etc. Note that the 3-year durationrealisations overlap each other by one year.

4. Model inputs

4.1 Rainfall and evaporation data

Rainfall and evaporation data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) at the stations in Table 1 were used forthe GoldSim modelling. These stations were chosen as they are closest to the site with the longest history ofrecord. The rainfall stations in the local area were also analysed by the Parsons Brinckerhoff surface waterassessment (2200516A-RES-LTR-001 RevA dated 6 /12/13) which informed the most suitable rainfall recordto use for this site water balance.

Table 1 Climate data used in GoldSim

Station Number Description Period of record availableBOM 9771 Daily rainfall - Yoongarillup 1957 - 2013BOM 9842 Daily evaporation - Jarrahwood 1975 – 2008, 2012 – 2013

Gaps in the evaporation data (1957 – 1975 and 2008 – 2012) were filled based on calculating a dailyhistorical value from that station for each day of the year. The diurnal and seasonal evaporation pattern wascaptured by the daily average and was considered adequate to use for this simple site water balance. Thecompleted rainfall and evaporation dataset from July 1957 to October 2013 was utilised in the GoldSimmodel.

4.2 Groundwater allocation

For the purposes of conducting this assessment, it is assumed that groundwater allocation is available tosupplement direct rainfall captured by active mining cells and the process water dam (PWD) along with pitinflows to meet demands. Operating levels in the PWD will be maintained by pumping from the Yarragadeeaquifer as required to maintain the dam at 80% capacity. Groundwater abstraction has been represented inthe model based on a nominal maximum pumping rate of 50 L/s from two production bores with an annualextraction limit of 1.6GL as advised by Doral. “Additional off-site water” in the model has been used toquantify any additional volume of groundwater that may be required beyond 50L/s.

4.3 Groundwater pit inflows

Inflows from groundwater into the active mining cells (also referred to in other studies as the ‘pit’) have beenestimated by the groundwater modelling predictions as of 19/12/13. Monthly pit inflows are shown in Table 2and Figure 1. For further information on pit inflows, refer to the groundwater modelling reportHydrogeological investigation and groundwater modelling report.


Figure 1 Monthly pit inflow


Table 2 Pit inflows to active mining cells

Month Daily pit inflows (ML) Monthly pit inflow (ML)Jul-15 0.377 11.69Aug-15 0.110 3.41Sep-15 0.239 7.17Oct-15 0.148 4.59Nov-15 0.125 3.75Dec-15 0.084 2.60Jan-16 0.206 6.39Feb-16 0.034 0.95Mar-16 0.026 0.81Apr-16 0.023 0.69May-16 0.021 0.65Jun-16 0.019 0.57Jul-16 0.018 0.56Aug-16 0.017 0.53Sep-16 0.016 0.48Oct-16 0.016 0.50Nov-16 0.015 0.45Dec-16 0.410 12.71Jan-17 0.656 20.34Feb-17 1.575 44.10Mar-17 0.766 23.75Apr-17 0.451 13.53May-17 0.788 24.43Jun-17 1.018 30.54Jul-17 0.666 20.65Aug-17 0.544 16.86Sep-17 0.522 15.66Oct-17 0.365 11.32Nov-17 0.328 9.84Dec-17 0.312 9.67Jan-18 0.119 3.69Feb-18 0.070 1.96Mar-18 0.025 0.78


4.4 Process water dam

The process water dam (PWD) provides the main water supply from which all process water demands aresourced. Flows into the PWD include recycled process water, water from mine site dewatering operations (pitinflows), runoff from impervious areas of the site such as roads, buildings/structures and hardstands, directrainfall that falls over the surface of the PWD and groundwater pumped from the Yarragadee aquifer. ThePWD will be located in mining cells 10 and 12 and has an assumed surface area of 1.122 ha. The PWD isproposed to be at least 10 m deep with a capacity of approximately 113.4 ML (based on the approximation of3 weeks of groundwater pumping = 80% capacity).

Losses due to seepage have not been included in the GoldSim model as they are considered mnior whencompared to water demands and evaporation. It is assumed that over time fines will settle out of the watercolumn and accumulate at the bottom of the storage to form a relatively impermeable layer.

4.5 Demands

Doral have mapped the water requirements for the wet plant processing and mining operations calculatingthat 180 TPH of water (based on an average mining rate of 200 TPH) will be required to be sourced fromgroundwater bores to supplement the other water sources flowing back into the PWD. This equates to4.32ML/day of nett water demand. The demands that were inputted into the model are summarised in Table3. Figure B attached shows the nett water demand require from bores (163 TPH), with an additional 17 TPHto cater for the use of water carts around the site.

Table 3 Monthly average site demands

Month Mining rate TPHraw product

TPH nett waterrequired per 200TPH

Daily average(ML/day)

Monthly average(ML/month)

Jul-15 to Feb-18 200 180.0 4.320 129.60Mar-18 148 133.2 3.197 95.91

4.6 Catchments

Runoff from impervious areas including the access road, concentrator and workshop/parking areas havebeen assumed to be captured and directed to the PWD, via a small local drainage system. A runoffcoefficient of 90% has been used for impervious areas. Impervious area footprints used as catchmentsdraining to PWD are shown in Table 4. The impervious areas are assumed to remain constant over the life ofthe mine.

Table 4 Impervious areas

Catchment Footprint (ha)Access road 1.829Process plant 1.258

Workshop 0.323Admin/carpark 1.147

Stockpiles 1.228TOTAL 5.784


Other disturbed areas such as the solar evaporation ponds (SEPs) and the drop out pond have not beenincluded in the site water balance modelling as storages given the dynamic timing of their construction. It isassumed that return water from SEPs, nett of evaporation has been taking into account in the nettgroundwater calculation from Doral (shown in Figure B attached).

Clean water runoff from the natural catchment upstream will be diverted around the site so that downstreamflows can be maintained. Monthly runoff coefficients used for simulating rainfall-runoff from the naturalcatchment are listed in Table 5 and have been sourced from the updated surface water assessment(2200516A-RES-LTR-001 RevA dated 6 /12/13).

Table 5 Natural catchment runoff coefficients

Month Average monthly runoff coefficientJanuary 0.029February 0.001

March 0.001April 0.000May 0.001June 0.020July 0.084

August 0.190September 0.240

October 0.299November 0.148December 0.103

4.7 Mine cell layout

Table 6 summarises the mining cells that are active during each month, based on the Doral mining schedule(see Figure C attached). The water balance model applies direct rainfall to mining cells that are active.Infiltration of rainwater over mining cells that are not active have been taken into account in the groundwatermodelling. It has been assumed the mine is progressively rehabilitated, i.e. once one cell is mined, they willbe backfilled before progressing to the next cell.

Table 6 Mining schedule

Month Active mining cells Surface area for direct rainfall (ha)Jul-15 14, 15 2.800Aug-15 14, 15 2.800Sep-15 14, 15, 17 4.405Oct-15 16, 17, 18 3.231Nov-15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 5.101Dec-15 19, 20, 21 3.033Jan-16 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 14.207Feb-16 21, 22, 24 12.337Mar-16 24, 25 8.807Apr-16 24, 25 8.807May-16 24, 25 8.807


Month Active mining cells Surface area for direct rainfall (ha)Jun-16 24, 25 8.807Jul-16 24 8.231Aug-16 24 8.231Sep-16 24 8.231Oct-16 24 8.231Nov-16 24 8.231Dec-16 24, 13 12.086Jan-17 24, 12 9.658Feb-17 10, 11, 12, 13 8.648Mar-17 10, 12, 13 7.273Apr-17 10, 13 5.846May-17 8, 9, 10, 13 10.371Jun-17 7, 11, 13 6.348Jul-17 7, 10, 11, 13 8.339Aug-17 6, 7, 9, 10 7.635Sep-17 5, 6, 9 5.869Oct-17 5, 8, 9 5.868Nov-17 2, 4, 5, 7 4.519Dec-17 2, 5, 6 ,7 6.247Jan-18 2, 4, 5 3.401Feb-18 2, 23 3.069Mar-18 23 1.625

5. Assumptions

The assumptions that have been used for the site water balance are:

2 bores pumping a total combined rate of 50L/s (daily average 4.32 ML/day), with an annualvolumetric limit of 1.6GL

All pit inflows entering the mining cells are pumped straight to the PWD and no water is “stored” inthe active mining cells

Pit will be dewatered as required so no constraints on dewatering pumping rate from mine cells toPWD

The drop out pond has not been included in the water balance model – they are assumed to beslime ponds.

SEPs have not been included in the water balance model as the return water from these ponds hasbeen taken into account in the overall net water demand calculation from Doral.

Losses due to seepage from PWD have not been modelled since seepage is considered small tonegligible (this is consistent with the groundwater modelling report)

Mining commences from 1 July 2015 and ends 31 March 2018 “Year” refers to the water year, starting 1 July Water balance simulation starts from 1 July 2015 No potable water has been included in the model at this stage for drinking, washing, toilet flushing

etc.


The model has assumed that the PWD is 80% full at the start of the simulation. It is likely that thePWD will be constructed in March/April 2015 with groundwater to fill the dam prior tocommencement of mining in July 2015.

The full capacity of the PWD is 113.4 ML. It will be operated to maintain 80% capacity. Pumping from the groundwater bores to the PWD occurs when the PWD falls below 80%. The bores

can pump at maximum rate of 50 L/s to return the PWD volume back to 80%. All nett demands are drawn from the PWD Evaporation has been applied to the PWD based on its surface area of 1.112 ha regardless of its

volume and this assumes that the dam has vertical walls. In reality, the evaporation over the PWDwater surface area will vary based on the volume of water in the dam at the end of each day and thedesign of the dam. The model is sensitive to evaporation and evaporative losses may beoverestimated in this model using a constant water surface area.

Inflows to the PWD are dependent on catchment area and staging of the diversion drains on site. Ithas been assumed that there is only 5.784ha of impervious surfaces being captured by the dam andstaging of runoff from different surfaces has not been taken into account.

The flow path on the eastern side of the mine lease has been assumed to pass through the middle ofSEPs 7, 8, 9. The clean water runoff has been calculated based on the pit intercept catchmentdelineated for the surface water assessment (2200516A-RES-LTR-001 RevA dated 6 /12/13).

6. Results

6.1 Meeting water demands

Figure 2 shows the water supplied from site which includes runoff, direct rainfall and pit inflows. Figure 2shows that during the wetter months there is still only approximately 2ML of inflows from site and thereforethe nett water demand will still require pumping of groundwater from the Yarragadee aquifer.

Table 7 shows the amount of off-site water required to meet demands, based on the 53 water balancerealisations. From Table 7 it can be seen that even under wet climatic conditions, a large proportion of sitedemands cannot be met by runoff and direct rainfall captured by the active mining cells and impervious areasas well as the pit inflows. The nett water demand can be up to approximately 129.6ML required per monthand therefore even during a wet year, groundwater will be required to supplement the nett demand. Duringdry years nearly all of the water demand will have to be sourced from groundwater because any rainfall thatoccurs during these months will be lost to evaporation.

Figure 3 shows the groundwater use over the simulated mining period. It can be seen that 1.GL ofgroundwater is sufficient to meet demands and groundwater available does not fall below 0ML. This meansthat a pumping rate of 50L/s is adequate to meet the unmet demands.


Table 7 Total estimate volume of water required from groundwater ML/month

Month 10th percentile 50th percentile(median)

90th percentile Greatest result(driest on record)

Jul-15 92.4 103.1 107.7 111.3Aug-15 111.6 117.7 121.6 125.1Sep-15 109.3 113.6 117.8 119.4Oct-15 120.0 124.6 127.2 128.8Nov-15 120.3 123.5 125.3 125.3Dec-15 127.0 129.6 129.6 129.6Jan-16 128.1 129.6 129.6 129.6Feb-16 120.2 121.0 121.0 121.0Mar-16 127.6 129.6 129.6 129.6Apr-16 116.3 124.6 125.3 125.3May-16 104.0 118.6 125.9 129.6Jun-16 87.1 104.1 117.1 120.0Jul-16 94.2 109.8 118.4 123.7Aug-16 106.0 115.5 121.8 126.3Sep-16 110.4 116.9 121.4 122.9Oct-16 121.1 126.0 128.7 129.6Nov-16 119.9 123.8 125.3 125.3Dec-16 125.2 129.6 129.6 129.6Jan-17 124.2 129.1 129.6 129.6Feb-17 84.9 89.6 92.1 94.1Mar-17 110.2 115.7 117.4 119.1Apr-17 104.8 112.7 117.1 118.2May-17 78.4 96.1 104.3 108.3Jun-17 63.4 79.8 90.7 93.3Jul-17 77.1 91.9 99.9 105.3Aug-17 92.4 102.1 107.8 113.1Sep-17 100.4 105.0 109.9 111.7Oct-17 113.4 119.4 122.6 124.7Nov-17 116.2 119.9 121.8 123.0Dec-17 123.6 129.2 129.5 129.6Jan-18 128.8 129.6 129.6 129.6Feb-18 116.6 116.6 116.6 116.6Mar-18 95.4 99.8 101.6 102.6


Figure 2 Estimated water supplied from site runoff, rainfall and pit inflows (ML/d)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

Jul 2015 Oct 2015 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Jan 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Oct 2017 Jan 2018 Apr 2018

(ML/

day)

Time

PWD_catch_runoff PWD_direct_rainfall Pump_to_PWD_from_pit


Figure 3 Groundwater available over the life of the mine

6.2 Process water dam capacity

The PWD has an assumed capacity of 113.4ML (refer to section 4.4). A check of containment of thegreatest inflow from the largest event in the historical rainfall record was carried out. Figure 2 shows thatduring the largest inflow based on the wettest year on record, the dam would contain approximately113.1ML (based on the assumed catchment areas directed to this dam). This inflow was close to the 100year 72 hour design rainfall for this location.

It has been assumed that pit inflow to the mining cells is pumped to the PWD where it is subject toevaporation. Analysis of the historical climate record used showed that the evaporation regularly exceeds thedaily rainfall during the summer months. Even after consecutive days with rain during these months, over thecourse of the following days, the water stored in the PWD is lost to evaporation.

Figure 4 shows that even though the dam will be operated at 80% capacity, for very dry months where thereis no rainfall, the pumping of groundwater into the dam is only enough to meet the nett water requirementsand not make up the evaporative losses. Therefore, during a dry period the dam volume takes some time torecover back to 80% capacity. Consideration could be given to operating the PWD at a lower capacity so thatthere is a bit of extra storage available for extreme flood events, however this also depends on the

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600


(ML)

Time

Percentiles

Greatest Result 90% Percenti le 10% Percenti le Least Result Mean Median


catchment area and the staging of the diversion drains which would be designed during the detailed designstage of the project.

Figure 4 Simulated time series of water stored in PWD

70

80

90

100

110

120


(ML)

Time

Percentiles

Greatest Result 90% Percentile 10% Percentile Least Resul t Mean Median


6.3 Clean water runoff

All of the upstream natural catchment has been diverted around the site via diversion drains so thatdownstream flows can be maintained. Approximately 235 ha of upstream catchment that would otherwise beintercepted by the mining cell (pit) is diverted around the site. Table 8 shows the estimated volume of cleanwater diverted around the site from the upstream catchment over the life of the mine. Potentially up to 30 MLper month can be sourced from clean water during a dry (10th percentile) year and up to 116 ML during thewettest years. Note that the water balance modelling predicts that there is no runoff generated during themonths of February to May, since the runoff co-efficients (refer to Table 5) are close/equal to zero based onthe surface water assessment.

Table 8 Estimated volume of clean water diverted around the site


90th percentile Greatest result(wettest on record)

Jul-15 17.0 29.0 49.6 61.0Aug-15 30.0 52.8 78.5 112.7Sep-15 23.2 42.1 71.3 95.4Oct-15 13.0 29.4 60.7 101.2Nov-15 2.9 8.8 21.1 33.5Dec-15 0.2 1.3 10.2 20.8Jan-16 0.0 0.3 2.3 4.8Feb-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Mar-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Apr-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0May-16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Jun-16 3.6 6.9 13.1 17.1Jul-16 17.8 27.9 47.6 62.2Aug-16 29.3 49.4 76.1 115.7Sep-16 24.4 40.7 68.2 92.1Oct-16 10.5 30.0 59.1 106.6Nov-16 2.9 9.3 20.7 32.5Dec-16 0.1 1.5 9.4 20.3Jan-17 0.0 0.3 2.3 4.8Feb-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Mar-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Apr-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0May-17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Jun-17 3.0 7.2 12.6 17.1Jul-17 17.0 29.0 49.6 61.0Aug-17 30.0 52.8 78.5 112.7Sep-17 23.2 42.1 71.3 95.4Oct-17 13.0 29.4 60.7 101.2Nov-17 2.9 8.8 21.1 33.5Dec-17 0.2 1.3 10.2 20.8Jan-18 0.0 0.3 2.3 4.8



90th percentile Greatest result(wettest on record)

Feb-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Mar-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7. Summary

This simple site water balance was set up to estimate the amount of water available on site sourced fromdirect rainfall and pit inflows. Based on a simplified nett water demand of 3.19ML to 4.32ML per day; up to129.6ML of water will be required per month.

The site water balance showed that due to low rainfall, high evaporation and low pit inflows, there is limitedwater available from the site. During a very wet year, approximately 2ML of the 4.32MLis available to satisfythe nett water demand. During very dry years there can potentially be no water available from site and allwater will need to be sourced from the production bores. Therefore the operation is strongly dependent upona reliable groundwater supply. The site water balance assessment shows that provided 1.6GL is availableannually from the Yarragadee aquifer, water demands will likely be able to be met by groundwater withoutthe need to capture clean water runoff from the upstream catchment.

Yours sincerely

Nicole GealeEnvironmental EngineerParsons Brinckerhoff

Amir HedjripourSenior Hydraulic EngineerParsons Brinckerhoff

cc: Aurora Environmental - Damon Bourke

YOONGARILLUP MINERAL SANDS PROJECTDORAL MINERAL SANDS PTY LTD

FIGURE AWATER BALANCE MODEL SCHEMATIC

DTPH TPH WATER Wet Plant Average Process FlowsM^3/HR %SOLIDS

cells that you can change 232

165347

13 173 361 361 11 275 80 40 4163 0 32% 279 4%

162 85 11 657 60 20142 65% 661 2%

165 1 2 10 656 8 8551.5% 0.9% 824

186 1487 93% 163 109 100 134

166 60% 33425

16561 166 116

8 32 8 32229 35 20%

163 22550 283 42%

2 134

114 204

1 649 21

0 141 283224 453

161 6 2-8

122 67 29102 254 334

169 288 224 455146 283 351 37% 538 33%332

141157 426

44 2959 40 110 249

157418

72 157 84 8 166

9200

44 8198 35%

45

167 25044 36 313 40.0%52 55%

%Clay in solids = 5%5

43167 450

43 41 2% 27.0%101

40

43 8093

28 7215 8

1920

15 28

22 15 6

232

28

15 3135 33%

5 0 23 20O/F 33

15 865%

3 40 3 3541

3 730

1 61 1

2012 3

1 0.3 22

13 26

13 5

Thickener

Feed Prep

Classifier

ScSc

HP-04Primary Cyclones

Surge Bin

PP-05

Roughers

PP-06

Cleaners

PP-15

PP-8 VSD

Recleaners

PP-11

UCC-Cyclones

PP-16FinesCyclones

O/FRecleaners

PP-12 ConcentrateCyclone

PP-14 PP-13

Middlings Scavengers

PP-20

Splitter

Cons ReturnPump

c

c

HMC

PP-27-MainWater

m/up

m/up

Splitter

washdown

Densitycontrol

m/up

m/up

Classifier water

T

C

M

T

T

TC

C

M&T

Spray

PP-24

c

run off to process waterdam

HP-17

Sand/Clay Tails

run off toprocess water2nd stage

cyclones

Attritioners

PP-09c

Tails Cyclones

New Tails Hopper

Scrunit Reactor

Diesel FieldPump

PWD

Flocc Rig

Co FloccMonoPump

ThickenerMonoPump

Diesel FieldPump

UnderflowPump

Seepage

Bore

c

c

Secondary Cyclones

Plant O/FHopper

Screen Cyclones

Makeup

Overflow from Roughing stage

\\APSYDFIL03\proj\D\Doral_Mineral_Industries\2200516A_REVISION_TO_GW_SW\05_WrkPapers\WP\Draft\Site Water Balance\Yoongarillup PFD Rev 1.xlsm23/01/2014

GealeN

Typewriter

FIGURE B SIMPLIFIED DEMANDS USED FOR WATER BALANCE

Emergency DischargeCut-Off Drain

Paddock Cut Off Drain

Access Road

Emergency Discharge

Return Water Drain

SEP 01

SEP 02

SEP 03

SEP 04

SEP 08SEP 05

SEP 06 SEP 09

SEP 07

PWP

Process Plant

Stockpile 02

Admin / Carpark

Drop Out Pond

Workshop

Stockpile 01

24

68

13

9

257

10

1523

17

11

21

4

19

1416

2018

12

25

22

3

Doral Mineral SandsProposed Mine Layout ( December 2013 ) Revised: 09 / 12/ 2013

LegendAAA_Yoong_Mining_ReferencePoints

<all other values>FEATURE_NAME

Approx CD Tank Location

Approx Concentrator Location

Approx HMC Pad

Approx Thickener Location

LV + HV Washdown Bay

MB 1

MB 2

MB 3

MB 4

MB 5

MB 6

Proposed Process Water Bore

Mine_Layout_00<all other values>

FEATURE_NAMEHCM StockpileExisting CulvertAccess RoadCut-Off DrainEmergency Discharge 01Emergency Discharge 02Farm ShedMine Admin / CarparkMine Plant / Concentrator / WorkshopsProcess Water Pond BaseProcess Water DamReturn Water DrainSolar Evap Pond (SEP)StockpileUnder Road Access (Cattle Underpass)

GealeN

Typewriter

FIGURE C

final: simple site water balance - yoongarillup mineral

Documents