30th April 2014

Attn: Christian Holland 1965_G\ 3906v2

Geotechnical Specialist
MMG Limited
Level 23/28 Freshwater Place
South Bank VIC 3006

Dear Christian

RE: MMG SEPON – GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF THENGKHAM NORTH LAOS

PIT- TKNA02

1 INTRODUCTION
Mining One has been engaged by MMG to carry out geotechnical assessments of several
Sepon pits, to assess slope stability, key risks, and requirements for further work. This follows
our review1 of the current status of geotechnical design work.
The pits are being reviewed as part of the Life of Asset process and are listed in Table 1. Each
geotechnical assessment is to be reported separately. This letter report presents our
assessment of a potential cutback of TKNA02.

Table 1 Pits and Priorities

Pit Name Required
KHN Primary Copper (name to be confirmed) Y
TKNA02 Y
KHNB4 N
KHNC2 N
TKSD01 Y
KHND3 Y
PHBB01 Y
TKEA03 Y
PHBA01 Y
PHBC01 Y
TKEA04 Y
TKSC01 Y

1
MMG Sepon Geotechnical Review, letter report by M. Goss, 24th March 2014, Document No. 3872

P:\1965_G\3906v1 1
2 DATA USED FOR THIS ASSESSMENT
Supplied wireframes and layers that were used in this assessment were as follows:
• mmglatest_pit_designs.dgd.isis
• tknav3r8

Supplied structural wireframes that were used in this assessment included:

• Fault_tkn_e-w_0
• Flt_tkn_20070509_nnw_trend_1_cut
• Flt_tkn_20070509_nnw_trend_1_cut
• Flt_tkn_20070509_sdip_1_cut
• Flt_tkn_dky_e-w
• Flt_tkn _e-w
• Flt_tkn_n_0
• Flt_tkn_pvn_sdip
• Flt_tkn_stock_0
• Flt_tkn-20070509_main_cut
• Flt_tkn-dky_e-w1

Supplied geology wireframes that were used in this assessment included:

• 01_COL.00t
• 04_SKN.00t
• 05_RDP.00t
• 06_DOL.00t
• 08_SIL.00t

Supplied oxidation wireframes that were used in this assessment included:

• 01_Clay to Topo (oxide) solid.00t
• 02_BOSM to clay (trans) solid.00t
• 03_below_BOSM.00t

P:\1965_G\3906v1 2
3 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 GENERAL
TKNA02 is located in the most eastern mining area of the Sepon Project. Figure 1 shows a
plan of the pit design. Figure 2 shows the geology and weathering profiles in plan and cross-
section. The site is characterised by a ridge forming the south wall. The majority of the walls
are located in oxidised materials with fresh rock generally near the toe of the slope and pit floor.
The proposed pit is approximately 1.1km in length with the highest pit wall approximately 400m
high on the southern wall and approximately 130m on the northern wall.

TKNA02

Figure 1 TKNA02 pit design

P:\1965_G\3906v1 3
 D

F
G
C

B
H

I
A
O
J

N
K2
M

Clay

Section F Section A Rhyodacite (weathered)

Phreatic surface Siltstone (weathered)

Dolomite Dolomite (weathered) Rhyodacite (fresh)

Siltstone (fresh)
Figure 2 Geology of TKNA02 pit intersected with the design pit shape with Slide section

3.2 STRUCTURE
The major faults are shown on the pit plan in Figure 3. The wireframes provided for these faults
show that they are generally steeply dipping to near vertical.

P:\1965_G\3906v1 4
Figure 3 Major structures plan

P:\1965_G\3906v1 5
 3.3 GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND DOMAINS
The drill hole locations are shown in Figure 4. Geotechnical domains and potential failure
modes are shown in Attachment A for wedge, planar and toppling failure modes. The complete
data set of TKNA drill holes was filtered to a subset of higher confidence holes, which are
shown in the figure below to produce a higher confidence set for kinematic analyses. The faults
were used to define the boundaries of the geotechnical domains.

North

Wall orientation East wall (north)

West

East wall (south)

Geotechnical domain
boundary
South

Figure 4 Drill hole and geotechnical domain plan

4 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Geotechnical parameters for analysis were provided by MMG Sepon, and are listed in Table 2.
Coefficients of variation (COV) were applied for rock mass cohesion, of ± 30-40% and rock
mass friction angle, ± 10%, to assess the probability of failure. These COV are typical of rock

P:\1965_G\3906v1 6
 and soil strength variability2 (Wiles, 2005). Probability distributions were truncated at ± three
standard deviations.

Table 2 Geotechnical Parameters for Analysis

Material Name Property Distribution Mean Std. Dev Rel. Min Rel. Max
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 76 20 60 60
Clay ex weathered siltstone
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 10 1 3 3

Cohesion (kPa) Normal 76 20 60 60

Clay ex Dolomite weathered
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 10 1 3 3
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 76 20 60 60
Clay ex RDP weathered
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 17 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 500 100 300 300
Weathered Siltstone
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 33 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 500 100 300 300
Weathered Dolomite
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 33 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 200 50 150 150
Limestone (weathered Dolomite)
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 27.5 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 500 100 300 300
Weathered Skarn
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 25 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 500 100 300 300
Weathered RDP
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 27 3 9 9
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 1000 100 300 300
Fresh Siltstone
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 38 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 1000 100 300 300
Fresh Dolomite
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 38 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 1000 100 300 300
Fresh Skarn
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 33 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 100 10 30 30
Sheared Dolomite
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 26 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 100 10 30 30
Sheared Silliclastic
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 25 2 6 6

Cohesion (kPa) Normal 100 20 60 60

Sheared RDP
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 25 2 6 6
Cohesion (kPa) Normal 1000 100 300 300
Fresh RDP
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 33 2 6 6

Cohesion (kPa) Normal 76 20 60 60

Fault
Friction Angle (degrees) Normal 10 1 3 3

2
T. D. Wiles (2005) ‘Reliability of numerical modelling predictions’. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences

P:\1965_G\3906v1 7
4.1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Design acceptance criteria were provided by MMG, and are listed in Table 3. It is understood
that no significant infrastructure is in the vicinity of TKNA02.

Table 3 Acceptance Criteria

Description FOS POF

Walls containing a ramp, in pits where there is more than one ramp > 1.2 < 5%
access to the bottom of the pit

Walls containing a ramp, in pits where there is only one ramp access to > 1.2 < 1%
the bottom of the pit

Walls without ramps > 1.2 < 20%

4.2 KINEMATIC ASSESSMENT

A summary of the mean structural sets defined from the joint cluster groupings in each domain
is shown Table 4. The domains were determined generally by the fault boundaries (see Figures
3 and 4). Structure sets with similar mean orientations have been given the same joint set
identification number.

Table 4 Summary of mean structural sets

Wall Structural Structural Set

Orientation Readings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
East (north) 767 89°/328° 48°/337° 62°/299° 30°/239°
East (south) 417 90°/330° 61 /336° 53°/287°
South 1158 82°/315° 32°/269° 28°/008° 61°/196° 58°/097°
West 365 38°/302° 45°/027° 55°/148°
North 171 50°/338° 43°/264° 37°/045°

Kinematic analyses of joint sets were carried out to determine the likelihood of failures on
structures that may be undercut or “daylight” in the slope in each of the wall orientations shown
on the plans in Figure 4 and in Attachment A, Figures A1 to A3. The slope orientations for both
overall and batter scale angles were assessed for toppling, sliding or wedge type failures. The
results are presented in Attachment A, Table A1 and include details of the number and
percentage of critical pole vectors within the lateral limits of the daylight zone.
A northwest dipping major defect set strongly influences stability eastern and southern walls,
increasing the risk of planar and sliding failures. Toppling failures are likely to be more common
on the southern and eastern walls where subvertical defect sets occur. It should also be noted
that flat dipping structures are observed in each domain.
Defect type and characteristics not always been recorded in the core logging provided. A
detailed review of the defect characteristics including planarity, roughness, infill type and

P:\1965_G\3906v1 8
thickness and an understanding of the length and continuity of defects has not been
undertaken for this study. It is assumed that defects are continuous for both batter and overall
slope stability scale.

4.3 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Limit equilibrium analyses were carried out using Rocscience Slide software which is a two-
dimensional limit equilibrium analysis method that analyses shear failure for the cross-sections
(A through to O) for TKNA02 as shown in Figure 2. The software takes a representative cross-
section of a slope with strength parameters for each geological/geotechnical unit, and searches
for failure paths to determine a minimum factor of safety (FOS). The general 2D limit
equilibrium model setup (for section A) can be seen in Figure 5 below. Table 2 lists the
rockmass parameters and distributions used for the analysis.
The analysis method used was GLE which is the Morgenstern & Price, and Generalised Limit
Equilibrium (GLE) which are two very similar methods. The formulation used in Slide is
essentially that of Morgenstern & Price, but it is commonly referred to as GLE. GLE allows the
force angle to vary throughout the slices, that is, the force equilibrium is both horizontal and
vertical.
The phreatic surface was modelled at 2m below the pit floor and approximately 10 to 15m
behind the pit walls. This is not based on monitoring data and is a design assumption which is
a likely wet season case.

Clay

Rhyodacite (weathered)

Phreatic surface

Rhyodacite (fresh)

Siltstone (fresh)

Dolomite (fresh)

Figure 5 Cross section A limit equilibrium SLIDE model

4.4 ANALYSIS RESULTS

Results from the limit equilibrium analysis (using isotropic modelling) are contained in Table 5
and Figure 6 below (worst case slip surface). Attachment A includes the SLIDE modelling
results for TKNA02 for sections A through to O.

P:\1965_G\3906v1 9
 Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
700

FS (deterministic) = 1.807
1.000 FS (mean) = 1.815
1.500 PF = 0.000%
2.000 RI (normal) = 10.593
2.500 RI (lognormal) = 14.047
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
600

5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.814
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 10.527
RI (lognormal) = 13.955
500

W
400

W
300

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Figure 6 Cross section A limit equilibrium SLIDE model result

P:\1965_G\3906v1 10
Table 5 Limit equilibrium SLIDE results

Section Pit Shape Factor of Safety Probability of Comment

Failure %

A TKNAV3R8 1.8 >0.05

B TKNAV3R8 2.0 >0.05

C TKNAV3R8 2.4 >0.05

D TKNAV3R8 2.6 >0.05

E TKNAV3R8 5.6 >0.05

F TKNAV3R8 3.7 >0.05

G TKNAV3R8 4.8 >0.05

H TKNAV3R8 4.0 >0.05

I TKNAV3R8 4.9 >0.05

J TKNAV3R8 3.6 >0.05

K TKNAV3R8 0.9 >0.05

K TKNAV3R8 1.1 15.7 Revised clay properties

K TKNAV3R8 1.2 11.5 Reduced overall slope 30°

Reduced overall slope 28°

K TKNAV3R8 1.2 5
Wall containing ramp, one access
Reduced overall slope 28°
K TKNAV3R8 1.2 5.4
Wall containing ramp, one access.
Increase berm with by 2m to 6.8m
Reduced overall slope 28°. Water
K TKNAV3R8 1.3 2.4
table 6m below pit floor.
Wall containing ramp, one access
Test pit slope using ex RDP material
K TKNAV3R8 1.3 3.2
properties

K2 TKNAV3R8 1.2 10.7 Wall containing ramp, one access

L TKNAV3R8 1.3 >0.05

M TKNAV3R8 2.075 >0.05

N TKNAV3R8 2.425 >0.05

O TKNAV3R8 1.854 >0.05

P:\1965_G\3906v1 11
 D FOS 2.6
POF >0.05%

E FOS 5.6
POF >0.05%
F FOS 3.7
POF >0.05%

C FOS 2.4
G FOS 4.8
POF >0.05%
POF >0.05%

H FOS 4.0 B FOS 2.0

POF >0.05% POF >0.05%

I FOS 4.9
POF >0.05% A FOS 1.8
POF >0.05%
J FOS 3.6 O FOS 1.9
POF >0.05 POF >0.05%

N FOS 2.4
POF >0.05%
K2 FOS 1.2
POF 11% M FOS 2.1
POF >0.05%

K FOS 0.9
L FOS 1.3
POF 67%
POF >0.05%

Figure 7 Limit equilibrium analyses for TKNA02

4.4.1 SECTION K
The base of clay in Section K to the South West end of TKNA02 is at a depth of 20m at the
crest and to 45m behind the pit wall. The initial model used the clay material properties for clay
derived from siltstone (yellow) for all clay to the base of clay giving a FoS of 0.9. Clay derived
from extremely weathered siltstone and dolomite have the same material properties (cohesion
76kPa and friction angle 10°) whereas clay extremely weathered rhyodacite (RDP) has a
higher friction angle of 17°.
A number of revisions were undertaken to attempt to achieve the acceptable criteria for section
K. Attachment C, Figure C1 shows the current pit design in the south west end of TKNA02 with
an overall slope of 32°. The following design changes were made to attempt to achieve design
criteria:
• Reducing the overall slope angle to 28° gives an acceptable FoS of 1.2, however the
PoF of 5% is unacceptable for a wall containing a ramp with a single access;
• Increasing the berm width from 4.8m to 6.8m did not reduce the PoF;

P:\1965_G\3906v1 12
 • Reducing the depth of the water table from 2m below the floor to 6m reduced the PoF
from 5% to 2.4%; and
• The slope with the reduced water table was then tested by using one material property
(extremely weathered RDP) to assess sensitivity to the clay material properties, and this
was found to have a FoS of 1.3 with a PoF of 3.2%.

5 SUMMARY

5.1 FINDINGS AND KEY RISKS

The pit meets all acceptance criteria for all wall orientations except SLIDE section K. Section K
is located on the south west end of TKNA02 in the south domain. The wall height in this this
location is approximately 90m and is made up of extremely weathered siltstone, dolomite and
RDP (clays). The SLIDE analyses showed that section K was sensitive to the type of clay
material properties used. It is assumed that the locations of the lithology and oxidation
boundaries provided are of high confidence.
Further analysis was completed on section K and an additional section K2 to identify an overall
slope to meet the MMG acceptance criteria. The analysis found that after reducing the overall
slope angle, increasing the water table depth and the berm width, a PoF of <1% still could not
be achieved for a wall containing a ramp with single access. There is likely to be some
confinement to improve stability at the SLIDE section K location which could be looked at
further using 3D analysis if required.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations arising from this assessment are:
• Review drill hole data in the vicinity of the TKNA02 south west wall (section K area) to
revaluate the weathering depths and material types;
• Review design for another access into this area to bring the PoF to meet the MMG
acceptance criteria;
• An updated groundwater model based on piezometer readings should be used for
future detailed limit equilibrium SLIDE modelling for slope stability analysis;
• Future geotechnical logging should include all defect characteristic measurements such
as indicative strength for correlation with material properties;
• Geotechnical mapping of TKNA02, especially the eastern and southern walls to
measure continuity of structural defects and characteristics; and
• Future geotechnical drilling should include sample collection for laboratory testing to
confirm rockmass strengths for the material properties used in the SLIDE modelling,
especially the sensitivity of the weathered rocks to clay.

P:\1965_G\3906v1 13
Yours sincerely

Meredith Goss
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Mining One Pty Ltd

P:\1965_G\3906v1 14
 Attachment A
Kinematic analysis potential failure mode plans

P:\1965_G\3906v1
Attachment A Table A1 - Kinematic analysis potential failure mode plans for Overall and batter scale stability

Wall Angles (deg.) Overall Wall Scale Stability Presence of Wall Angles (deg.) Batter Scale Stability Presence of
Wall Toppling Planar Sliding Wedge Failure Structural Wall Toppling Planar Sliding Wedge Failure Structural
Dip Overall Wall Sub-vertical Dip Batter Sub-vertical
Segment Critical No. Critical No. Critical No. Domain Segment Critical No. Critical No. Critical No. Domain
Direction Angle Total % Total % Total % defects Direction Angle Total % Total % Total % defects
All/Set All/Set All/Set All/Set All/Set All/Set
1 1159 0.09% 2 1158 0.17% 1411 669841 0.21% 26 1159 2.24% 15 1158 1.30% 18076 669841 2.70% Northwest
1 328 31 Northwest 1 328 40
Set 5 - 1 44 2.27% Set 2 - 2 82 2.44% 0 10 0.00% Set 5 - 17 44 23.64% Set 2 - 12 82 14.63% 0 10 0.00% striking,
striking,
1 1159 0.09% 4 1158 0.35% 809 669841 0.12% 24 1159 2.07% 21 1158 1.81% 20203 669841 3.02% South subvertical
2 344 31 South subvertical 2 344 40
Set 5 - 1 44 2.27% Set 2 - 4 82 4.88% 0 10 0.00% Set 5 - 10 44 22.73% Set 2 - 21 82 25.61% 0 10 0.00% defect set
defect set
0 1159 0.00% 0 1158 0.00% 37655 669841 5.62% 5 1159 0.43% 26 1158 2.25% 23329 669841 3.48% included
3 43 24 included 3 43 40
- - - - - - 0 10 0.00% - - - Set 2 - 18 82 21.95% 1 10 10.00%

4 99 26 0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 0 66286 0.00% 1 365 0.27% 0 365 0.00% 720 66286 1.09%
4 99 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 0 66286 0.00% 5 365 1.37% 4 365 1.10% 714 66286 1.08%
5 172 22 5 172 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 0 66286 0.00% 3 365 0.82% 3 365 0.82% 670 66286 1.01%
6 157 25 6 157 40 No
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% No - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
subvertical
0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 49 66286 0.07% subvertical 3 365 0.82% 4 365 1.10% 49 66286 0.07%
7 194 32 7 194 40 defect sets
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% defect sets - - - - - - 0 3 0.00% West
West and very
0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 90 66286 0.14% and very 1 365 0.27% 0 365 0.00% 760 66286 1.15%
8 95 32 8 95 40 few
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% few - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
structures.
0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 48 66286 0.07% structures. 1 365 0.27% 5 365 1.37% 2098 66286 3.17%
9 217 31 9 217 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 365 0.00% 1 365 0.27% 48 66286 0.07% 0 365 0.00% 5 365 1.37% 2338 66286 3.53%
10 224 31 10 224 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
11 0 365 0.00% 0 365 0.00% 0 66286 0.00% 1 365 0.27% 2 365 0.55% 472 66286 0.71%
125 27 11 125 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% 1 171 0.58% 0 171 0.00% 144 14533 0.99%
12 160 29 12 160 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% 3 171 1.75% 2 171 1.17% 363 14533 2.50%
13 208 28 13 208 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% 1 171 0.58% 3 171 1.75% 374 14533 2.57%
14 134 26 14 134 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
No
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% 3 171 1.75% 3 171 1.75% 529 14533 3.64% No
15 88 27 subvertical 15 88 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00% subvertical
defect sets
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% North 1 171 0.58% 0 171 0.00% 149 14533 1.03% defect sets
16 157 30 and very 16 157 40 North
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00% and very
few
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 0 14533 0.00% 3 171 1.75% 3 171 1.75% 364 14533 2.50% few
17 213 30 structures. 17 213 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - Set 3 -1 39 2.56% 0 3 0.00% structures.
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 19 14533 0.13% 1 171 0.58% 3 171 1.75% 391 14533 2.69%
18 132 32 18 132 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 15 14533 0.10% 1 171 0.58% 4 171 2.34% 198 14533 1.36%
19 109 31 19 109 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%
0 171 0.00% 0 171 0.00% 11 14533 0.08% 45 171 2.34% 2 171 1.17% 198 14533 1.36%
20 184 31 20 184 40
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% - - - - - - 0 3 0.00%

21 274 43 19 954 1.99% 11 767 1.43% 15874 293730 5.40% 29 954 3.04% 58 767 7.56% 56544 293730 19.25%
- - - Set 4 -4 42 9.52% 2 6 33.33% 21 274 62 - - - Set 3 -25 98 25.51% 3 6 50.00%
31 954 3.25% 23 767 3.00% 15460 293730 5.26% Northsouth - - - Set 4 - 5 42 11.90% - - -
22 322 42
Set 3 -13 34 38.24% Set 2 - 21 102 20.60% 0 6 0.00% East Wall subvertical 16 954 1.68 6 767 0.78% 1 6 16.67%
21 274 40
29 954 3.04% 19 767 2.48% 15470 293730 5.27% (North) defect set - - - Set 4 - 2 42 4.76% 3 6 50.00%
23 317 43 included
Set 3 - 13 34 38.24% Set 2 - 15 102 14.70% 0 6 0.00% 57 954 5.97% 94 767 12.26% 65872 29730 22.43%
27 954 2.83% 18 767 2.35% 9190 293730 3.13% 22 322 62 Set 3 -13 34 38.24% Set 2 - 56 102 54.90% 2 6 33.30%
24 311 42
Set 3 - 13 34 32.24% Set 2 -12 102 11.76% 0 6 0.00% - - - Set 3 - 27 98 27.55% - - -
6 417 1.44% 16 417 3.8% 7118 86721 8.21% 26 954 2.73% 22 767 2.87% 12554 293730 4.27%
25 294 45 Northsouth 22 322 40 Northsouth
- - - Set 1 - 15 72 20.83% 0 3 0.00% Set 3 - 11 34 32.35% Set 2 - 20 102 19.61% 2 6 33.33%
East Wall subvertical East Wall subvertical
4 417 0.96% 16 417 3.84% 6525 86721 7.52% 54 954 5.66% 91 767 11.86% 65042 293730 22.14%
26 277 42 (South) defect set (North) defect set
- - - Set 1 - 13 72 18.06% 0 3 0.00% 23 317 62 Set 3 -13 34 38.24% Set 2 - 45 102 44.12% 2 6 33.30%
included included
3 417 0.72% 5 417 1.20% 1219 86721 1.41% - - - Set 3 - 34 98 34.69% - - -
27 312 35
Set 2 - 1 14 7.14% Set 1 - 2 72 2.78% 0 3 0.00% 24 954 2.52% 16 767 2.09% 10501 293730 3.58%
23 317 40
4 1159 0.35% 7 1158 0.60% 4564 669841 0.68% Northwest Set 3 - 11 34 32.35% Set 2 - 13 102 12.75% 0 6 0.00%
28 273 33 South
Set 5 - 2 44 4.55% Set 1 - 7 150 4.67% 0 10 0.00% Strike 22 954 2.31% 93 767 12.13% 64794 293730 22.06%
2 365 0.55% 18 365 4.93% 4958 66286 7.48% No 24 311 62 Set 3 - 11 34 35.35% Set 2 - 35 102 34.31% 2 6 33.33%
29 316 36
- - - Set 1 - 18 142 12.68% 1 3 33.33% subvertical - - - Set 3 - 45 98 45.90% - - -
2 365 0.55% 2 365 0.55% 2091 66286 3.15% West defect sets 22 954 2.31% 93 767 12.13% 9190 293730 31.30%
30 252 36
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% and very 24 311 40 Set 3 11 34 32.35% Set 3 - 45 98 45.92% 0 6 0.00%
0 365 0.00% 2 365 0.55% 1793 66286 2.70% few - - - Set 2 - 35 102 34.31% - - -
31 244 36
- - - - - - 0 3 0.00% structures. 8 417 1.92% 63 417 15.11% 23196 86721 26.75%
12 1159 1.04% 5 1158 0.43% 5470 669841 0.86% Northwest 25 294 62 - - - Set 1 - 55 72 76.39% 2 3 66.67%
32 314 35 Set 5 - 12 44 27.27 Set 1 - 1 150 0.67% 0 10 0.00% striking, - - - Set 3 - 2 38 5.26% - - -
Set 2 - 2 82 2.44% - - - South subvertical 5 417 1.20% 8 471 1.92% 3713 86721 4.28%
defect set 25 294 40
12 1159 1.04% 5 1158 0.43% 6929 669841 1.03% - - - Set 1 - 78 12 9.72% 0 3 0.00% Northsouth
33 296 35 included
Set 5 - 9 44 20.45% Set 1 - 3 150 2.00% 0 10 0.00% 6 417 1.44% 16 417 3.84% 23408 86721 26.99% East Wall subvertical
26 277 62
- - - Set 1 - 13 72 18.06% 2 3 66.67% (South) defect set
4 417 0.96% 13 417 3.12% 23408 86721 26.99% included
26 277 40
- - - Set 1 - 10 72 13.89% 2 3 66.67%
10 417 2.40% 9 471 2.16% 5880 86721 6.78%
27 312 45
Set 2 - 5 14 35.71% Set 1 - 5 72 6.94% 0 3 0.00%
7 417 1.68% 6 417 1.44% 3280 86721 3.78%
27 312 40
Set 2 - 3 14 21.43% Set 1 - 2 72 2.78% 0 3 0.00%
19 1159 1.64% 37 1158 3.20% 32737 669841 4.9% Northwest
28 273 41 South
Set 5 -8 44 18.18% Set 1 - 37 150 24.67% 3 10 30.0% Strike
3 365 0.82% 80 365 21.92% 15699 66286 23.7% No
29 316 46
- - - Set 1 - 78 142 54.93% 1 3 33.3% subvertical
Indicates where segments 21-27 have 2 365 0.55% 6 365 1.64% 6285 66286 9.5% defect sets
30 252 45 West
been analysed at 40° for batter scale - - - Set 1 -1 142 0.70% 0 3 0.0% and very
0 365 0.00% 8 365 2.19% 5831 66286 8.8% few
31 244 46
- - - - - - 0 3 0.0% structures.
44 1159 3.80% 36 1158 3.11% 38022 669841 5.68%
Northwest
32 314 46 Set 2 - 3 74 4.05% Set 1 - 12 150 8.00% 0 10 0.00%
striking,
Set 5 - 26 44 59.09% Set 2 - 7 82 8.54% - - -
South subvertical
39 1159 3.36% 46 1158 3.97% 487739 669841 7.3%
defect set
33 296 46 Set 2 - 2 74 2.70% Set 1 - 34 150 22.76% 1 10 10.0%
included
Set 5 - 18 44 40.91% - - - - - -
Wall orientation 13. Wall orientation 14. Wall orientation 17. Wall orientation 18. Wall orientation19. Wall orientation 20. Wall orientation 21. Wall orientation 22.

Wall orientation 11. Wall orientation 12. Wall orientation 15. Wall orientation 16. Wall orientation 23. Section 24.

20.
19.
North. 21.

18.
Wall orientation 8. Wall orientation 9.. Wall orientation 10. 22. Wall orientation 26.
17. Wall orientation 25.
16.
23.
15.
14. 24. East wall north
12.
13.

Wall orientation 6. Wall orientation 7. 25. Wall orientation 27. Wall orientation 28.
11.
26.
West 10.
9. East wall south
29.
8. 27.
30.
5. 6. 7. 31.
28.
N
Wall orientation 5. Wall orientation 4. Wall orientation 31. Wall orientation 30. Wall orientation 29.
4. 32.

3.
2. 33.
1. South

Wall orientation 3. Wall orientation 2. Wall orientation 1. Wall Orientation 33. Wall orientation 32.

MMG Sepon Thengkham North

TKNA02
Figure A1 Kinematic Analysis - Toppling
Wall orientation 13. Wall orientation 14. Wall orientation 17. Wall orientation 18. Wall orientation19. Wall orientation 20. Wall orientation 21. Wall orientation 22.

Wall orientation 11. Wall orientation 12. Wall orientation 15. Wall orientation 16. Wall orientation 23. Section 24.

20.
19.
North. 21.

18.
Wall orientation 8. Wall orientation 9.. Wall orientation 10. 22. Wall orientation 26.
17. Wall orientation 25.
16.
23.
15.
14. 24. East wall north
12.
13.

Wall orientation 6. Wall orientation 7. 25. Wall orientation 27. Wall orientation 28.
11.
26.
West 10.
9. East wall south
29.
8. 27.
30.
5. 6. 7. 31.
28.
N
Wall orientation 5. Wall orientation 4. Wall orientation 31. Wall orientation 30. Wall orientation 29.
4. 32.

3.
2. 33.
1. South

Wall orientation 3. Wall orientation 2. Wall orientation 1. Wall Orientation 33. Wall orientation 32.

MMG Sepon Thengkham North

TKNA02
Figure A2 Kinematic Analysis - Planar
Wall orientation 13. Wall orientation 14. Wall orientation 17. Wall orientation 18. Wall orientation19. Wall orientation 20. Wall orientation 21. Wall orientation 22.

Wall orientation 11. Wall orientation 12. Wall orientation 15. Wall orientation 16. Wall orientation 23. Section 24.

20.
19.
North. 21.

18.
Wall orientation 8. Wall orientation 9.. Wall orientation 10. 22. Wall orientation 26.
17. Wall orientation 25.
16.
23.
15.
14. 24. East wall north
12.
13.

Wall orientation 6. Wall orientation 7. 25. Wall orientation 27. Wall orientation 28.
11.
26.
West 10.
9. East wall south
29.
8. 27.
30.
5. 6. 7. 31.
28.
N
Wall orientation 5. Wall orientation 4. Wall orientation 31. Wall orientation 30. Wall orientation 29.
4. 32.

3.
2. 33.
1. South

Wall orientation 3. Wall orientation 2. Wall orientation 1. Wall Orientation 33. Wall orientation 32.

MMG Sepon Thengkham North

TKNA02
Figure A3 Kinematic Analysis - Wedge
 Attachment B
Limit equilibrium SLIDE results

P:\1965_G\3906v1
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM SLIDE RESULTS – SECTIONS A to O

Safety Factor
700

0.000 FS (deterministic) = 1.807

0.500 FS (mean) = 1.815
1.000 PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 10.593
1.500 RI (lognormal) = 14.047
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
600

4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.814
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 10.527
RI (lognormal) = 13.955
500

W
400

W
300

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

Figure B.1 SLIDE section A

Safety Factor
0.000 FS (deterministic) = 2.021
0.500 FS (mean) = 2.030
PF = 0.000%
650

1.000
RI (normal) = 12.215
1.500 RI (lognormal) = 17.033
2.000
2.500
3.000
600

3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
550

Overall Slope Results

FS (mean) = 2.029
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 12.156
RI (lognormal) = 16.945
500

W
450

W
400
350
300

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Figure B.2 SLIDE section B

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor FS (deterministic) = 2.437
0.000 FS (mean) = 2.450
0.500 PF = 0.000%
1.000 RI (normal) = 14.526
RI (lognormal) = 21.984
1.500
2.000
2.500
700

3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
600

FS (mean) = 2.449
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 14.498
RI (lognormal) = 21.934

W
500
400

W
300

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Figure B.2 SLIDE section C

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
FS (deterministic) = 2.562
1.000 FS (mean) = 2.569
450

1.500 PF = 0.000%
2.000 RI (normal) = 4.829
2.500 RI (lognormal) = 7.426
3.000
3.500
4.000
400

4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 2.569
W
PF = 0.000%
350

RI (normal) = 4.828
RI (lognormal) = 7.425
W
300
250
200
150

-450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Figure B.2 SLIDE section D

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor
0.000 FS (deterministic) = 5.671
0.500 FS (mean) = 5.683
PF = 0.000%
1.000
RI (normal) = 5.720
1.500 RI (lognormal) = 12.052
450

2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
400

FS (mean) = 5.593
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 6.483
RI (lognormal) = 13.582

W
350

W
300

-125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Figure B.2 SLIDE section E

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000 FS (deterministic) = 3.667
FS (mean) = 3.670
450

2.500
PF = 0.000%
3.000 RI (normal) = 7.401
3.500 RI (lognormal) = 13.210
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
400

FS (mean) = 3.655
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 7.663
RI (lognormal) = 13.656
350

W
300

16900 16925 16950 16975 17000 17025 17050 17075 17100 17125 17150 17175 17200 17225 17250 17275

Figure B.2 SLIDE section F

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
450

3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+ FS (deterministic) = 4.764
Overall Slope Results FS (mean) = 4.771
FS (mean) = 4.769 PF = 0.000%
400

PF = 0.000% RI (normal) = 15.473

RI (normal) = 15.460 RI (lognormal) = 30.583
RI (lognormal) = 30.552

W
350

W
300

-275 -250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Figure B.2 SLIDE section G

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500 FS (deterministic) = 4.022
FS (mean) = 4.023
2.000 PF = 0.000%
2.500 RI (normal) = 7.639
3.000 RI (lognormal) = 14.137
450

3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 4.023
400

PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 7.639
RI (lognormal) = 14.137

W
350
300

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Figure B.2 SLIDE section H

P:\1965_G\3906v1
550

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500 FS (deterministic) = 4.883
1.000 FS (mean) = 4.893
1.500 PF = 0.000%
2.000 RI (normal) = 19.849
500

RI (lognormal) = 39.607
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
450

5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 4.892
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 19.829
400

RI (lognormal) = 39.563

W
350
300

W
250
200

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Figure B.2 SLIDE section I

Safety Factor
500

0.000
0.500 FS (deterministic) = 3.583
1.000 FS (mean) = 3.590
PF = 0.000%
1.500
RI (normal) = 11.522
2.000 RI (lognormal) = 20.402
2.500
3.000
450

3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
400

Overall Slope Results

FS (mean) = 3.590
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 11.522
RI (lognormal) = 20.402
350

W
300

W
250
200

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure B.2 SLIDE section J

P:\1965_G\3906v1
400

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500 FS (deterministic) = 0.930
FS (mean) = 0.935
4.000
350

PF = 67.000%
4.500 RI (normal) = -0.446
5.000 RI (lognormal) = -0.512
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 0.931
PF = 67.100%
RI (normal) = -0.455
RI (lognormal) = -0.523
300

W
250

W
200

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Figure B.2 SLIDE section K

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
500

2.000
2.500
FS (deterministic) = 1.278
3.000 FS (mean) = 1.284
3.500 PF = 2.100%
4.000 RI (normal) = 1.967
4.500 RI (lognormal) = 2.174
450

5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.281
PF = 2.200%
RI (normal) = 1.928
400

RI (lognormal) = 2.127
350

W
300
250

-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Figure B.2 SLIDE section L

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
800

1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
700

4.500
5.000 FS (deterministic) = 2.075
5.500 FS (mean) = 2.081
6.000+ PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 9.321
Overall Slope Results RI (lognormal) = 13.131
FS (mean) = 2.073
600

PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 9.831
RI (lognormal) = 13.830
500

W
400

W
300
200

-900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200

Figure B.2 SLIDE section M

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
600

1.500
2.000
2.500
FS (deterministic) = 2.425
3.000
FS (mean) = 2.432
3.500 PF = 0.000%
550

4.000 RI (normal) = 11.887

4.500 RI (lognormal) = 17.927
5.000
5.500
6.000+
500

Overall Slope Results

FS (mean) = 2.431
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 11.886 W
RI (lognormal) = 17.923
450
400
350

W
300
250

-600 -550 -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Figure B.2 SLIDE section N

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor FS (deterministic) = 1.854
0.000 FS (mean) = 1.862
0.500 PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 10.031
1.000
RI (lognormal) = 13.455
1.500
600

2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
W
Overall Slope Results
500

FS (mean) = 1.862
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal) = 10.030
RI (lognormal) = 13.454
400

W
300

-550 -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Figure B.2 SLIDE section O

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Attachment C
Limit equilibrium SLIDE results

Further analysis of Section K

P:\1965_G\3906v1
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM SLIDE RESULTS – FURTHER ANALYSIS OF SECTION K

Safety Factor
0.000
FS (deterministic) = 1.117
0.500 FS (mean) = 1.123
1.000
375

PF = 15.700%
1.500 RI (normal) = 0.966
2.000 RI (lognormal) = 0.970
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
350

4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.113
325

PF = 17.700%
RI (normal) = 0.892
RI (lognormal) = 0.887
300

W
275
250

W
225

-240 -220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Figure C.1 SLIDE section K with revised clay material properties

Safety Factor
0.000
360

0.500
1.000 FS (deterministic) = 1.161
FS (mean) = 1.167
1.500
PF = 11.500%
2.000 RI (normal) = 1.237
2.500 RI (lognormal) = 1.282
340

3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
320

6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.163
PF = 12.100%
RI (normal) = 1.217
RI (lognormal) = 1.259
300

W
280
260

30°

W
240
220

-220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Figure C.2 SLIDE section K reduced overall slope to 30°

P:\1965_G\3906v1
360

Safety Factor
0.000
FS (deterministic) = 1.237
0.500
FS (mean) = 1.239
1.000 PF = 5.000%
1.500 RI (normal) = 1.674
2.000 RI (lognormal) = 1.809
340

2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
320

5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.236
PF = 5.100%
RI (normal) = 1.673
RI (lognormal) = 1.805
300

W
280
260

28°

W
240

-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Figure C.3 SLIDE section K2 reduced overall slope to 28°

360

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500 FS (deterministic) = 1.237
FS (mean) = 1.239
1.000 PF = 5.400%
1.500 RI (normal) = 1.637
2.000 RI (lognormal) = 1.767
340

2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
320

6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.232
PF = 5.400%
RI (normal) = 1.634
RI (lognormal) = 1.758
300

6.801
280
260

W
240

-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Figure C.4 SLIDE section K reduced overall slope to 28° with a 2m berm increase to 6.8m.

P:\1965_G\3906v1
 Safety Factor
360

0.000
0.500 FS (deterministic) = 1.277
1.000 FS (mean) = 1.279
PF = 2.400%
1.500 RI (normal) = 1.934
2.000 RI (lognormal) = 2.132
340

2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
320

5.000
5.500
6.000+
Overall Slope Results
FS (mean) = 1.276
300

PF = 2.600%
RI (normal) = 1.933
RI (lognormal) = 2.129

W
280
260

W
240
220
200

-240 -220 -200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Figure C.5 SLIDE section K reduced overall slope to 28° water table 6m below pit floor.

Safety Factor
360

0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500 FS (deterministic) = 1.323
FS (mean) = 1.323
2.000 PF = 3.200%
2.500 RI (normal) = 1.810
340

3.000 RI (lognormal) = 2.018

3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000+
320

Overall Slope Results

FS (mean) = 1.313
PF = 3.300%
RI (normal) = 1.853
RI (lognormal) = 2.062
300

W
280
260

W
240

-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Figure C.6 SLIDE section K reduced overall slope to 28° water table 6m below pit floor. Test of
wall stability sensitivity by using higher clay material property for whole slope.

P:\1965_G\3906v1
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Status Final

Version 1

Print Date 13/05/14

Author(s) Meredith Goss

Reviewed By David Lucas

Pathname P:\1965_G MMG - Sepon Geotechnical Gap Analysis\WPO\3872.docx

File Name 3906

Job No 1965_G

Distribution PDF emailed to client

DOCUMENT CHANGE CONTROL

Version Description of changes/amendments Recipient Author (s) Date

DOCUMENT REVIEW AND SIGN OFF

Version Reviewer Position Signature Date

1 D Lucas Principal Engineering 13/05/14

Geologist

P:\1965_G\3906v1