w c c w c. cromer pty ltd - epa.tas.gov.auepa.tas.gov.au/documents/venture minerals riley mine...

William C Cromer Pty. Ltd. 74A Channel Highway Taroona, Tasmania 7053 Australia

Mobile 0408 122 127 Fax 03 6227 9456 www.billcromer.com.au email [email protected]

VENTURE MINERALS LIMITED

RILEY

HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORT

14 June 2012

WILLIAM C. CROMER PTY. LTD. ACN 009 531 613 ABN 48 009 531 613

ENVIRONMENTAL, ENGINEERING AND GROUNDWATER GEOLOGISTS

C C W

Venture Minerals Ltd

RILEY HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORT 14 June 2012

William C Cromer Pty Ltd 74A Channel Highway Taroona Tasmania 7053

Environmental, engineering and groundwater geologists

Mobile 0408 122 127 email [email protected]

2

C C W

C C W

Cover photo Installing groundwater monitoring bore RYWB004 near the saddle on the main access road at Riley in mid-May 2012. Despite being collared within a few metres of the steeply-east? dipping serpentinised ultramafic outcrop at left, the bore passed through 18m of mainly gravelly clayey silt. Groundwater yield was very low at <0.1L/sec.

Refer to this report as

Cromer, W. C. (2012). Riley Hydrogeological Report. Unpublished report for Venture Minerals Ltd by William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd., 14 June 2012; 92pp including 64 pages of Attachments.

This report is an updated version of Cromer, W. C. (2012). Hydrogeological report, Riley Creek Project. Unpublished report for Venture Minerals Ltd. by William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd., 16 February 2012; 22pp.






3

C C W

C C W

SUMMARY

This report is an updated version of the initial February 2012 hydrogeological report for Venture Minerals’ DSO laterite project at Riley. It includes water sampling, and drilling and aquifer testing results, from hydrogeological investigations conducted in April and May 2012.

Climate This report has adopted an annual rainfall at Riley of about 2,000mm – the average of mean rainfall at Tullah and Rosebery. Annual evapotranspiration totals about 750mm.

Surface water Five surface water monitoring sites were sampled, and stream flows measured, in May 2012. Surface waters were slightly alkaline (average pH 7.6), very low salinity (average EC 203µS/cm) waters of the magnesium bicarbonate type. Suspended solids were very low. Trace metals nickel and chromium were elevated relative to surface streams in the district, reflecting the influence of the ultramafic basement rocks and soils derived from them. Stream flows during the sampling run ranged from 10L/sec in Three Mile Creek upstream from Trinder Creek, to 80L/sec in Trinder Creek just above Riley Creek. However, for a rainfall event of (say) 75mm/day, stream flows (L/sec) are estimated to increase tenfold or more. The annual discharge in an average rainfall year from Riley Creek and nearby streams (in four sub-catchments totalling about 470ha) is estimated to total about 5,000ML (5GL). Groundwater Five groundwater monitoring bores were installed, tested and sampled in May 2012 to depths ranging from 4 – 23m within the Riley Creek area. Materials drilled were mainly fine grained weathering products including clayey silt, clay etc. The water table was encountered at depths between about 5 and 16m in the bores. Yields were low (<0.01 – 0.04L/sec in four bores), as were hydraulic conductivities (0.02 and 0.41m/day) in the two bores tested so far. The groundwater is slightly acidic (average pH 6.4) compared to the slightly alkaline surface waters, but of very similar salinity (average EC 204µS/cm), and tending towards the sodium chloride type in terms of major ions. Conceptual hydrogeological model for the area The current hydrogeological model for the area comprises steeply east?-dipping sedimentary rocks and ultramafics which in the surface 20m at least are variably and often highly-extremely weathered to fine-grained mixtures of silt, sand and clay. Conditions are broadly unconfined but locally confined. Hydraulic conductivity, storativity and groundwater flow rates are low. Flat-lying clayey surface materials are irregularly distributed and may minimise vertically downward groundwater infiltration. It is expected that weathering decreases with depth, and fracture permeability increasingly dominates, to depths around 100 – 150m or more. The water table is a subdued replica of the land surface. It is expected at depths up to about 15m on interfluves, shallowing to 5 – 10m on hillside flanks and at least seasonally intersecting the land surface along watercourses. Localised perched groundwater conditions can be expected at the base of surface laterite and may enter excavations – particularly near watercourses.






4

C C W

C C W

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 3

1. INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 BACKGROUND 6 1.2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING 6 1.3 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR RILEY 11

2. HYDROGEOLOGY OF RILEY 12

2.1 MEAN RAINFALL AT RILEY 12 2.2 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 14

2.2.1 Surface drainage sub-catchments at Riley 14 2.2.2 Estimating stream discharges for the Riley area 14 2.2.3 Baseline monitoring of surface waters 15 2.2.4 Measured stream flows May 2012 15 2.2.5 Surface water quality 15

2.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 19 2.3.1 Fundamentals of groundwater occurrence and movement 19 2.3.2 Groundwater drilling and aquifer testing 19 2.3.3 Water table conditions 20 2.3.4 Monitoring water table changes 21 2.3.5 Yields of monitoring bores 21 2.3.6 Permeability testing of monitoring bores 21 2.3.7 Groundwater quality 22 2.3.8 Conceptual hydrogeological model for Riley 22 2.3.9 Estimating components of the hydrogeological water balance 23 2.3.10 Numerical 3-D groundwater modelling 24

REFERENCES 28

FIGURES 1. Riley location map t 6 2. Satellite imagery of Riley and environs 7 3. Topography and drainage in relation to Riley laterite Areas A, B, C and D 8 4. Currently proposed mining and infrastructure layout for Riley 9 5. Geology of the Riley area 10 6. Rainfall stations, mean annual rainfall for northwestern Tasmania, and location of Riley 12 7. Surface drainage catchments in relation to Riley laterite Areas A, B, C and D, and surface water sampling locations 14 8. Piper diagrams for dissolved and total constituents of the surface waters sampled on 2 May 2012 18 9. Locations of Riley groundwater monitoring bores 19 10. Piper diagrams for major dissolved constituents of groundwaters sampled from monitoring bores in May 2012, and combined with surface water analyses 25 11. Conceptual hydrogeological model for Riley 26

TABLES

1. Rainfall records for Rosebery and Tullah, and adopted rainfall for Riley 13 2. Estimated monthly flows in streams at Riley 16 3. Water quality in monitored surface streams, 2 May 2012 17 4. Summary of Riley monitoring bores 20 5. Summary of hydraulic conductivity testing of Riley monitoring bores RYWB001 and RYWB002 21 6. Water quality in Riley monitored water bores, May 2012 24 7. Reasonable estimates for some components of Riley’s hydrogeological water balance 27






5

C C W

C C W

ATTACHMENTS 1. Groundwater principles (5 pages including cover page) 29 2. Surface water laboratory reports (8 pages) 34 3. Tables of surface water analyses (8 pages) 42 4. Groundwater monitoring bores: logs, photographs and slug test results (24 pages) 50 5. Groundwater sampling at Riley: Transmittal forms and laboratory reports (11 pages) 74 6. Tables of groundwater analyses (8 pages) 85






6

C C W

C C W

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Venture Minerals Ltd. (“Venture”) is investigating the feasibility of mining Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) from its Riley laterite project west of Tullah in western Tasmania (Figures 1 – 4).

The ore bodies are thin surface cappings of lateritic gravels up to about 4m thick cropping out over a combined area of about 1.2km

2.

William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd. was commissioned by Venture to undertake surface water and groundwater studies to establish existing hydrogeological conditions in the area, and to assist in developing a conceptual hydrogeological model for the project to aid in mine design and environmental management. Similar reports have previously been prepared for Venture’s Mt. Lindsay and Livingstone Projects to the west of Riley (Cromer, 2011a, 2011b).

1.2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING1

The Riley iron laterite deposits comprise a mixture of unconsolidated and cemented lateritic gravel mixed with and underlain by ferruginous clay. Four significant deposits are recognised, from west to east then north – Areas A, B, C and D (Figures 3 and 5). The combined area of laterite and ferruginous clay is approximately 1.2 km

2. Areas A and C are the most significant

of the laterite deposits. The laterites are largely restricted to topographic highs, with Areas A and C separated and dissected by Riley Creek, Area A bound in the northwest by Three Mile Creek, and Area C in the east and south by Trinder and Fowler Creeks. The laterite and lateritic gravel reaches up to 4m thickness, underlain by clay to depths of up to about 20m. Scours and quartz-rich sands beds a few centimetres thick are common at the base of the laterite suggesting a colluvial origin for the gravels, which are thought to be eroded off the ultramafic ridge upslope. Pockets of relict lateritic soil are widespread along Serpentine Ridge.

1Acknowledgement is made to Stuart Owen of Venture Minerals for this background geological information

Pieman Road

Figure 1. Riley location map Base map: Google Maps

Lake Pieman

Approx. km

0 5

GN

GDA94

5376000mN

GDA94

370000mE

Lake Pieman

Pieman Road

Area A Area B

Area C

Area D

Riley Creek Project

Riley Ck

100km

Lake Pieman






7

C C W

C C W

GD

A94

369

000m

E

GD

A94

368

000m

E

GD

A94

5378

000m

N

GD

A94

5377

000m

N

Appro

x. km

0

1

GN

G

DA

94

370

000m

E

GD

A94

5376

000m

N

Figure 2. Satellite imagery of Riley and environs Source: Google Earth 2008

Riley

Pie

ma

n R

iver

Pie

ma

n R

oad

Huskis

son R

iver






8

C C W

C C W

Figure 3. Topography and drainage in relation to Riley laterite Areas A, B, C and D Source: Venture Minerals Ltd 2012

Appro

x. km

0

1

GN

G

DA

94

369

000m

E

GD

A94

5378

000m

N

GD

A94

5377

000m

N

GD

A94

368

000m

E

Riley

Boundary

to

min

ing le

ase

applic

atio

n a

rea






9

C C W

C C W

Figure 4. Currently proposed mining and infrastructure layout for Riley Source: Pitt & Sherry, March 2012 (reference HB11411_H003_ProposedLayout_12P_Rev01)






10

C C W

C C W

The ferruginous clays commonly grade down into greenish and cream coloured clays and ultimately ultramafic basement, and the clays are currently thought by Venture to represent largely in situ saprolitic clay. Around the margins of the deposits laterite commonly laps directly onto ultramafic basement, and laterite Areas A and C also lap across the south western margin of the Wilson River Ultramafic Complex onto the Crimson Creek Formation. To the east Area C abuts a large terrace of unconsolidated fluvioglacial gravels.

Wilson River Ultramafic Complex

Crimson Creek

Formation

Riley Laterite Area A

Riley Laterite Area C

Riley Laterite Area B

Riley Laterite Area D

Figure 5. Geology of Riley Source: Venture Minerals Ltd. 2012

Source: Venture Minerals Ltd.

GD

A94

369

000m

E

GD

A94

367

000m

E

GDA94

5378000mN

GDA94

5377000mN

Approx. km

0 0.5

GN

GD

A94

368

000m

E

Gordon Limestone

Boundary to mining lease

application area






11

C C W

C C W

The contact between the Wilson River ultramafics and the Crimson Creek Formation is most likely faulted (Brown, 1989), although the fault has not been observed by Venture geologists. The contact trends northwest-southeast, and is subvertical. Individual horizons within the Crimson Creek Formation are expected to be subvertical also, and perhaps steeply-east dipping like the ore-bearing skarns at Mt. Lindsay 10km to the west. Little structural information is available for the ultramafics, although subvertical igneous layering is known from Rileys Knob (Brown, 1989) and it is reasonable to assume for the purposes of this report that other intraformational units will be subvertical also. Four locations in the district were drilled during the current hydrogeological investigations, and at each site the bedrock (Ordovician limestone/sandstone, Cambrian Wilson River ultramafics, and Cambrian Crimson Creek Formation) was found to be deeply weathered (exhibiting soil properties) to depths of up to at least 23m. Locally, such steeply dipping and weathered horizons abut less weathered and outcropping ultramafics.

1.3 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR RILEY A range of hydrogeological activities has been undertaken or is currently underway at Riley. These activities include:

climate monitoring (measuring rainfall, evaporation, temperature, solar radiation and humidity) at Venture’s Mt. Lindsay weather station installed in early March 2011 about 10km west northwest of Riley (Status – continuing)

defining the surface water and groundwater catchments for the project (Status – current)

surface water hydrology, including baseline surface water sampling and stream flow measurements on Three Mile, Riley, Trinder-Fowler and Sweeney-Gold Creeks (Status –current and continuing quarterly)

desktop conceptual groundwater hydrology (Status – current) and

groundwater drilling programme and installation of monitoring bores (completed) Several of these issues are addressed in the following Sections. This report is expected to be upgraded from time to time to keep apace with surface and groundwater sampling and monitoring, and related hydrogeological developments.






12

C C W

C C W

2 HYDROGEOLOGY OF RILEY

2.1 MEAN RAINFALL AT RILEY Regional rainfall distribution in northwestern Tasmania (Figure 6) suggests that mean annual rainfall at Riley ought to be similar to that at Rosebery (1,950mm; 10km to the ESE), Savage River Mine (1,935mm; 37km to the NW), and Tullah (2,000mm; 16km to the E). Table 1 summarises rainfall records for Rosebery and Tullah. Tullah’s figures been adopted for Riley

2 and the mean annual rainfall has been rounded to 2,000mm.

2 Venture installed a weather station (elevation about 550m) at Mt. Lindsay in early March 2011. It supplies local

weather records for Venture’s Mt. Lindsay and Livingstone projects. Data collected include rain, evaporation, humidity, temperature and wind speed. In addition to accumulating longer-term climatic records, it will provide shorter-term, site-specific information to assist in hydrogeological water balance assessments, and management issues such as stream flows and diversions, mine dewatering, etc. Given the rainfall gradient in the district, the new station is perhaps not as relevant to Riley as is Rosebery and Tullah, both at similar elevations to Riley.

Figure 6. Rainfall stations (red circles), mean annual rainfall for northwestern Tasmania, and location of Riley

Source: Adapted from map at http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/image/265/index.php

Mean annual rainfall (mm)

3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 1000 800 600

Tullah

Zeehan

Cradle Mt

Granville Harbour

Savage River

Rosebery

Waratah

Mt. Lindsay

Mt. Read

0 100

Approx. km

GN

GDA94

5381000mN

GDA94

363000mE

Riley






13

C C W

C C W

Table 1. Rainfall records for Rosebery and Tullah, and adopted rainfall for Riley Source: www.bom.gov.au

Station: Rosebery (Gepp Street) Number: 97089 Opened: 1997 Now: Open

Lat: 41.78° S Lon: 145.54° E Elevation: 160 m

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

1997 71 204 183 181

1998 44 141 131 171 200 151 242 120 231 313 107 155 2005

1999 27 250 138 96 240 126 236 176 152 177 132 133 1881

2000 76 98 89 119 304 177 174 115 274 236 36 197 1895

2001 36 36 149 133 69 268 105 328 142 228 163

2002 201 82 99 48 108 368 379 232 316 224 143 140 2341

2003 92 25 109 156 115 269 275 328 423 163 61 100 2116

2004 212 61 88 291 393 264 178 189 152 134 129

2005 120 69 76 145 210 71 301 336 112 250 151 278 2119

2006 53 69 70 358 207 108 174 205 208 156 78 103 1788

2007 160 14 177 35 304 86 159 347 226 312 20 136 1976

2008 23 104 125 133 200 180 233 199 251 111 130 158 1846

2009 143 96 152 166 255 100 366 466 264 70 80 143 2302

2010 59 63 138 214 143 197 195 285 313 184 170 151 2112

2011 102 106 100 108 136 332 300 141 240 188

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Lowest 23 14 70 35 69 71 105 115 71 70 20 100 1788

Highest 212 250 177 358 304 393 379 466 423 313 183 278 2341

Station: Tullah (Meredith Street) Number: 97087 Opened: 1995 Now: Open

Lat: 41.74° S Lon: 145.61° E Elevation: 167 m

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

1996 147 147 232 224 138 200 143 306 318 227 275 137 2495

1997 111 43 156 242 156 111 246 232 61 228 173 180 1938

1998 43 130 119 168 163 137 221 121 234 284 103 152 1875

1999 13 200 123 90 220 100 226 181 151 136 128

2000 72 83 72 96 299 174 174 112 290 254 54 184 1865

2001 39 29 139 128 260 317 139 112 137

2002 159 69 96 40 378 395 227 147 136

2003 88 20 94 107 92 242 261 321 398 176 52 84 1935

2004 211 54 82 288 370 272 205 186 139 149 141

2005 118 66 72 126 192 69 271 325 118 240 157 250 2003

2006 52 74 57 317 188 95 178 192 65

2007 22 143 32 295 75 318 211 326 21 132

2008 23 123 122 151 164 199 246 197 257 106 141 170 1899

2009 152 83 136 151 243 96 323 469 62 131

2010 38 49 154 219 128 190 268 312 174 158

2011 96 91 92 117 315 313 123 231

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Lowest 13 20 57 32 92 69 143 112 61 62 21 84 1865

Highest 211 200 232 317 299 378 395 469 398 326 275 250 2495

Adopted rainfall for the Riley Creek Prospect

Elevation: 200 – 250m

Rainfall Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean rainfall (mm) 91 80 120 146 192 188 251 246 230 200 129 143 2,002

2011 rainfall (mm) 96 91 95 92 116 314 313 123 231 158 194 33 1,857

Highest rainfall (mm) 211 200 232 317 299 378 395 469 398 326 275 250 2495

Lowest rainfall (mm) 13 20 57 32 92 69 143 112 61 62 21 33 1865

Decile 1 rainfall (mm) 23 22 72 40 117 75 174 121 118 106 52 84 1,875

Decile 5 (median) rainfall (mm) 88 69 122 128 188 174 246 232 231 227 141 137 1,983

Decile 9 rainfall (mm) 159 130 156 224 288 315 313 321 312 254 173 180 2,003

Riley






14

C C W

C C W

2.2 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

2.2.1 Surface drainage sub-catchments at Riley Riley laterite areas A – D straddle four surface drainage sub-catchments of Class 2 and Class 3 streams

3:

Trinder-Fowler Creeks Class 2 stream (catchment 250ha above Three Mile Creek

Riley Creek Class 3 stream (catchment 100ha)

Three Mile Creek Class 3 stream (catchment 60ha)

Sweeney-Gold Creeks Class 3 stream (catchment 50ha above Pieman Road) The Sweeney-Gold Creeks system drains north to a tributary of the Huskisson River (Class 1) and the other three catchments combine to discharge to Lake Pieman (Class 1).

2.2.2 Estimating stream discharges for Riley Table 2 summarises estimated monthly flows in streams at Riley, for decile 1, 5 and 9 monthly rain. The flows are generated using the effective rain method as outlined in the Notes to the Table.

3 Watercourse classification in accordance with Table 8 of the Forest Practices Code (2000). See Forest Practices

Board (2000). Class 1 watercourses are rivers, lakes, etc named on 1:100,000 topographic maps; Class 2 watercourses exclude Class 1 types and have catchments greater than 100ha; Class 3 watercourses have catchments between 50 and 100ha; Class 4 watercourses have catchments less than 50ha.

Lake Pieman

Area D

Area C

Area B

Area A Riley Creek

Fowler Creek

Trinder Creek

Gold Creek

Three Mile Creek

Huskisson River

Pieman Road

Sweeney Creek

200m

150m

200m

Riley Knob

Serpentine Ridge

0

Approx. km

2

GN

GW2

Riley Creek Project (Areas A, B, C, D indicated)

Drainage subcatchment

Surface water monitoring location

RYSW4

GD

A94

370000m

E

GD

A94

368000m

E

GD

A94

366000m

E

GDA94 5378000mN

GDA94 5377000mN

GDA94 5376000mN

RYSW1

RYSW3 RYSW2

RYSW5

RYSW5

Figure 7. Surface drainage catchments in relation to Riley laterite Areas A, B, C and

D, and surface water sampling locations






15

C C W

C C W

This approach generates some months of no net rain, and hence no stream flows in an average year. The highest monthly stream flows (for decile 5 rain, for example) range from 100 – 400ML, and highest annual stream flows for decile 5 rain from 0.5 – 2GL. Estimated peak flows for an assumed maximum rain event of 75mm in one day range form 300 – 1,300L/sec.

2.2.3 Baseline monitoring of surface waters Five surface water monitoring stations have been established in the area (Figure 7), and the first round of stream gauging and water sampling was conducted on 2 May 2012. Sampling locations are: RYWS1 Three Mile Creek, 20m N of its confluence with the larger Trinder Creek, and

downstream of proposed mining operations in Area A RYWS2 Riley Creek, 50m N of its confluence with the larger Trinder Creek, and

downstream of proposed mining operations in Areas A and B RYWS3 Trinder Creek, 20m upstream of its confluence with Riley Creek, and

downstream of proposed mining operations in Area C RYWS4 Sweeney Creek where it crosses under the Pieman Road, and downstream of

proposed mining operations in Area D RYWS5 Trinder Creek upstream of proposed mining operations in Area C. All sampled creeks rise along the southeastern extension of Serpentine Ridge, underlain by the Wilson River Ultramafic Complex. Parts of the Sweeney-Gold Creek catchment above sample location RYSW4 on the Pieman Road are underlain by Gordon Limestone, and the lower reaches of Three Mile and Riley Creeks flow over the Crimson Creek Formation. About half of the length of the Trinder-Fowler Creek system also flows over Crimson Creek rocks.

2.2.4 Measured stream flows May 2012 Stream flow at all five sampling locations was measured

4 on 2 May 2012. Results were:

RYWS1 Three Mile Creek: Flow 10L/sec RYWS2 Riley Creek Flow 35L/sec RYWS3 Trinder Creek Flow 80L/sec RYWS4 Sweeney Creek Flow 20 L/sec RYWS5 Trinder Creek upstream Flow 13L/sec

2.2.5 Surface water quality Surface water quality at the five sampling locations in May 2012 is summarised in Table 3. Full laboratory reports are presented in Attachment 2, and individual results for each location are included in Attachment 3. The surface waters are of low salinity [electrical conductivity (EC) range 150 – 378µS/cm; average 271µS/cm] – very similar to the ECs recorded for groundwaters (Section 2.3.7). In contrast to the slightly acidic groundwaters, the surface waters are slightly alkaline (pH range 7.2 – 7.8; average 7.6). The Piper diagrams in Figure 8 show that with respect to major cations and anions all five surface waters are predominantly magnesium bicarbonate types, fairly typical of fresh surface waters generally. Sodium, potassium, calcium and chloride are subordinate. Despite draining lateritic country, the waters are relatively low in dissolved iron (range <20 to 326mg/L; average 198mg/L) – most likely due to the slightly alkaline pH. On the other hand, dissolved nickel (range 42 – 104µg/L; average 63µg/L) and chromium (range 4 – 6µg/L; average 4µg/L) are relatively elevated compared to other streams in the district and reflect the presence of soils derived from ultramafic bedrock

5.

4 Using a flow metre applied to stream depth and width at several readings across the channel.

5 Titanium, chromium, nickel and manganese are by far the four most abundant minor elements in ultramafic rocks,

being present at about 3,000mg/kg, 2,000 mg/kg, 2,000mg/kg and 1,300mg/kg respectively.






16

C C W

C C W

All five samples collected on 2 May 2012 showed very low suspended solids (range <1 to 3mg/L; average 2mg/L) but a reasonable range in true colour (range 1 to 283CU; average 67CU). The small difference between apparent and true colour reflects the low suspended solid loads of the streams.

Table 2. Estimated monthly flows in streams at Riley Annual totals may not match the sum of monthly totals because they are calculated independently

Three Mile Creek at Trinder Creek (sample location RYSW1)

Catchment area (ha) 60

Assumed max daily rain (mm) 75

Assumed max daily stream flow (L/sec) 400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann

Estimated monthly flow for decile 1 rain (ML) 0 0 0 0 40 20 80 50 50 30 0 0 450



Riley Creek at Trinder Creek (sample location RYSW2)






Estimated monthly flow for decile 5 rain (ML) 0 0 10 40 120 130 200 180 180 150 80 40 1,000


Trinder-Fowler Creeks at Riley Creek (sample location RYSW3)








Sweeney-Gold Creeks at Pieman Road (sample location RYSW4)








Trinder Creek upstream (sample location RYSW5)








Notes

Catchment area (ha) from 1:25,000 topographic maps

Assumed max daily rain (mm) estimated from Bureau of Meteorology records of highest daily rain recorded for Rosebery (104mm), Tullah (83mm) and Savage River (97mm)

(eg see www.bom.gov.au/sp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=097047

Assumed max daily stream flow (L/sec) calculated as runoff:rainfall ratio of 0.75

Decile 1 rainfall (mm) estimated from Rosebery and climatic records



Evapotranspiration (ET; mm) are mean figures for the Pieman River catchment. See http://adl.brs.gov.au/water2010/pdf/monthly_reports/awap_310_report.pdf

Runoff:rain ratio adapted from adopted monthly rain for Mt Lindsay and the 1992 paper at www.forestrytas.com.au/assets/0000/0477/article_10.pdf

Decile 1 effective rain (mm) is rain less evapotranspiration, less 10% of rain as infiltration ("deep drainage")








17

C C W

C C W

RYWS1 RYSW1 RYSW2 RYSW3 RYSW4 RYSW5

367010mE 367010mE 367470mE 367445mE 368730mE 368940mE

5376770mN 5376770mN 5376550mN 5376510mN 5379000mN 5376755mN

175mASL 175mASL 182mASL 180mASL 200mASL 220mASL

Sampling date 2/5/12 Duplicate 2/5/12 2/5/12 2/5/12 2/5/12

Time 1315 of 1145 1120 1700 1500

Lab report # 53835 2/5/12 53835 53835 53835 53835

Sampler WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL Min Max Average

Field parameters

Flow L/sec 10 10 35 80 20 13 10 80 28

Flow m/sec

pH 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.7 7.5

EC µS/cm 196 196 190 135 202 296 135 296 203

Eh mV 26 26 50 72 56 90 26 90 53

DO mg/L 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.9 11.5 12 13 12

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.0 9.9 10.6 9.9 10.6 10.3

Lab results

pH 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.8 7.6

EC µS/cm 217 217 199 150 218 378 150 378 230

TDS mg/L 116 116 111 112 126 190 111 190 129

TSS mg/L 2 <1 <1 3 2 <1 <1 3 2

Colour apparent CU 28 29 12 322 78 24 12 322 82

Colour true CU 13 15 1 283 69 21 1 283 67

Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 78 79 74 48 80 168 48 168 88

Total Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L

Acidity mgCaCO3/L <3 <3 <3 <3 4 3 <3 4

Chloride mg/L 17.7 17.8 16.0 15.3 16.4 15.5 15 18 16

Sulphate mg/L 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.0 3.5 2.0 2 4 3

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.010 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.010

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.052 0.052 0.016 <0.002 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 0.052

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.006 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.006

Total N mg-N/L 0.15 0.19 0.06 0.45 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.45

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.007

Total P mg-P/L 0.010 0.009 <0.005 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.010

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ag total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Al dissolved µg/L 17 16 7 214 57 <5 7 214 62

Al total µg/L 59 62 20 325 163 10 10 325 107

As dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

As total µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 1.29 1.29 0.53 0.85 0.55 0.47 0.47 1.29 0.83

Ca total mg/L 1.31 1.35 0.52 0.83 0.62 0.46 0.46 1.35 0.85

Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cd total µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.80 0.70

Co total µg/L <0.5 0.6 1.3 1.5 2.3 0.7 <0.5 2.3 1.3

Cr dissolved µg/L 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 4

Cr total µg/L 6 6 6 9 6 5 5 9 6

Cu dissolved µg/L <1 <1 1 1 1 <1 <1 1 1

Cu total µg/L 1 1 1 1 2 <1 <1 2 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 117 102 <20 326 245 <20 <20 326 198

Fe total µg/L 256 306 147 605 868 178 147 868 393

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Hg total µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

K dissolved mg/L 0.33 0.31 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.16 0.2 0.3 0.2

K total mg/L 0.41 0.46 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.19 0.2 0.5 0.3

Mg dissolved mg/L 19.4 19.3 18.8 13.0 21.0 41.3 13 41 22

Mg total mg/L 19.6 20.2 19.1 13.2 21.3 42.1 13 42 23

Mn dissolved µg/L 7.9 7.9 5.3 6.4 8.5 2.2 2 9 6

Mn total µg/L 11.0 12.1 7.4 15.3 25.0 4.1 4 25 12

Na dissolved mg/L 9.66 9.59 9.24 8.73 9.33 8.76 9 10 9

Na total mg/L 9.71 10.2 9.70 8.92 9.47 8.94 9 10 9

Ni dissolved µg/L 44.2 43.6 104 42.4 65.6 80.9 42 104 63

Ni total µg/L 48.4 50.5 111 48.5 80.9 89.9 48 111 72

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Pb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Se total µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Sn dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Sn total* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

W dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

W total* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Zn dissolved µg/L 5 2 3 4 8 2 2 8 4

Zn total µg/L 5 5 3 5 11 3 3 11 5

TPH µg/L <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C10-C14 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C15-C28 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C29-C36 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

* Not NATA endorsed analysis. WCCPL = William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd.

Table 3. Water quality in monitored surface streams, 2 May 2012 Laboratory reports are presented in Attachment 2, and individual stream results in Attachment 3.






18

C C W

C C W

Dissolved constituents

Dissolved+suspended constituents

Figure 8. Piper diagrams for dissolved (top) and total (bottom) constituents of the surface waters sampled on 2 May 2012. The diagrams are essentially identical. Source: M. Hocking






19

C C W

C C W

2.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY

2.3.1 Fundamentals of groundwater occurrence and movement Attachment 1 provides background information on groundwater principles. In particular, Figures 1.1 and 1.2 in the Attachment illustrate aspects of the land-based hydrogeological cycle, and groundwater occurrence in a gravity-driven system like Riley, respectively. Given the relatively subdued relief of the district, it can be expected that the near-surface dominant groundwater flows to depths of the order of a few tens of metres or so will be as local systems, with recharge on elevated areas discharging to streams like Riley Creek. However, at greater depths (well below proposed mining depths) the dominant groundwater flows will become increasingly intermediate and then regional in nature. It is therefore important to recognise the local site in the context of the larger groundwater system.

2.3.2 Groundwater drilling and aquifer testing To assess groundwater conditions and aquifer properties at Riley, a 5-hole drilling programme was conducted in April and May 2012. Holes were cased, screened and completed as groundwater monitoring bores. Locations of the bores (designated RYWB001, 002,…005) are shown in Figure 9. Table 4 summarises the results of drilling. Logs and photographs of each bore are presented in Attachment 4.

Figure 9. Locations of groundwater monitoring bores for Riley. Conceptual hydrogeological models through section lines A – B and C – D are depicted

in Figure 10.

A

B

C

D

GW2

Riley Areas A, B, C, D

Drainage subcatchment

Groundwater monitoring bore (May 2012)






20

C C W

C C W

Monitoring bore RYWB001 was collared in Ordovician Gordon Limestone correlate, and passed through interbedded, extremely weathered

6 sandstone and siltstone for its full depth of

12.3m. Bores RYWB002 and RYWB003 were collared in laterite over Neoproterozoic ultramafics, passing through about 2m of ferruginous clay and ferruginous clayey gravel before showing that the ultramafics were extremely weathered to clay to depths up to 23m. Similarly, bore RYWB004 was collared in ultramafics next to a serpentinised ultramafic outcrop, and passed through clayey silt, silt and siltstone to 18m. Bore RYWB005 was collared in the Cambrian Crimson Creek Formation west of the ultramafics and encountered soft purplish siltstone beneath 5m of clay, to a depth of 23m.

2.3.3 Water table conditions Drilling suggests that as expected from first principles, groundwater conditions appear broadly unconfined, but may be locally confined (perhaps in a complicated manner) by steeply-dipping

bedrock horizons extremely weathered to clays, and subhorizontal surface cappings of clayey materials. Water is expected to be stored in fractures in all bedrock types in the district, in interstitial openings in weathered materials, and in porous and permeable varieties of surface laterite. The water table in May 2012 was relatively close to the surface (5.3m and 8.9m) in monitoring bores RYWB001 and RYWB002, and was about 16m deep in bore RYWB004 on the low saddle separating east- and west-flowing surface streams (Figure 9). Hole RYWB003 was dry to 4.4m depth, and the water table in RYWB005 was undetermined at the time of writing, but is expected to be at a depth of about 15 – 17m. Shallow groundwater seepage was observed in May 2012 entering exploratory costeans from the base of the laterite overlying clayey silt (inset photo at left). Rain runoff was also entering the costean.

6 “Extremely weathered” used in this report means the material exhibits soil properties (ie it can be remoulded in hand

specimen, with or without adding water).

Hole ID RYWB001 RYWB002 RYWB003 RYWB004 RYWB005

Easting (GDA94) 368532 367708 367706 368283 367380

Northing (GDA94) 5378761 5377096 5377096 5377671 5376828

Date drilled 17-Apr-12 18-Apr-12 19-Apr-12 14-May-12 15-May-12

Collar elevation (mASL) 210 220 220 270 200

Depth (mbg) drilled 12.5 23.1 4.4 18.0 23.0

Estimated yield on drilling (L/sec) 0.04 0.03 dry <0.01 0.03

Standing water level on completion (mbg) 5.3 8.9 dry 15.6 ND

Screened interval (mbg) 9 – 12 16.5 – 19.5 1 – 4 12 – 15 19 – 22

Permeability (slug) tests 4 5 None None None

Slug test interval (mbg) 9 – 12 16.5 – 19.5

Photos of drill returns Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Returns retained No Yes No Yes Yes

Field water quality tested No Yes No Yes Yes

Water sample analysed? Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Water level data logger installed? Yes Yes No Yes Yes

mbg = metres below ground

Table 4. Summary of Riley monitoring bores

Shallow seepage water entering costean near

367500mE 5377000mN, May 2012






21

C C W

C C W

Monitoring bore RYWB001

Easting 368532mE

Northing 5378761mN

Depth interval tested 9 – 12mbg

Slug

test

Slug

length

m/day m/sec

1 1m 1.00E-05 0.86

2 1.5m 2.08E-06 0.18

3 1m 1.11E-05 0.96

4 1.5m 2.15E-06 0.19

Geometric mean 4.72E-06 0.41

Monitoring bore RYWB002

Easting 367708mE

Northing 5377096mN

Depth interval tested 16.5 – 19.5mbg

Slug

test

Slug

length

m/day m/sec

1 1m 1.39E-07 0.01

2 1.5m 9.69E-08 0.01

3 1.5m 3.56E-07 0.03

4 1m 1.06E-07 0.01

5 1.5m 3.54E-07 0.03

Geometric mean 1.78E-07 0.02

Calculated hydraulic

conductivity

Calculated hydraulic

conductivity

All bores within the lateritic area are located on or near interfluves on relatively high ground. The water table on lower slopes is expected to be closer to the surface, and will at least seasonally intersect the ground surface along watercourses. Seepages into excavations may be encountered in mining operations in these low-lying areas.

2.3.4 Monitoring water table changes In May 2012, digital data loggers were installed in all monitoring bores except RYWB003 (dry) to track and record short-, medium- and long-term water table fluctuations in response to rain.

2.3.5 Yields of monitoring bores Table 4 and Attachment 4 show that groundwater was encountered in four of the five bores but that yields were low to very low, ranging from <0.1L/sec in bore RYWB004 to around 0.03 – 0.04L/sec in the remaining three. These low values reflect the extremely weathered nature of the bedrock materials, and suggest that pathways for groundwater movement are relatively limited – at least locally.

2.3.6 Permeability testing of monitoring bores In May 2012, slug testing was conducted on monitoring bores RYWB001 and RYWB002 to estimate aquifer hydraulic conductivity over the 3m long screened interval in each

7. Results

are summarised in Table 5, and plots of all nine slug tests are included with the bore logs in Attachment 4. Values for hydraulic conductivity (permeability) are low (reflecting the low yields) and range from 0.02m/day in bore RYWB002 to about 20 times higher at 0.41m/day in bore RYWB001.

7Bores RYWB004 and RYWB005 were not completed in time for the testing. Bore RYWB003 was dry.

Table 5. Summary of hydraulic conductivity testing of Riley monitoring bores RYWB001 and RYWB002 Source: M. Hocking






22

C C W

C C W

2.3.7 Groundwater quality Groundwater from each of the four bores which showed measureable yields was sampled and analysed in May 2012. Laboratory reports of the analyses from this initial sampling event are included in Attachment 5, and the same results are presented in tabular form for each bore in Attachment 6. Table 6 summarises the analytical results. In contrast to the slightly alkaline surface waters, the groundwaters are slightly acidic (pH range 5.5 – 7.0; average 6.4) and of low salinity (EC range 78 – 417µS/cm; average 204µS/cm). The Piper diagrams in Figure 10 show that with respect to major cations and anions the groundwaters vary but trend towards sodium chloride types (compared to the magnesium bicarbonate surface waters). This is fairly typical of groundwaters where compared to surface waters chloride tends to become enriched with time. In Figure 10, bore RYWB004 plots separately from the others as a result of its anomalously high sulphate content

8. Usually, this tends to be typical of gypsum-rich groundwater but other

sources of sulphate (or sulphides) may also be present in the extremely weathered ultramafics drilled at this location. The high sulphate also suggests that bore RYWB004 may be screened in a different aquifer to the other three bores, and that the groundwater in it has limited association with surface waters. Despite draining lateritic country, the groundwaters (like the surface water samples) are relatively low in dissolved iron (range <20 to 209µg/L). Also in common with the surface waters, dissolved nickel is elevated (517µg/L and 261µg/L) in groundwater in the two bores drilled into the ultramafic bedrock (RYWB002 and RYWB004) compared to the groundwater in bores RYWB001 (17µg/L) and RYWB005 (14µg/L) drilled to the east and west of the ultramafics respectively. Dissolved chromium is also significantly elevated (160µg/L and 60µg/L) in groundwater in RYWB002 and RYWB004 compared to groundwater from RYWB001 and RYWB005 (undetected at <1µg/L).

2.3.8 Conceptual hydrogeological model for Riley Based on the site observations, the drilling programme, and the groundwater fundamentals described in Figure 1.2 in Attachment 1, the groundwater study area for Riley is likely to approximate the surface subcatchment areas shown in Figure 7. A conceptual hydrogeological model for the same area is presented in Figure 11. The locations of the two cross sections are shown in Figure 9. In Figure 11, the main components of the hydrogeological water balance are shown in blue type. Table 7 lists most of these components, and ascribes estimates or ranges to them based on the investigations described in the present report. The key features of the conceptual model are:

steeply east?-dipping sedimentary rocks and ultramafics which in the surface 20m at least are variably and often highly-extremely weathered to fine-grained mixtures of silt , sand and clay. Hydraulic conductivity and storativity are variable but low, and some units may present local sub-vertical barriers to groundwater movement – but perhaps of limited depth. Flat-lying clayey surface materials are irregularly distributed and may minimise vertically downward groundwater infiltration. Some rock units are considerably less weathered at the surface, and within these fracturing is expected to be relatively intense at and near the surface, becoming less so with depth. It is also expected that in a general sense the degree of weathering decreases with depth, and fracture permeability increasingly dominates, to depths around 100 – 150m or more, below which permeabilities probably tend to decrease with increasing overburden pressure which tends to close fractures. Overall, hydraulic conductivity and storativity are expected to be variable.

8 The AST laboratory in Hobart confirmed the anomalous result.






23

C C W

C C W

Groundwater conditions are broadly unconfined, with a regional water table as a subdued replica of the land surface, and at least seasonally intersecting the land surface along drainage lines.

Near-surface groundwater flow to Riley Creek and other watercourses in the area is controlled by local systems, where flow lines are steep (equipotential lines are gently inclined) and recharge and discharge occur on hills and intervening valleys respectively.

At increasing depths, flow becomes intermediate and then regional in scale, with equipotential lines steepening to near-vertical, and flow lines almost horizontal.

2.3.9 Estimating components of the hydrogeological water balance Table 8 summarises estimated values or ranges of values for various components of the hydrogeological water balance for Riley, based on hydrogeological principles, and site observations and drilling.

2.3.10 Numerical 3-D groundwater modelling Numeric 3-D modelling

9 is not considered necessary for Riley for the following reasons:

mining will be undertaken via surface removal of lateritic materials to depths of only a few metres, and

the water table over most of the area proposed for mining will be at depths of 5 – 10m or more, and will not be encountered during operations, so that it will usually not be necessary to dewater ahead of, or during, mining.

Because watercourses in the area are groundwater discharge areas (Attachment 1 and Figure 11), shallow groundwater may be encountered during mining adjacent to creeks if the depth of excavation is near or below the watercourse. Groundwater infiltration to excavations can be minimised by appropriate management which, depending on local topography, might incorporate variable-width setbacks to watercourses so that mining depth remained above creek level.

9Venture is well advanced on a numeric 3-D groundwater model (Hocking, 2011) for the Mt. Lindsay tin-tungsten-iron-

copper project 10km to the west northwest of Riley Creek. A similar model is currently being developed for the Livingstone haematite project.






24

C C W

C C W

Table 6. Water quality in Riley monitored water bores, May 2012 Laboratory reports are presented in Attachment 5, and individual bore results in Attachment 6.

RYWB001 RYWB002 RYWB003 RYWB004 RYWB005

Easting (GDA94) 368532mE 367708mE 367706mE 368283mE 367380mE

Northing (GDA94) 5378761mN 5377096mN 5377096mN 5377671mN 5376828mN

Elevation (approx) 210mASL 220mASL 220mASL 270mASL 200mASL

Sampling date 3/5/12 3/5/12 3/5/12 3/5/12 3/5/12Time 0812 1022 No sample 1300 1330

Lab report # 53832 53832 53995 53995Sampler WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL Min Max Average

Sampling

Bore depth mbg 12.5 23.1 4.4 18.0 23.0

Standing water level (mbg) mbg 5.3 8.9 dry 15.6 c17.5

Method Low flow Low flow Low flow Air lift

Volume extracted L 50 50 20 20 20 50 35

Field parameters

pH 5.2 5.5 6.5 5.2 6.5 5.7

EC µS/cm 118 185 400 70 70 400 193

Eh mV 103 80 -73 -73 103 37

DO mg/L 1.4 7.7

Temperature 0C 11.8 12.5 11.4 9.3 9.3 12.5 11.3

Lab results

pH 5.5 6.1 6.8 7.0 5.5 7.0 6.4

EC µS/cm 134 185 417 78 78 417 204

TDS mg/L 90 107 290 63 63 290 138

TSS mg/L 338 87 87 338

Colour apparent CU >500 494

Colour true CU 22 <1 <1 <1 <1 22

Turbidity NTU

Alkalinity H2O2 mgCaCO3/L

Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 12 37 84 3 3 84 34

Total Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 84 3

Acidity mgCaCO3/L 88 63 29 <3 <3 88 60

Chloride mg/L 17.4 25.9 18.4 17.2 17.2 25.9 19.7

Sulphate mg/L 16.1 10.2 108 3.6 3.6 108 34.5

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.005 0.035 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.035 0.013

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.005 0.022 0.018 0.055 0.005 0.055 0.025

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002

Total N mg-N/L 0.09 0.10

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.003 0.003 <0.5 <0.5

Total P mg-P/L 0.030 0.007

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ag total µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Al dissolved µg/L 21 <5 <5 <5 <5 21

Al total µg/L 5,560 891

As dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

As total µg/L 2 <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 0.95 1.74 13.4 0.62 0.62 13.4 4.2

Ca total mg/L 1.14 1.96

Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cd total µg/L <0.1 <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L 23 19.8 1.0 5.4 1 23.4 12.4

Co total µg/L 29 82.5

Cr dissolved µg/L <1 160 60 <1 <1 160

Cr total µg/L 11 239

Cu dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Cu total µg/L 6 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 209 51 <20 <20 <20 209

Fe total µg/L 9,000

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Hg total µg/L <0.05 <0.05

K dissolved mg/L 1.05 0.21 0.54 0.39 0.21 1.05 0.55

K total mg/L 1.63 0.38

Mg dissolved mg/L 3.41 7.22 32.6 1.71 1.71 32.6 11.2

Mg total mg/L 5.40 7.78

Mn dissolved µg/L 243 56.2 <0.5 48.9 <0.5 243 116

Mn total µg/L 333 365

Na dissolved mg/L 15.9 22.8 9.90 8.83 8.83 22.8 14.4

Na total mg/L 16.0 21.6

Ni dissolved µg/L 17.1 517 261 13.9 13.9 517 202

Ni total µg/L 27.7 649

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Pb total µg/L 4.2 1.1

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Se total µg/L <5 <5

W dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

W total* µg/L <1 <1

Zn dissolved µg/L 24 8 <1 7 <1 24 13

Zn total µg/L 42 13

TPH µg/L <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C10-C14 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C15-C28 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C29-C36 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

* Not NATA endorsed analysis

WCCPL = William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd.

Blank space indicates an analyte was not requested






25

C C W

C C W

Major dissolved constituents in groundwaters in monitoring bores

Major dissolved constituents in groundwaters and surface waters

Figure 10. Piper diagrams for major dissolved constituents of groundwaters sampled from monitoring bores in May 2012 (top), and combined with surface water analyses (bottom).

Source: M. Hocking






26

C C W

C C W

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

80

60

40

20

0

mA

SL

La

ke

Pie

ma

n

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

80

60

40

20

0

mA

SL

Trinder

Cre

ek

Rile

y C

reek

Gold

Cre

ek

Th

ree

Mile

Cre

ek

Tri

nd

er

Cre

ek

Fo

wle

r C

ree

k

Section line A – B Vertical exaggeration approx. 10x

Southwest Northeast

Northwest Southeast

Section line C – D Vertical exaggeration approx. 10x

Se

ctio

n lin

e A

– B

S

ection lin

e C

– D

A B

C D

Bore

RY

WB

002

Recharge

G’water base flow to surface

streams

G’water base flow to surface

streams

Discharge

Near-surface hydraulic conductivity reduced by

weathering

Clay soils and weathering profile (low permeability)

FA

ULT

?

FA

ULT

?

Local flow

Local flow

Local flow

Regional flow

Regional flow

Intermediate flow

Intermediate flow

Local flow

Intermediate flow

Unconfined fractured rock aquifer (hydraulic conductivity,

transmissivity; storativity)

Fault? (locally increased

hydraulic conductivity)

Discharge

Discharge Discharge

Crimson Creek Formation Steeply east?-dipping lithic sandstone and siltstone

Wilsons Creek Ultramafic Complex Steeply east?-dipping serpentinite, pyroxenite, harzburgite, dunite

Ordovician Gordon Limestone correlate Steeply east?-dipping, and including lithic sandstone and siltstone

EoC

am

brian

Ferruginous lateritic gravel and cemented laterite

Ferruginous clay with minor lateritic gravel

Quate

rnary

T

ert

iary

Rile

y C

ree

k

Intermediate flow (out of page)

Regional flow (out of page)

Recharge

G’water base flow to surface streams

Near-surface hydraulic conductivity reduced by

weathering

Local flow

Discharge

Discharge

Local flow

Recharge

Recharge

Figure 11. Conceptual hydrogeological model for Riley. Section lines are shown in Figure 9. Do not scale.

Bore

RY

WB

004

Bore

RY

WB

001

Extremely weathered profile developed on all bedrock types to depths of at least 20m; locally absent; may also locally extend at depth down favourable horizons

Channel flow in creeks

Bore

RY

WB

003

Bore

RY

WB

005

Outcropping less weathered bedrock

Water table is a subdued replica of the land surface

Water table is a subdued replica of the land surface

Clay soils and weathering profile (low permeability)






27

C C W

C C W

Component Units Reasonable value or

range of values for the Riley Creek Project

Remarks, and/or field monitoring or testing to refine range of values

Precipitation mm/year 2,000 Maintain weather station at Mt. Lindsay

Surface runoff (overland flow) mm/year 1,000 to 1,200 Estimate from effective rain method (eg Table 2). Also conduct stream gauging on Riley Creek and nearby watercourses during water sampling events.

Surface evaporation mm/year

750

Maintain weather station at Mt. Lindsay

Transpiration from vegetation mm/year Estimate from published data for Pieman River catchment

Direct groundwater recharge mm/year 200 Rain which infiltrates uniformly to the water table. Assume about 10% of precipitation, but check against water table data loggers in monitoring bores.

Macropore (“preferential”) recharge KL or ML per rain event

Rain which infiltrates preferentially through joints, clay fractures, root holes, etc rather than via uniform vertical percolation. Estimate from soil texture and near surface joint distribution in drill core

Depth to water table metre 0 to 20m Digital data loggers are recording water level depths and fluctuations

Surface storage megalitre minor From effective rain estimates (eg Table 2)

Groundwater inflow to the system ML 0 to 50 Estimate from numeric modelling at Mt. Lindsay

Groundwater outflow from the system ML 400 to 500 Estimate from numeric modelling at Mt. Lindsay

Groundwater recharge from streams mm/year 0 to 50 Estimate from stream gauging. Seasonally variable

Groundwater discharge to streams (baseflow)

mm/year 0 to 50 Estimate from stream base flow. Seasonally variable

Groundwater extraction from bores ML Insignificant No extraction planned

Evaporation from shallow water tables mm/year Potentially significant Estimate from numeric modelling at Mt. Lindsay

Vertical leakage between aquifers mm/year Not applicable? Probably only one aquifer is present

Unconfined aquifer hydraulic conductivity

m/day 0.01 to 0.05 Based on hydraulic conductivity testing of two bores

Unconfined aquifer specific yield % volume 1 to 3 Estimated from hydraulic conductivity testing

Groundwater flow to open pits ML/day Minor. Depends on pit location close to

watercourses

Estimate from aquifer testing

Table 7. Reasonable estimates for some components of the hydrogeological water

balance for Riley






28

C C W

C C W

REFERENCES

Brown, A. V. (1989). Eo-Cambrian – Cambrian Ultramafic Rocks, in Burrett, C. F. and Martin, E. L. (Eds). Geology and Mineral Resources of Tasmania. Special Publication 15, Geological Society of Australia Inc. pp71 – 74.

Cook, P., Staffacher, M., Therrien, T., Halihan, R., Richardson, P., Williams, P. and Bradford, A. (2001). Groundwater recharge and discharge in a saline urban catchment; Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. CSIRO Land and Water Technical report 39/01 Cromer, W. C. (2011a). Hydrogeological report, Mt. Lindsay Project. Unpublished report for Venture Minerals Ltd. by William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd., 27 June 2011; 50pp. Cromer, W. C. (2011b). Hydrogeological report, Stanley River Project. Unpublished report for Venture Minerals Ltd. by William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd., 2 August 2011; 36pp. Hocking, et al. (2011). Mt. Lindsay: Groundwater model (Version 1.0). Unpublished report for Venture Minerals by Hocking et. al. Pty. Ltd. Hydro Geo Environmental Services, December 2011. Sophocleous, M., (2004). Groundwater recharge, in Groundwater, [Eds. Luis Silveira, Stefan Wohnlich and Eduardo J. Usunoff] in Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [www.eolss.net)

Venture Minerals Ltd – Riley Hydrogeological Report

ATTACHMENT 1: GROUNDWATER PRINCIPLES 14 June 2012




29

C C W

C C W

ATTACHMENT 1 (5 pages including this page)

Groundwater principles






30

C C W

C C W

Origin of groundwater

All earth’s water was formed deep underground by magmatic processes, and has over geological time been released at the surface and on ocean floors by volcanism. The mechanism continues today. With the exception of this ‘new’ water, all groundwater is derived from that part of precipitation which, after surface runoff and evaporation, infiltrates the soil. Some of the infiltrating water is transpired by plants, some is drawn upward by capillary action and evaporated, and some remains indefinitely in microscopic voids in the soil profile. During and after continuous and wetting rain, the remainder infiltrates downwards, intermittently and successively saturating the material through which it passes, until the water reaches the zone of saturation. Here, the soil or rock voids (openings) are completely filled with water. The water is then called groundwater, and the upper surface of the zone of saturation is known as the water table. The water table is usually a subdued replica of the land surface, being almost flat under gently undulating ground and deeper and sloping under hills. The proportion of rain infiltrating into the soil is very variable, ranging from a few percent on steep, rocky slopes, to perhaps 50% or more in sandy or gravelly areas with little runoff. The proportion also changes seasonally, and infiltration would be expected to be a maximum when evaporation is least – at night in winter. Of the water which enters the soil, only a fraction avoids transpiration or retention in soil voids, and infiltrates to the water table. Groundwater is therefore a part of the general hydrological cycle, and is directly related to the surface movement of water.

Unconfined and confined aquifers

An aquifer is a body of rock, or unconsolidated material such as sand, capable of supplying useful amounts of groundwater. An aquifer has two purposes: it stores, and transmits, groundwater. The relative importance of each function is determined by the nature of each aquifer. Some aquifers (eg hard sandstone) may store only a small amount of water in a network of thin fractures, but might transmit it freely, and remain reliable suppliers, if the fractures are sufficiently interconnected. Other materials like fine-grained and porous clays may contain larger amounts of water, but yield only small amounts because the water is not transmitted easily through their microscopic voids. Aquifers may be unconfined, confined or semi-confined. An unconfined or water table aquifer exists in unconsolidated sediments or hard, fractured rock whenever the water table is in contact with air at atmospheric pressure. Unconfined aquifers therefore receive recharge from infiltrating rain over their full areal extent. Groundwater in a bore tapping an unconfined aquifer is encountered at the level of the water table. A bore drilled into an unconfined fractured rock aquifer may remain dry to depths below the water table if no water-bearing fractures are intersected

1, but once they are, the water will rise to the level

of the water table. Since fractured rock aquifers are largely solid, dry rock separated by a network of fractures, it is possible for two bores side by side to yield different amounts of water, or either or both might remain dry. A confined aquifer is a saturated, permeable zone bounded above and below by relatively impermeable materials (rock or soil). The zone therefore cannot receive recharge by directly infiltrating rain, but must get it from a recharge area elsewhere, where the permeable zone is exposed at the land surface, and where at least local unconfined conditions exist. The infiltrating groundwater in the zone of recharge moves crossgradient or downgradient beneath the confining impermeable layer. The water in confined zones of aquifers is therefore not in contact with the atmosphere, and is at a pressure greater than atmospheric. Water in bores tapping confined aquifers rises up the bore under pressure, and may overflow at the land surface. If the water in the bore rises above the land surface (so that groundwater flows without the need for a pump), the groundwater (and the bore) are said to be artesian. If the groundwater rises but not sufficiently for the bore to flow, the groundwater is sub-artesian. A semi-confined aquifer receives vertical groundwater leakage from a higher aquifer down via a semi-permeable (rather than impermeable zone) zone separating them. It is possible for an aquifer to be unconfined in one part of it, confined in another, and semi-confined elsewhere. The zone of confinement or semi-confinement may be relatively small, so that locally the aquifer behaves in a confined manner, but on a broader scale, unconfined conditions dominate. An example is a fractured hard rock aquifer where water is contained only within joints and similar defects

1At this local scale, groundwater conditions are confined.






31

C C W

C C W

which extend and are open to the land surface, separated by impermeable rock where no water is present. The water in the joints is unconfined. Drilling through the rock produces no water, which is only struck (and which rises to the level of the water table) when a water bearing fracture is intersected.

Storage capabilities of fractured rock aquifers

Groundwater in fractured rock aquifers is stored in fractures within the rock mass. Usually, the volume of fractures as a proportion of the rock mass is low, and commonly less than a few percent. These aquifers therefore often have low storage capabilities, in comparison to unconsolidated aquifers like coastal sands. In these materials, the water is stored in voids between the sand grains, and the voids are interconnected (ie the aquifer is intergranular). The voids may constitute from 25% to 35% of the volume of sand (ie the porosity, θ, of the sand is 25% to 35%, or 0.25 to 0.35 expressed as a fraction). Each cubic metre of saturated sand below the water table therefore contains 250L to 350L of groundwater.

Primary and secondary porosity

The voids between sand grains in a coastal sand body, or the vesicles in otherwise hard basalt, for example, constitute primary porosity, because they were formed at the same time as the sand was deposited, or the basalt flowed as lava. As the sand becomes progressively cemented and consolidated in the process of becoming hard rock, the primary porosity is reduced. Most hard rocks have very little remaining primary porosity. However, if the hard rock becomes fractured and otherwise jointed, the fractures constitute secondary porosity.

Groundwater gradient

Groundwater is rarely stationary. It moves in response to gravity, and hydrostatic and lithostatic pressures, from recharge areas to discharge zones. Discharge occurs wherever the water table intersects the land surface in springs, swamps, rivers and the sea, provided the water table slopes towards the feature. If the water table is lower than the feature, water may flow from the spring or river to the groundwater body. The slope of the water table is called the water table gradient

2, which determines

the direction and rate at which groundwater moves. The greater the gradient, the more rapid the flow. Groundwater usually flows in the direction of steepest gradient.

Aquifer hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity

Hydraulic conductivity (symbol K) is a measure of how readily an aquifer transmits water, and is defined as the rate at which groundwater will flow from a unit area (eg one square metre) of aquifer under a unit gradient (ie the gradient is 1). It is expressed as cubic metres per day per square metre (m

3/day/m

2,

which reduces to m/day). Permeabilities of fractured rock aquifers are a function of the intensity of fracturing, their openness, and the degree to which they interconnect. Since these features are often very variable, hydraulic conductivity also varies widely. Typical ranges for fractured, hard rock might be 0.01 – 100m/day. Transmissivity (T) is defined as the product of hydraulic conductivity and saturated aquifer thickness, and is therefore the rate at which groundwater will flow from a vertical, one-metre wide strip of the aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient.

Fundamentals of groundwater occurrence and movement Figure 1.1 illustrates different components of the land-based part of the hydrological cycle

3 at the scale of

a single catchment or smaller. The fundamentals of groundwater movement in an unconfined4, fractured-

2 The gradient is usually expressed as the difference in elevation of the water table between two points, divided by the

distance between them. For example, a fall of one metre in water table elevation over a horizontal distance of 50 metres is a gradient of 1:50 (ie 0.02, expressed as a fraction). 3 The hydrological cycle is the circulation of water in various phases through the atmosphere, over and under the

earth’s surface, to the oceans, and back to the atmosphere. The cycle is solar-powered. Because water is a solvent it dissolves elements, and geochemistry is a fundamental part of the cycle, which is a flux for water, energy, and chemicals. Water enters the land-based cycle as precipitation; it leaves as surface streamflow (runoff) or evapotranspiration. The route which groundwater takes from a recharge point to a discharge point is a flow path.






32

C C W

C C W

rock, gravity-driven groundwater system expected to be present at Riley are depicted schematically in Figure 1.2. In Figure 1.2, the hydraulic heads in the recharge areas are relatively high and decrease with depth. In discharge areas, the energy and flow conditions are reversed: heads are low and increase with depth. In between, the throughflow is almost horizontal as shown by the steeply dipping equipotential lines. Figure 1.2 also illustrates the concept of a groundwater system

5 – fundamental to understanding practical

problems like open pit mining, or the surface mining proposed at Riley. Given the relatively subdued relief of the area, it can be expected that the near-surface dominant groundwater flows to depths of the order of a few tens of metres or so will be as local systems, with recharge on elevated areas discharging to streams like Riley Creek. However, at greater depths (well below likely mining depths) the dominant groundwater flows will become increasingly intermediate and then regional in nature. It is therefore important to recognise the local site in the context of the larger groundwater system.

Volume of groundwater flow

The groundwater flow through a unit area (eg one square metre) of an aquifer is determined by the aquifer hydraulic conductivity and the water table gradient, and is calculated from Darcy’s Law: Flow = hydraulic conductivity x gradient.

Rate of groundwater travel

The rate at which groundwater travels through an aquifer is determined by the aquifer hydraulic conductivity, the water table gradient, and the aquifer porosity (expressed as a fraction). Rate of flow = hydraulic conductivity x gradient ⁄ effective porosity

6.

4 Locally (outcrop size or larger), the aquifer is probably confined by unjointed rock or clay weathering products or

both. At increasing larger scales, the aquifer is unconfined. 5 Sophocleous (2004) cited in Figure 11 defines a groundwater system as “a set of groundwater flow paths with

common recharge and discharge areas. Flow systems are dependent on the hydrogeologic properties of the soil/rock material, and landscape position. Areas of steep or undulating relief tend to have dominant local flow systems (discharging to nearby topographic lows such as ponds and streams). Areas of gently sloping or nearly flat relief tend to have dominant regional flow systems (discharging at much greater distances than local systems in major topographic lows or oceans).” A three-dimensional closed groundwater flow system that contains all the flow paths is called the groundwater basin. 6 For example, if the aquifer permeability is 2m

3/day/m

2, the gradient is 0.01 and the effective porosity is 0.1, the rate

of flow would be 2 x 0.01 ⁄ 0.1 = 0.2m/day.

Figure 1.1. Aspects of the land-based hydrological cycle.

Channel flow

Riley Creek (Channel flow)

Overland flow

Streamflow

Precipitation

Evapotranspiration

Unsaturated zone

Water table

Infiltration

Groundwater recharge

Groundwater flow system

Equipotential line

Flow line

Saturated zone

Groundwater discharge






33

C C W

C C W

Groundwater quality Groundwater acquires soluble matter from the aquifer in which it is stored, and through which it moves. Generally, the longer the water remains in the aquifer, the more soluble constituents it acquires, and the poorer its quality. So, other things being equal, aquifers with relatively high hydraulic conductivity tend to have better quality water than low hydraulic conductivity aquifers. Also, other things being equal, better quality groundwater is found in aquifers in high rainfall areas, where groundwater recharges the aquifer more frequently, and aquifers are “flushed” more often. In shallow unconfined aquifers, it is usual to find better quality groundwater near the water table where direct infiltration of rain has occurred. Quality typically decreases with depth. A common measure of groundwater quality (‘salinity’) is its Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/L; essentially the same as the older measure, parts per million, ppm). Typical TDS ranges of waters are: TDS (mg/L) Tasmanian rain <50 Tasmanian river water <100 Drinking water starts to have ‘taste’ 250 – 500 Generally accepted desirable upper limit for drinking water 1,000 Range of commercially available mineral waters 100 – 1,500 Groundwater in coastal sands 450 – 800 Sea water 34,000

Regional system

Intermediate system

recharge discharge

discharge

discharge

recharge

recharge

discharge

Lake

Local system

Flow line

Flow line

Equipotential line

pH increases

Eh+

Eh-

Eh+ Hydraulic head high and decreasing with

depth

Salinity increases

Moisture deficiency

Moisture

surplus

Cl +ΔT

-ΔT SO4

Eh+, Eh-

-ΔT, +ΔT

Quasi-stagnant zone: increased salinity

Hydraulic trap: accumulation of transported matter and heat

Redox conditions: oxidising, reducing

Geothermal temperature and gradient anomaly: negative, positive

HCO3

Figure 1.2. Fundamentals of groundwater hydrology in a gravity-driven groundwater system like Riley. Adapted from Sophocleous (2004)

Hydraulic head low and increasing with

depth Throughflow

A B

Groundwater conditions at recharge point A

In recharge areas (at left), the hydraulic heads are relatively high and decrease with depth, as shown by the water levels in two adjacent piezometers. In discharge areas (at right), the energy and flow conditions are reversed: heads are low and increase with depth.

Groundwater conditions at discharge point B

Land surface Land surface


ATTACHMENT 2: LAB REPORTS, SURFACE WATER SAMPLING 14 June 2012




34

C C W

C C W


Surface water sampling event at Riley Transmittal form and laboratory report

Analytical Services Tasmania report 53835 (4) Sampled: 2 May 2012

Received at AST lab 4 May 2012 AST final report dated 7 June 2012






35

C C W

C C W






36

C C W

C C W






37

C C W

C C W






38

C C W

C C W






39

C C W

C C W






40

C C W

C C W






41

C C W

C C W


ATTACHMENT 3: TABLES OF SURFACE WATER ANALYSES 14 June 2012




42

C C W

C C W


Tables of surface water analyses






43

C C W

C C W

Locations of surface water sampling points

RYWS1 Three Mile Creek, 20m N of its confluence with the larger Trinder Creek, and downstream of proposed mining operations in Area A

RYWS2 Riley Creek, 50m N of its confluence with the larger Trinder Creek, and downstream of proposed mining operations in Areas A and B

RYWS3 Trinder Creek, 20m upstream of its confluence with Riley Creek, and downstream of proposed mining operations in Area C

RYWS4 Sweeney Creek where it crosses under the Pieman Road, and downstream of proposed mining operations in Area D. Includes catchment of Gold Creek.

RYWS5 Trinder Creek upstream of proposed mining operations in Area C.






44

C C W

C C W

RYSW1Three Mile Creek downstream (20m N of confluence with Trinder Creek)Easting (GDA94) 367010mE

Northing (GDA94) 5376770mN

Elevation (approx) 175mASL

Event 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sampling date 2/5/12 Duplicate

Time 1315 of

Lab report # 53835 2/5/12Sampler WCCPL WCCPL

Field parameters

Flow L/sec 10 10

Flow m/sec

pH 7.4 7.4

EC µS/cm 196 196

Eh mV 26 26

DO mg/L 12.0 12.0

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.3 10.3

Lab results

pH 7.2 7.5

EC µS/cm 217 217

TDS mg/L 116 116

TSS mg/L 2 <1

Colour apparent CU 28 29

Colour true CU 13 15

Turbidity NTU


Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2 <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 78 79


Acidity mgCaCO3/L <3 <3

Chloride mg/L 17.7 17.8

Sulphate mg/L 3.2 3.1

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.002 0.002

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.052 0.052

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002 <0.002

Total N mg-N/L 0.15 0.19

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.007 0.006

Total P mg-P/L 0.010 0.009

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5


Al dissolved µg/L 17 16

Al total µg/L 59 62

As dissolved µg/L <1 <1

As total µg/L <1 <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 1.29 1.29


Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1 <0.1


Co dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Co total µg/L <0.5 0.6

Cr dissolved µg/L 4 4

Cr total µg/L 6 6

Cu dissolved µg/L <1 <1

Cu total µg/L 1 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 117 102

Fe total µg/L 256 306

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05


K dissolved mg/L 0.33 0.31


Mg dissolved mg/L 19.4 19.3


Mn dissolved µg/L 7.9 7.9

Mn total µg/L 11.0 12.1

Na dissolved mg/L 9.66 9.59


Ni dissolved µg/L 44.2 43.6

Ni total µg/L 48.4 50.5

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Pb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5 <5


Sn dissolved* µg/L <1 <1

Sn total* µg/L <1 <1

W dissolved* µg/L <1 <1


Zn dissolved µg/L 5 2

Zn total µg/L 5 5

TPH µg/L <40 <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10

TPH C10-C14 µg/L <10 <10

TPH C15-C28 µg/L <10 <10

TPH C29-C36 µg/L <10 <10


Venture Minerals Limited

Riley

Surface water monitoring






45

C C W

C C W

RYSW2Riley Creek downstream (50m upstream from Trinder Creek confluence)Easting (GDA94) 367470mE



Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sampling date 2/5/12

Time 1145

Lab report # 53835Sampler WCCPL

Field parameters

Flow L/sec 35

Flow m/sec

pH 7.6

EC µS/cm 190

Eh mV 50

DO mg/L 12.1

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.4

Lab results

pH 7.8

EC µS/cm 199

TDS mg/L 111

TSS mg/L <1

Colour apparent CU 12

Colour true CU 1

Turbidity NTU


Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 74


Acidity mgCaCO3/L <3

Chloride mg/L 16.0

Sulphate mg/L 2.4

Ammonia mg-N/L <0.002

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.016

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002

Total N mg-N/L 0.06

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.004

Total P mg-P/L <0.005

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5

Ag total µg/L <0.5

Al dissolved µg/L 7

Al total µg/L 20

As dissolved µg/L <1

As total µg/L <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 0.53

Ca total mg/L 0.52

Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1

Cd total µg/L <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L 0.7

Co total µg/L 1.3

Cr dissolved µg/L 4

Cr total µg/L 6

Cu dissolved µg/L 1

Cu total µg/L 1

Fe dissolved µg/L <20

Fe total µg/L 147

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05

Hg total µg/L <0.05

K dissolved mg/L 0.16

K total mg/L 0.26

Mg dissolved mg/L 18.8

Mg total mg/L 19.1

Mn dissolved µg/L 5.3

Mn total µg/L 7.4

Na dissolved mg/L 9.24

Na total mg/L 9.70

Ni dissolved µg/L 104

Ni total µg/L 111

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5

Pb total µg/L <0.5

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5

Se total µg/L <5

Sn dissolved* µg/L <1

Sn total* µg/L <1

W dissolved* µg/L <1

W total* µg/L <1

Zn dissolved µg/L 3

Zn total µg/L 3

TPH µg/L <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10






Riley







46

C C W

C C W

RYSW3Trinder Creek downstream (20m upstream from Riley Creek confluence)Easting (GDA94) 367445mE



Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 1120


Field parameters

Flow L/sec 80

Flow m/sec

pH 7.7

EC µS/cm 135

Eh mV 72

DO mg/L 12.1

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.0

Lab results

pH 7.6

EC µS/cm 150

TDS mg/L 112

TSS mg/L 3


Colour true CU 283

Turbidity NTU






Chloride mg/L 15.3

Sulphate mg/L 2.0

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.010

Nitrate mg-N/L <0.002

Nitrite mg-N/L 0.006

Total N mg-N/L 0.45


Total P mg-P/L 0.009


Ag total µg/L <0.5


Al total µg/L 325


As total µg/L <1


Ca total mg/L 0.83


Cd total µg/L <0.1


Co total µg/L 1.5


Cr total µg/L 9


Cu total µg/L 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 326

Fe total µg/L 605




K total mg/L 0.25


Mg total mg/L 13.2


Mn total µg/L 15.3


Na total mg/L 8.92

Ni dissolved µg/L 42.4

Ni total µg/L 48.5


Pb total µg/L <0.5


Sb total µg/L <0.5


Se total µg/L <5


Sn total* µg/L <1


W total* µg/L <1


Zn total µg/L 5

TPH µg/L <40







Riley







47

C C W

C C W

RYSW4Sweeney Creek downstream (1m upstream from S end of culvert beneath Pieman Road crossing)Easting (GDA94) 368730mE



Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 1700


Field parameters

Flow L/sec 20

Flow m/sec

pH 7.2

EC µS/cm 202

Eh mV 56

DO mg/L 12.9

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 9.9

Lab results

pH 7.5

EC µS/cm 218

TDS mg/L 126

TSS mg/L 2


Colour true CU 69

Turbidity NTU





Acidity mgCaCO3/L 4

Chloride mg/L 16.4

Sulphate mg/L 3.5


Nitrate mg-N/L <0.002


Total N mg-N/L 0.22




Ag total µg/L <0.5


Al total µg/L 163


As total µg/L <1


Ca total mg/L 0.62


Cd total µg/L <0.1


Co total µg/L 2.3


Cr total µg/L 6


Cu total µg/L 2


Fe total µg/L 868




K total mg/L 0.32


Mg total mg/L 21.3


Mn total µg/L 25.0


Na total mg/L 9.47


Ni total µg/L 80.9


Pb total µg/L <0.5


Sb total µg/L <0.5


Se total µg/L <5


Sn total* µg/L <1


W total* µg/L <1


Zn total µg/L 11

TPH µg/L <40







Riley







48

C C W

C C W

RYSW5Trinder Creek upstream; 1,500m bearing 82

0 from Riley Creek confluence

Easting (GDA94) 368940mE



Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 1500


Field parameters

Flow L/sec 13

Flow m/sec

pH 7.5

EC µS/cm 296

Eh mV 90

DO mg/L 11.5

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.6

Lab results

pH 7.7

EC µS/cm 378

TDS mg/L 190

TSS mg/L <1


Colour true CU 21

Turbidity NTU





Acidity mgCaCO3/L 3

Chloride mg/L 15.5

Sulphate mg/L 2.0

Ammonia mg-N/L <0.002



Total N mg-N/L 0.10




Ag total µg/L <0.5

Al dissolved µg/L <5

Al total µg/L 10


As total µg/L <1


Ca total mg/L 0.46


Cd total µg/L <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L <0.5

Co total µg/L 0.7


Cr total µg/L 5

Cu dissolved µg/L <1

Cu total µg/L <1


Fe total µg/L 178




K total mg/L 0.19


Mg total mg/L 42.1


Mn total µg/L 4.1


Na total mg/L 8.94


Ni total µg/L 89.9


Pb total µg/L <0.5


Sb total µg/L <0.5


Se total µg/L <5


Sn total* µg/L <1


W total* µg/L <1


Zn total µg/L 3

TPH µg/L <40







Riley







49

C C W

C C W

All Riley Sites for initial sampling event of 2 May 2012

RYWS1 RYSW1 RYSW2 RYSW3 RYSW4 RYSW5

367010mE 367010mE 367470mE 367445mE 368730mE 368940mE

5376770mN 5376770mN 5376550mN 5376510mN 5379000mN 5376755mN

175mASL 175mASL 182mASL 180mASL 200mASL 220mASL

Sampling date 2/5/12 Duplicate 2/5/12 2/5/12 2/5/12 2/5/12

Time 1315 of 1145 1120 1700 1500

Lab report # 53835 2/5/12 53835 53835 53835 53835

Sampler WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL Min Max Average

Field parameters

Flow L/sec 10 10 35 80 20 13 10 80 28

Flow m/sec

pH 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.7 7.5

EC µS/cm 196 196 190 135 202 296 135 296 203

Eh mV 26 26 50 72 56 90 26 90 53

DO mg/L 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.9 11.5 12 13 12

Turbidity NTU

Temperature 0C 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.0 9.9 10.6 9.9 10.6 10.3

Lab results

pH 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.8 7.6

EC µS/cm 217 217 199 150 218 378 150 378 230

TDS mg/L 116 116 111 112 126 190 111 190 129

TSS mg/L 2 <1 <1 3 2 <1 <1 3 2

Colour apparent CU 28 29 12 322 78 24 12 322 82

Colour true CU 13 15 1 283 69 21 1 283 67

Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 78 79 74 48 80 168 48 168 88


Acidity mgCaCO3/L <3 <3 <3 <3 4 3 <3 4

Chloride mg/L 17.7 17.8 16.0 15.3 16.4 15.5 15 18 16

Sulphate mg/L 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.0 3.5 2.0 2 4 3

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.010 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.010

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.052 0.052 0.016 <0.002 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 0.052

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.006 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.006

Total N mg-N/L 0.15 0.19 0.06 0.45 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.45

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.007

Total P mg-P/L 0.010 0.009 <0.005 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.010

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ag total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Al dissolved µg/L 17 16 7 214 57 <5 7 214 62

Al total µg/L 59 62 20 325 163 10 10 325 107

As dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

As total µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 1.29 1.29 0.53 0.85 0.55 0.47 0.47 1.29 0.83

Ca total mg/L 1.31 1.35 0.52 0.83 0.62 0.46 0.46 1.35 0.85

Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cd total µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.80 0.70

Co total µg/L <0.5 0.6 1.3 1.5 2.3 0.7 <0.5 2.3 1.3

Cr dissolved µg/L 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 4

Cr total µg/L 6 6 6 9 6 5 5 9 6

Cu dissolved µg/L <1 <1 1 1 1 <1 <1 1 1

Cu total µg/L 1 1 1 1 2 <1 <1 2 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 117 102 <20 326 245 <20 <20 326 198

Fe total µg/L 256 306 147 605 868 178 147 868 393

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Hg total µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

K dissolved mg/L 0.33 0.31 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.16 0.2 0.3 0.2

K total mg/L 0.41 0.46 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.19 0.2 0.5 0.3

Mg dissolved mg/L 19.4 19.3 18.8 13.0 21.0 41.3 13 41 22

Mg total mg/L 19.6 20.2 19.1 13.2 21.3 42.1 13 42 23

Mn dissolved µg/L 7.9 7.9 5.3 6.4 8.5 2.2 2 9 6

Mn total µg/L 11.0 12.1 7.4 15.3 25.0 4.1 4 25 12

Na dissolved mg/L 9.66 9.59 9.24 8.73 9.33 8.76 9 10 9

Na total mg/L 9.71 10.2 9.70 8.92 9.47 8.94 9 10 9

Ni dissolved µg/L 44.2 43.6 104 42.4 65.6 80.9 42 104 63

Ni total µg/L 48.4 50.5 111 48.5 80.9 89.9 48 111 72

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Pb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Se total µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Sn dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Sn total* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

W dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

W total* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Zn dissolved µg/L 5 2 3 4 8 2 2 8 4

Zn total µg/L 5 5 3 5 11 3 3 11 5

TPH µg/L <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C10-C14 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C15-C28 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C29-C36 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



Riley



ATTACHMENT 4: MONITORING BORE LOGS AND SLUG TESTING 14 June 2012




50 C C W

C C W

Summary of monitoring bores

Hole ID RYWB001 RYWB002 RYWB003 RYWB004 RYWB005

Easting (GDA94) 368532 367708 367706 368283 367380

Northing (GDA94) 5378761 5377096 5377096 5377671 5376828

Date drilled 17-Apr-12 18-Apr-12 19-Apr-12 14-May-12 15-May-12

Collar elevation (mASL) 210 220 220 270 200

Depth (mbg) drilled 12.5 23.1 4.4 18.0 23.0

Estimated yield on drilling (L/sec) 0.04 0.03 dry <0.01 0.03

Standing water level on completion (mbg) 5.3 8.9 dry 15.6 ND

Screened interval (mbg) 9 – 12 16.5 – 19.5 1 – 4 12 – 15 19 – 22

Permeability (slug) tests 4 5 None None None

Slug test interval (mbg) 9 – 12 16.5 – 19.5

Photos of drill returns Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Returns retained No Yes No Yes Yes

Field water quality tested No Yes No Yes Yes

Water sample analysed? Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Water level data logger installed? Yes Yes No Yes Yes

mbg = metres below ground


Groundwater monitoring bores Logs, photographs and slug (hydraulic conductivity) test results






51 C C W

C C W

RYWB001

Location of groundwater monitoring bore RYWB001, near electricity transmission line, April 2012.

Bore RYWB001

Location of groundwater monitoring bore RYWB001 (large red circle). Base map: www.thelist.tas.gov.au






52 C C W

C C W

Hydrogeology borehole log ID RYWB001

Sheet 1 of 1

Project VENTURE MINERALS LTD RILEY Location Approx. 15m S of transmission line

Coordinates

RL

Datum

Inclination

Bearing

Drill type

Equipment

Drill fluid(s)

Hole started

Hole finished

Drilled by

Logged by

Checked by

Materials Soil/rock type, colour, plasticity or particle characteristics, secondary

and minor components

Groundwater quality

Metres

Dep

th

Gra

phic

log

Air lifte

d flo

w

(L/s

ec)

Penetr

ation

Structure, geology and interpretation

Completion details

Casin

g

S

cre

en

G

ravel

S

eal

RL

William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd. Environmental, engineering and groundwater geologists

min

ute

/m

EC

(µS

/cm

)

Cuttin

gs s

ize

(m

m)

Weather -ing

Slig

ht

Mod

Hig

h

Soil

pH

O

RP

(mV

)

D

O

Mg

/L

T

(0C

) C

olo

ur

(descri

ptive

)

Reac

tio

n

to 1

0%

HC

L

Ma

gn

et’

m

Of cutt

ings

None

S

light

Mod

Rapid

Hig

h

Mod

Slig

ht

None

17 April 2012

17 April 2012

Igor Pelka (NTL Drilling)

M. Hocking

W. Cromer

368532mE; 5378761mN

GDA94

Vertical

Approx. 210mASL

GEMCO H22

150mm solid auger; 114mm hammer Atlas Copco 1350/350 comp

Air; hammer oil lubricant

2

4

6

8

10

Water struck approx. 6m

Clayey SAND: yellowish orange

Ordovician Gordon Limestone Formation (extremely weathered sandstone and siltstone)

SWL 3 May 2012 = 4.7mbg

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Auger

Hammer

Casin

g:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

thre

aded join

ts

EOH at 12.5mbg

Scre

en:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

facto

ry-s

lott

ed 0

.4m

m

Gra

vel: s

cre

ened

2-7

mm

rounded q

uart

zite

Seal: B

ento

nite p

elle

ts

All

drill

retu

rns e

xhib

ited s

oil

pro

pert

ies.

No r

ock c

hip

s

Silty clayey SAND: greyish orange

Sandy clayey SILT: greyish orange; grading to clayey SILT: cream orange and grey

Insu

ffic

ien

t flo

w to

te

st

Casin

g s

tick-u

p =

0.5

8m

Ele

ctr

onic

wate

r le

vel data

logger

insta

lled 1

5 M

ay 2

012






53 C C W

C C W

12.5m EOH

0 – 1m

RYWB001 Drill returns

1 – 2m

2 – 3m

3 – 4m

4 – 5m

5 – 6m

11 – 12m

10 – 11m

9 – 10m

8 – 9m

6 – 7m

7 – 8m

Scre

ene

d a

nd

pe

rmea

bili

ty

teste

d inte

rva

l 9 –

12

m






54 C C W

C C W

RYWB001 Permeability testing of screened interval 9 – 12m (4 tests)

Hydraulic conductivity = 1.0 x 10-5

m/s

= 0.9 m/day






55 C C W

C C W

Hydraulic conductivity = 2.08 x10-6

m/s

= 0.2m/day






56 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 1m/day






57 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 0.2m/day






58 C C W

C C W

RYWB002 and RYWB003

Bore RYWB002


Location of groundwater monitoring bores RYWB002 and RYWB003 (1.5m apart), looking south

from main access road.






59 C C W

C C W


Sheet 1 of 1

Project VENTURE MINERALS LTD RILEY Location On main access track

Coordinates

RL

Datum

Inclination

Bearing

Drill type

Equipment

Drill fluid(s)

Hole started

Hole finished

Drilled by

Logged by

Checked by



Groundwater quality

Metres

Dep

th

Gra

phic

log

Air lifte

d flo

w

(L/s

ec)

Penetr

ation


Completion details

Casin

g

S

cre

en

G

ravel

S

eal

RL


min

ute

/m

EC

(µS

/cm

)

Cuttin

gs s

ize

(m

m)

Weather -ing

Slig

ht

Mod

Hig

h

Soil

pH

O

RP

(mV

)

D

O

mg

/L

T

(0C

) C

olo

ur

(descri

ptive

)

Reac

tio

n

to 1

0%

HC

L

Ma

gn

et’

m

Of cutt

ings

None

S

light

Mod

Rapid

Hig

h

Mod

Slig

ht

None

18 April 2012

18 April 2012


M. Hocking

W. Cromer

367708mE; 5377096mN

GDA94

Vertical

Approx. 220mASL

GEMCO H22

150mm solid auger; 114mm blade bit Atlas Copco 1350/350 comp

Air; water added from 10m

2

4

6

8

10

CLAY: dark orange to reddish brown; strongly ferruginous 0 – 2m; becoming less so with depth, and non- ferruginous below about 6m

Cambrian Wilson River Ultramafic Complex (extremely weathered and serpentinised ultramafics with ferruginous capping)

SWL 0900hrs 19 April 2012 = 10.7mbg

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Auger

Blade bit

Casin

g:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

thre

aded join

ts

EOH at 23.1mbg

Scre

en:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

facto

ry-s

lott

ed 0

.4m

m

Gra

vel: s

cre

ened

2-7

mm

rounded q

uart

zite

Seal: B

ento

nite p

elle

ts

All

drill

retu

rns e

xhib

ited s

oil

pro

pert

ies.

No r

ock c

hip

s

Insufficient flow to test during drilling

Casin

g s

tick-u

p =

0.6

4m

CLAY: orange brown (greyish brown 12-18m); high plasticity

Water struck approx. 10+m

Field parameters measured during sampling from 20m depth

on 2 May 2012

5.5

185

12.5

7.3

80

Ele

ctr

onic

wate

r le

vel data

logger

insta

lled 1

5 M

ay 2

012






60 C C W

C C W

0 – 1m

1 – 2m

2 – 3m

3 – 4m

4 – 5m

5 – 6m

11 – 12m

10 – 11m

9 – 10m

8 – 9m

6 – 7m

7 – 8m

12 – 13m

13 – 14m

14 – 15m

15 – 16m

16 – 17m

17 – 18m

18 – 19m

19 – 20m

20 – 21m

21 – 22m

22 – 23m

23.1m EOH

Scre

ene

d a

nd

pe

rmea

bili

ty

teste

d inte

rva

l 19

.5 –

22.5

m

RYWB002 Drill returns (unwashed, unsieved)






61 C C W

C C W

RYWB002 Permeability testing of screened interval 19.5 – 22.5m (5 tests)


m/s

= 0.01m/day






62 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 0.01m/day






63 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 0.03m/day






64 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 0.01m/day






65 C C W

C C W


m/s

= 0.03m/day






66 C C W

C C W

RYWB002 and RYWB003

Location of groundwater monitoring bores RYWB002 and RYWB003 (1.5m apart), looking south

from main access road.

Bore RYWB003







67 C C W

C C W


Sheet 1 of 1

Project VENTURE MINERALS LTD RILEY Location Approx. 1.5m west of RYWB002

Coordinates

RL

Datum

Inclination

Bearing

Drill type

Equipment

Drill fluid(s)

Hole started

Hole finished

Drilled by

Logged by

Checked by



Groundwater quality

Metres

Dep

th

Gra

phic

log

Air lifte

d flo

w

(L/s

ec)

Penetr

ation


Completion details

Casin

g

S

cre

en

G

ravel

S

eal

RL


min

ute

/m

EC

(µS

/cm

)

Cuttin

gs s

ize

(m

m)

Weather -ing

Slig

ht

Mod

Hig

h

Soil

pH

O

RP

(mV

)

D

O

mg

/L

T

(0C

) C

olo

ur

(descri

ptive

)

Reac

tio

n

to 1

0%

HC

L

Ma

gn

et’

m

Of cutt

ings

None

S

light

Mod

Rapid

H

igh

M

od

Slig

ht

None

19 April 2012

19 April 2012


M. Hocking

W. Cromer

367706mE; 5377096mN

GDA94

Vertical

Approx. 220mASL

GEMCO H22

100mm solid auger;

Air; water added from 10m

2

4

6

8

10

GRAVEL and Clayey GRAVEL: dark orange to reddish brown; strongly ferruginous 0 – 2m; becoming less so with depth

Cambrian Wilson River Ultramafic Complex (ferruginous cap over extremely weathered and serpentinised ultramafics)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Casin

g:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

thre

aded join

ts

EOH at 4.4mbg

Scre

en:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

facto

ry-s

lott

ed 0

.4m

m

Gra

vel: s

cre

ened

2-7

mm

rounded q

uart

zite

Seal: B

ento

nite p

elle

ts

All

drill

retu

rns e

xhib

ited s

oil

pro

pert

ies.

No r

ock c

hip

s

Hole dry on completion of drilling

Casin

g s

tick-u

p =

0.6

9m






68 C C W

C C W

RYWB004

Location of groundwater monitoring bore RYWB004, looking north on main access road to

ridgeline

Bore RYWB004







69 C C W

C C W


Sheet 1 of 1

Project VENTURE MINERALS LTD RILEY Location On main access road, 50m west of ridge line

Coordinates

RL

Datum

Inclination

Bearing

Drill type

Equipment

Drill fluid(s)

Hole started

Hole finished

Drilled by

Logged by

Checked by



Groundwater quality

Metres

Dep

th

Gra

phic

log

Air lifte

d flo

w

(L/s

ec)

Penetr

ation


Completion details

Casin

g

S

cre

en

G

ravel

S

eal

RL


min

ute

/m

EC

(µS

/cm

)

Cuttin

gs s

ize

(m

m)

Weather -ing

Slig

ht

Mod

Hig

h

Soil

pH

O

RP

(mV

)

D

O

mg

/L

T

(0C

) C

olo

ur

(descri

ptive

)

Reac

tio

n

to 1

0%

HC

L

Ma

gn

et’

m

Of cutt

ings

None

S

light

Mod

Rapid

Hig

h

Mod

Slig

ht

None

14 May 2012

14 May 2012


W. Cromer

W. Cromer

368283mE; 5377671mN

GDA94

Vertical

Approx. 270mASL

GEMCO H22


Air

2

4

6

8

10

Gravelly clayey SILT: orange brown and olive brown; low plasticity; less gravelly below 2m; fines becoming moderately magnetic

Cambrian Wilson River Ultramafic Complex (extremely weathered and serpentinised ultramafics

SWL 0730hrs 15 May 2012 = 15.6mbg

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Auger

Blade bit

Casin

g:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

thre

aded join

ts

EOH at 18.0mbg

Scre

en:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

facto

ry-s

lott

ed 0

.4m

m

Gra

vel: s

cre

ened

2-7

mm

rounded q

uart

zite

Seal: B

ento

nite p

elle

ts

All

drill

retu

rns e

xhib

ited s

oil

pro

pert

ies.

No r

ock c

hip

s


Casin

g s

tick-u

p =

0.7

0m

Water struck approx. 3+m

Field parameter measured after completion on 15 May 2012

400

11.4

Ele

ctr

onic

wate

r le

vel data

logger

insta

lled 1

5 M

ay 2

012

SILT: orange brown; trace clay

SILTSTONE: brownish olive grey, hard; with less than 5-10% of returns magnetic

SILT: orange brown; trace clay






70 C C W

C C W

RYWB004 Drill returns (unwashed; unsieved)






71 C C W

C C W

RYWB005

Location of groundwater monitoring bore RYWB005, looking northeast

Bore RYWB005







72 C C W

C C W


Sheet 1 of 1

Project VENTURE MINERALS LTD RILEY Location On intersection of two tracks

Coordinates

RL

Datum

Inclination

Bearing

Drill type

Equipment

Drill fluid(s)

Hole started

Hole finished

Drilled by

Logged by

Checked by



Groundwater quality

Metres

Dep

th

Gra

phic

log

Air lifte

d flo

w

(L/s

ec)

Penetr

ation


Completion details

Casin

g

S

cre

en

G

ravel

S

eal

RL


min

ute

/m

EC

(µS

/cm

)

Cuttin

gs s

ize

(m

m)

Weather -ing

Slig

ht

Mod

Hig

h

Soil

pH

O

RP

(mV

)

D

O

mg

/L

T

(0C

) C

olo

ur

(descri

ptive

)

Reac

tio

n

to 1

0%

HC

L

Ma

gn

et’

m

Of cutt

ings

None

S

light

Mod

Rapid

Hig

h

Mod

Slig

ht

None

15 May 2012

15 May 2012


W. Cromer

W. Cromer

367380mE; 5376828mN

GDA94

Vertical

Approx. 200mASL

GEMCO H22


Air

2

4

6

8

10

Silty CLAY: mainly brownish yellow (yellowish brown 3-4m); high plasticity; moisture> plasticity limit; patchy light yellow and cream below 4m

Cambrian Crimson Creek Formation (extremely weathered) 2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Auger

Blade bit

Casin

g:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

thre

aded join

ts

EOH at 23.0mbg

Scre

en:

50m

m C

lass 1

8 P

VC

facto

ry-s

lott

ed 0

.4m

m

Gra

vel: s

cre

ened

2-7

mm

rounded q

uart

zite

Seal: B

ento

nite p

elle

ts

All

drill

retu

rns e

xhib

ited s

oil

pro

pert

ies.

No r

ock c

hip

s


Casin

g s

tick-u

p =

0.8

0m

Water probably struck approx. 17.5m; minor inflow

Field parameter measured during airlift on completion on

15 May 2012

70

9.3

Ele

ctr

onic

wate

r le

vel data

logger

insta

lled 1

5 M

ay 2

012

SILTSTONE: purplish brown; highly weathered (close to soil properties)

Slightly harder below 21m

6.5

-73






73 C C W

C C W

RYWB005 Drill returns (unwashed; unsieved)

20 m


ATTACHMENT 5: GROUNDWATER LAB REPORTS 14 June 2012




74

C C W

C C W


Groundwater sampling at Riley Transmittal forms and laboratory reports

Analytical Services Tasmania report 53832 (4) Sampled: 3 May 2012

Received at AST lab 3 May 2012 AST final report dated 7 June 2012

Analytical Services Tasmania report 53995 (2)

Sampled: 15 May 2012 Received at AST lab 16 May 2012 AST final report dated 7 June 2012

Bore RYWB003 was dry at the times of sampling






75

C C W

C C W






76

C C W

C C W






77

C C W

C C W






78

C C W

C C W






79

C C W

C C W






80

C C W

C C W






81

C C W

C C W






82

C C W

C C W






83

C C W

C C W






84

C C W

C C W


ATTACHMENT 6: TABLES OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES 14 June 2012




85

85

C C W

C C W


Tables of groundwater analyses






86

86

C C W

C C W

Locations of groundwater bores






87

87

C C W

C C W

RYWB001Easting (GDA94) 368532mE



Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 0812

Lab report # 53832

Sampler WCCPL

Sampling

Bore depth mbg 12.5

Standing water level mbg 5.3

Method Low flow

Volume extracted L 50

Field parameters

pH 5.2

EC µS/cm 118

Eh mV 103

DO mg/L 1.4

Temperature 0C 11.8

Lab results

pH 5.5

EC µS/cm 134

TDS mg/L 90

TSS mg/L 338

Colour apparent CU >500

Colour true CU 22

Turbidity NTU





Acidity mgCaCO3/L 88

Chloride mg/L 17.4

Sulphate mg/L 16.1




Total N mg-N/L 0.09




Ag total µg/L <0.5


Al total µg/L 5,560


As total µg/L 2


Ca total mg/L 1.14


Cd total µg/L <0.1

Co dissolved µg/L 23

Co total µg/L 29

Cr dissolved µg/L <1

Cr total µg/L 11


Cu total µg/L 6






K total mg/L 1.63


Mg total mg/L 5.40

Mn dissolved µg/L 243

Mn total µg/L 333


Na total mg/L 16.0


Ni total µg/L 27.7


Pb total µg/L 4.2


Sb total µg/L <0.5


Se total µg/L <5


Sn total* µg/L <1


W total* µg/L <1


Zn total µg/L 42

TPH µg/L <40









Riley

Groundwater monitoring






88

88

C C W

C C W




Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 1022


Sampling

Bore depth mbg 23.1


Method Low flow


Field parameters

pH 5.5

EC µS/cm 185

Eh mV 80

DO mg/L 7.7

Temperature 0C 12.5

Lab results

pH 6.1

EC µS/cm 185

TDS mg/L 107

TSS mg/L 87


Colour true CU <1

Turbidity NTU






Chloride mg/L 25.9

Sulphate mg/L 10.2




Total N mg-N/L 0.10




Ag total µg/L <0.5


Al total µg/L 891


As total µg/L <1


Ca total mg/L 1.96


Cd total µg/L <0.1


Co total µg/L 82.5


Cr total µg/L 239


Cu total µg/L 1






K total mg/L 0.38


Mg total mg/L 7.78


Mn total µg/L 365


Na total mg/L 21.6


Ni total µg/L 649


Pb total µg/L 1.1


Sb total µg/L <0.5


Se total µg/L <5


Sn total* µg/L <1


W total* µg/L <1


Zn total µg/L 13

TPH µg/L <40






WCCPL = William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd.Blank space indicates an analyte was not requested


Riley







89

89

C C W

C C W




Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Time 1025

Lab report #Sampler WCCPL

Sampling

Bore depth mbg 4.4

Standing water level mbg dry

Method

Volume extracted L

Field parameters

pH

EC µS/cm

Eh mV

DO mg/L

Temperature 0C

Lab results

pH

EC µS/cm

TDS mg/L

TSS mg/L

Colour apparent CU

Colour true CU

Turbidity NTU


Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L


Acidity mgCaCO3/L

Chloride mg/L

Sulphate mg/L

Ammonia mg-N/L

Nitrate mg-N/L

Nitrite mg-N/L

Total N mg-N/L

P dissolved mg-P/L

Total P mg-P/L

Ag dissolved µg/L

Ag total µg/L

Al dissolved µg/L

Al total µg/L

As dissolved µg/L

As total µg/L

Ca dissolved mg/L

Ca total mg/L

Cd dissolved µg/L

Cd total µg/L

Co dissolved µg/L

Co total µg/L

Cr dissolved µg/L

Cr total µg/L

Cu dissolved µg/L

Cu total µg/L

Fe dissolved µg/L

Fe total µg/L

Hg dissolved µg/L

Hg total µg/L

K dissolved mg/L

K total mg/L

Mg dissolved mg/L

Mg total mg/L

Mn dissolved µg/L

Mn total µg/L

Na dissolved mg/L

Na total mg/L

Ni dissolved µg/L

Ni total µg/L

Pb dissolved µg/L

Pb total µg/L

Sb dissolved µg/L

Sb total µg/L

Se dissolved µg/L

Se total µg/L

Sn dissolved* µg/L

Sn total* µg/L

W dissolved* µg/L

W total* µg/L

Zn dissolved µg/L

Zn total µg/L

TPH µg/L

TPH C06-C09 µg/L

TPH C10-C14 µg/L

TPH C15-C28 µg/L

TPH C29-C36 µg/L


WCCPL = William C. Cromer Pty. Ltd.Blank space indicates an analyte was not requested


Riley







90

90

C C W

C C W




Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


Time 1300


Sampling

Bore depth mbg 18.0


Method Low flow


Field parameters

pH

EC µS/cm 400

Eh mV

DO mg/L

Temperature 0C 11.4

Lab results

pH 6.8

EC µS/cm 417

TDS mg/L 290

TSS mg/L

Colour apparent CU

Colour true CU <1

Turbidity NTU




Total Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 84


Chloride mg/L 18.4

Sulphate mg/L 108




Total N mg-N/L 0.09

P dissolved mg-P/L <0.5



Ag total µg/L


Al total µg/L


As total µg/L


Ca total mg/L


Cd total µg/L


Co total µg/L


Cr total µg/L


Cu total µg/L


Fe total µg/L


Hg total µg/L


K total mg/L


Mg total mg/L

Mn dissolved µg/L <0.5

Mn total µg/L


Na total mg/L


Ni total µg/L


Pb total µg/L


Sb total µg/L


Se total µg/L


Sn total* µg/L


W total* µg/L

Zn dissolved µg/L <1

Zn total µg/L

TPH µg/L <40









Riley







91

91

C C W

C C W




Event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


Time 1330


Sampling

Bore depth mbg 23.0


Method Air lift


Field parameters

pH 6.5

EC µS/cm 70

Eh mV -73

DO mg/L

Temperature 0C 9.3

Lab results

pH 7

EC µS/cm 78

TDS mg/L 63

TSS mg/L

Colour apparent CU

Colour true CU <1

Turbidity NTU




Total Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 3


Chloride mg/L 17.2

Sulphate mg/L 3.6




Total N mg-N/L 0.09

P dissolved mg-P/L <0.5



Ag total µg/L


Al total µg/L


As total µg/L


Ca total mg/L


Cd total µg/L


Co total µg/L

Cr dissolved µg/L <1

Cr total µg/L


Cu total µg/L


Fe total µg/L


Hg total µg/L


K total mg/L


Mg total mg/L


Mn total µg/L


Na total mg/L


Ni total µg/L


Pb total µg/L


Sb total µg/L


Se total µg/L


Sn total* µg/L


W total* µg/L


Zn total µg/L

TPH µg/L <40









Riley







92

92

C C W

C C W

All Riley bores (initial sampling May 2012)

RYWB001 RYWB002 RYWB003 RYWB004 RYWB005

Easting (GDA94) 368532mE 367708mE 367706mE 368283mE 367380mE

Northing (GDA94) 5378761mN 5377096mN 5377096mN 5377671mN 5376828mN

Elevation (approx) 210mASL 220mASL 220mASL 270mASL 200mASL

Sampling date 3/5/12 3/5/12 3/5/12 15/5/12 15/5/12Time 0812 1022 1025 1300 1330

Lab report # 53832 53832 53995 53995Sampler WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL WCCPL

Sampling

Bore depth mbg 12.5 23.1 4.4 18.0 23.0

Standing water level (mbg) mbg 5.3 8.9 dry 15.6 17.5

Method Low flow Low flow Low flow Air lift

Volume extracted L 50 50 20 20

Field parameters

pH 5.2 5.5 6.5

EC µS/cm 118 185 400 70

Eh mV 103 80 -73

DO mg/L 1.4 7.7

Temperature 0C 11.8 12.5 11.4 9.3

Lab results

pH 5.5 6.1 6.8 7

EC µS/cm 134 185 417 78

TDS mg/L 90 107 290 63

TSS mg/L 338 87

Colour apparent CU >500 494

Colour true CU 22 <1 <1 <1

Turbidity NTU


Alkalinity CO3 mgCaCO3/L <2 <2 <2 <2

Alkalinity HCO3 mgCaCO3/L 12 37 84 3

Total Alkalinity mgCaCO3/L 84 3

Acidity mgCaCO3/L 88 63 29 <3

Chloride mg/L 17.4 25.9 18.4 17.2

Sulphate mg/L 16.1 10.2 108 3.6

Ammonia mg-N/L 0.005 0.035 0.006 0.004

Nitrate mg-N/L 0.005 0.022 0.018 0.055

Nitrite mg-N/L <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002

Total N mg-N/L 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09

P dissolved mg-P/L 0.003 0.003 <0.5 <0.5

Total P mg-P/L 0.030 0.007 <0.005 <0.009

Ag dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


Al dissolved µg/L 21 <5 <5 <5

Al total µg/L 5,560 891

As dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1

As total µg/L 2 <1

Ca dissolved mg/L 0.95 1.74 13.4 0.62


Cd dissolved µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


Co dissolved µg/L 23 19.8 1.0 5.4

Co total µg/L 29 82.5

Cr dissolved µg/L <1 160 60 <1

Cr total µg/L 11 239

Cu dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1

Cu total µg/L 6 1

Fe dissolved µg/L 209 51 <20 <20

Fe total µg/L 9,000 1,410

Hg dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


K dissolved mg/L 1.05 0.21 0.54 0.39


Mg dissolved mg/L 3.41 7.22 32.6 1.71


Mn dissolved µg/L 243 56.2 <0.5 48.9

Mn total µg/L 333 365

Na dissolved mg/L 15.9 22.8 9.90 8.83


Ni dissolved µg/L 17.1 517 261 13.9

Ni total µg/L 27.7 649

Pb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Pb total µg/L 4.2 1.1

Sb dissolved µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sb total µg/L <0.5 <0.5

Se dissolved µg/L <5 <5 <5 <5


Sn dissolved* µg/L <1 <1

Sn total* µg/L

W dissolved* µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1


Zn dissolved µg/L 24 8 <1 7

Zn total µg/L 42 13

TPH µg/L <40 <40 <40 <40

TPH C06-C09 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C10-C14 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C15-C28 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C29-C36 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10




w c c w c. cromer pty ltd - epa.tas.gov.auepa.tas.gov.au/documents/venture minerals riley mine...

Documents