GT Investigaiton Report For Metal Power Plant PDF

Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report
for the Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant Project
Prepared for:
Fortune Minerals Limited
Submitted by:
M2112-2840010
June 2010
Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report
June 2010
Executive Summary
General Objectives of Investigation
The scope of work was to complete a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Saskatchewan Metals
Processing Plant (SMPP) project in the Rural Municipality of Corman Park, No. 344, Saskatchewan. This report
presents the results of the site investigation and geotechnical recommendations related to the project.
Fieldwork and Laboratory Testing
The drilling of eight (8) boreholes and excavation of sixteen (16) test pits were conducted between February 2010
and April 2010. Field testing was conducted and soil samples were collected during drilling. Field standard
penetration tests (SPT) and pocket penetrometer tests were conducted in the boreholes during drilling. Ground
resistivity tests were conducted at the future power substation location. Geotechnical laboratory tests on
collected soil samples were conducted at the MDH soil laboratories in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. These tests
included grain size distributions, water contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation, Group Index, unconfined
compression test and direct shear tests. Detailed salinity testing was conducted by ALS Laboratories of
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on soil samples from selected depths. One Casagrande style piezometer was
installed in the study area at an approximate depth of 8.2 m (27.0 ft) to collect shallow groundwater information
for foundation design.
Geotechnical Foundation Report
A general description of the soils encountered, the soil properties, anticipated behaviour of soils during
construction and measured groundwater levels are provided in this report. Geotechnical recommendations for
shallow foundations, grade supported slabs, pile foundations and other general geotechnical engineering
parameters related to the plant building foundation are provided in this report.
The foundation design parameters were derived from calculations based on the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual and other relevant geotechnical references.
M2112-2840010
Page i
June 2010
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
2.0
Site Condition and Description ....................................................................................................................1
3.0
Scope ..........................................................................................................................................................1
3.1
Field Investigations .................................................................................................................................1
3.2
Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................2
3.3
Report .....................................................................................................................................................2
4.0
Methodology................................................................................................................................................4
4.1
Field Investigations .................................................................................................................................4
4.1.1 Geotechnical Boreholes ..................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.2 Geotechnical Test Pits ....................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.3 Standpipe Piezometer Installation and Shallow Groundwater Regime .............................................. 6
4.2
Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................7
4.2.1 Geotechnical and Index Soil Properties ............................................................................................. 7
4.2.2 Unconfined Compression Test ........................................................................................................... 7
4.2.3 Oedometer / Consolidation Test ......................................................................................................... 8
4.2.4 Direct Shear Test ............................................................................................................................... 8
4.3
Undrained Shear Strength, su .................................................................................................................9
4.4
California Bearing Ratio, CBR ................................................................................................................9
4.5
Chemical Laboratory Investigation ........................................................................................................10
5.0
Subsurface Condition ................................................................................................................................11
5.1
Local Geology .......................................................................................................................................11
5.1.1 The Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD)............................................................................................. 12
5.1.2 The Battleford Formation .................................................................................................................. 12
5.1.3 The Floral Formation ........................................................................................................................ 12
5.1.4 Upper Floral Aquifer (Dalmeny Aquifer) ........................................................................................... 13
6.0
Ground Resistivity Test .............................................................................................................................13
7.0
Geotechnical Recommendations ..............................................................................................................13
7.1
General .................................................................................................................................................13
7.2
General Site Grading, Clearing, and Site Preparation ..........................................................................13
7.2.1 General Site Grading and Clearing .................................................................................................. 13
7.2.2 Permanent Cut Slopes ..................................................................................................................... 14
7.2.3 Fill Slopes ......................................................................................................................................... 14
7.3
Temporary Excavation and Dewatering ................................................................................................15
7.3.1 Temporary Cut Slope for Excavation................................................................................................ 15
7.3.2 Utility Trench Excavation .................................................................................................................. 15
7.3.3 Foundation Excavations ................................................................................................................... 15
7.3.4 Soil and Material Stockpiling Near Excavation ................................................................................. 16
7.3.5 Temporary Dewatering ..................................................................................................................... 16
7.4
Site Surface Drainage ...........................................................................................................................16
7.5
Subgrade Preparation ...........................................................................................................................16
7.5.1 General............................................................................................................................................. 16
7.5.2 Proof Rolling ..................................................................................................................................... 17
7.5.3 Roadways......................................................................................................................................... 17
7.6
Fill Placement and Compaction ............................................................................................................18
M2112-2840010
Page ii
June 2010
7.6.1 Fill Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 18

7.6.2 General/Common Fill ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.6.3 Structural fill...................................................................................................................................... 19
7.6.4 Road base ........................................................................................................................................ 20
7.6.5 Underground utilities bedding ........................................................................................................... 20
7.6.6 Utilities trench backfill ....................................................................................................................... 20
7.7
Procedures to Mitigate Frost Action in Buried Utilities ..........................................................................20
7.8
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients ......................................................................................................21
7.9
Frost Penetration Depth ........................................................................................................................24
7.10 Foundations ..........................................................................................................................................24
7.10.1 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 24
7.10.2 Grade Supported Floor Slabs ........................................................................................................... 26
7.10.3 Pile Foundations............................................................................................................................... 27
7.10.4 Frost Action and Foundations........................................................................................................... 29
7.11 Seismic Design Ground Motions ...........................................................................................................29
7.11.1 Seismic Considerations .................................................................................................................... 29
7.11.2 Site Soil Classification ...................................................................................................................... 30
7.11.3 Site Spectral Acceleration ................................................................................................................ 30
7.11.4 Uniform Hazard Spectra ................................................................................................................... 30
7.12 Modulus of Vertical Subgrade Reaction, ks ...........................................................................................31
7.13 Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction, kh ......................................................................................31
7.14 Foundation Concrete ............................................................................................................................32
7.15 Paved Areas .........................................................................................................................................32
7.15.1 Pavement Subgrade Strength .......................................................................................................... 32
8.0
Construction Control and Monitoring .........................................................................................................33
9.0
Closure ......................................................................................................................................................34
10.0 References ................................................................................................................................................35
Terms, Symbols, and Abbreviations
Appendices
Appendix A Site Plans
Appendix B Borehole Logs
Appendix C Ground Resistivity Test Results
Appendix D Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix E Occupation Health and Safety - Excavation
M2112-2840010
Page iii
June 2010
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Borehole and test pit summary. .............................................................................................................6
Table 4.2 Groundwater monitoring records. ..........................................................................................................7
Table 4.3 Summary of unconfined compression strength results. .........................................................................8
Table 4.4 Summary of consolidation test results. ..................................................................................................8
Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear test results. ....................................................................................................9
Table 4.6 Average undrained shear strengths of soil at various depths. ...............................................................9
Table 4.7 Summary of calculated CBRs results. .................................................................................................10
Table 4.8 Summary of soil porewater chemistry results. .....................................................................................11
Table 7.1 Base and sub-base gradation specifications. ......................................................................................21
Table 7.2 Lateral earth pressure coefficients and soil unit weights. ....................................................................21
Table 7.3 Typical compaction equipment data for estimating compaction-induced loads. ..................................23
Table 7.4 Calculated frost penetration depth under various surface covers. .......................................................24
Table 7.5 Ultimate and allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations. .......................................................25
Table 7.6 General design parameters for bored, cast-in-place pile foundations. ................................................27
Table 7.7 Typical group efficiency for 3x3 and 9x9 pile groups (After NAVFAV 7.02)......................................... 29
Table 7.8 Damped spectral acceleration for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years. ....................................30
Table 7.9 Group reduction factor for modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh. .............................................32
List of Figures
Figure 7.1 Horizontal pressure on walls induced by compaction effort. ..............................................................23
Figure 7.2 Estimated settlement vs. applied presure for various sized square footing found at 10 ft below
ground. ..........................................................................................................................................................26
Figure 7.3 Uniform hazard spectrum for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years. ..........................................31
M2112-2840010
Page iv
June 2010
1.0 Introduction
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp. (MDH) was commissioned by Fortune Minerals Limited
(Fortune Minerals) to provide geotechnical, hydrogeological and environmental services in
support of the design and construction of the Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant
(SMPP) project in the Rural Municipality of Corman Park, No. 344, Saskatchewan. The work
described in this report is for the Geotechnical Investigation for Foundations Analysis
(Task 2) given in the workplan submitted to Fortune Minerals by MDH in February 2010.
The proposed site area for the SMPP project is located in Sections 14 and 23 of
Township 39, Range 7, approximately 2.5 km east of the community of Langham and 30 km
northwest of Saskatoon. The site location plan is presented in Figure A1 in Appendix A and
the facility Site Plan is shown on the Figure A2 in Appendix A. This report provides
geotechnical recommendations for foundations and other geotechnical considerations related
to the construction of the plant buildings and rail line.
2.0 Site Condition and Description

Fortune Minerals SMPP project site is currently cultivated farmland which is relatively flat.
The existing ground elevations within the future plant buildings area ranged from
approximately 521 meters above sea level (masl) to 523 masl. The steepest local ground
gradient is approximately 1V:30H. A topographical survey map of the project area is shown
on Figure A3 in Appendix A.
The project area is located approximately 1 km to the north of Highway 305. An existing rail
track runs through the site from the south in southeast-northwest direction.
3.0 Scope
The general scope of this geotechnical investigation was to complete a geotechnical
evaluation for the site in support of foundation designs for the plant buildings and related
geotechnical engineering work.
3.1 Field Investigations

The general scope of this investigation was to complete a surface geotechnical evaluation of
the SMPP project site. The detailed scope of the investigation was to:
1) Drill at eight (8) locations within the vicinity of the plant site to depths of approximately
24 m (80 ft) the purposes of geotechnical testing and sampling.
M2112-2840010
Page 1
June 2010
2) Install one (1) Casagrande style standpipe piezometers at the plant site location to an
approximate depth of 8.2 m (27 ft) to determine shallow groundwater levels.
3) Excavate sixteen (16) test pits to 3.0 m (10 ft) in depth to gather disturbed soil
samples and to complete field and laboratory testing.
4) Carry out a Wenner 4-pin soil resistivity test at a variety of probe spacings (up to
maximum 3.0 m (10 ft)) to provide recommendations for building grounding and
cathodic protection for concrete reinforcement and other buried metal structures
vulnerable to chloride induced corrosion.
3.2 Laboratory Testing

Complete a suite of geotechnical index testing on select samples acquired from the
boreholes and test pits including:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Atterberg limits;
Unconfined compression tests;
Water soluble sulphate;
Water content;
Grain size analysis including hydrometer;
Specific gravity;
Group index;
Consolidation tests; and,
Direct shear tests.
3.3 Report
Provide a report detailing the field investigation, in-situ testing results and laboratory testing
results, and to provide geotechnical design parameters. The content of the report include:
1) Recommendation of the appropriate types of foundation support required for each
structure contemplated (i.e. spread footings, piles, caissons, compacted fill, etc.);
2) The bearing capacity for the service limit state (SLS) and ultimate limit state (ULS) of
the substrata at stated elevations, and the anticipated uniform and differential
settlements;
3) Advice if weight of footing and soil above footing should be included when calculating
footing bearing pressure in order to check against allowable bearing pressure;
4) If deep foundations are to be considered, the types of deep foundations, the vertical
and lateral SLS and ULS load capacities for piles and/or caissons, and assessment of
obstructions likely to be encountered during the installation of piles and/or caissons,
and inspection and testing requirements during the installation;
5) Minimum depths at which foundations can be founded and minimum depth of soil
required above bearing elevations, if this is a design requirement for bearing capacity;
6) Determination of the safe-bearing capacity and horizontal sliding friction factor for
spread footing design;
M2112-2840010
Page 2
June 2010
7) Determination of allowable pile load, pile spacing, lateral bearing value, and reduction
values (if applicable) for individual pile values when in a group;
8) Unit density of soil and coefficients of active and passive earth pressures for design
of members resisting lateral loads and coefficient of friction for footings on soil;
9) Determination of angle of friction, equivalent fluid pressure, and allowable passive soil
pressure for wall design;
10) Settlement analysis for typical structural and equipment loads supported by spread
footings, for estimated allowable settlement of 6 mm and 12 mm;
11) Backfilling requirements including types of imported fill and degree of compaction,
and engineered fill requirements if footings are recommended to bear on compacted
fill;
12) Recommendations for pipe bedding and backfill, trench slope stability, soils envelope
under building footings which cannot be disturbed, and permeability rates of the soils;
13) Determination of slide potential of natural and fill slopes where affected by adjacent
structural and fill slopes and recommendations for cut and fill areas;
14) Determination of any special construction techniques such as preloading or
precautions which may be required by unusual subsoil of ground water conditions;
15) Determination of any special permanent perimeter and under-floor drainage
requirements, including estimate of the amount of ground water to be pumped;
16) Determination of subgrade modulus and modulus of compression of the soil and
recommendation for special foundation preparation, if required, to support dynamic
loads;
17) Determination of the frost penetration depth and required depths for foundation on
natural soil, foundation on fill and buried pipes and conduits;
18) Determination of any shrinkage or swelling of soils which could affect design of
foundations of floor slabs;
19) In the event that removal of existing soils and replacement with borrow materials is
required; recommendations for local source and quality restraints for borrow backfill
and recommendations for compaction requirements of fill;
20) An assessment of any corrosive properties of soils which may affect construction (e.g.
soil resistivity, water soluble sulfate content, water soluble chloride content, pH value,
and total acidity);
21) Mitigating corrosive soil and ground water effects, if any;
22) CBR values for rail line design;
23) Suitability of the soil on site to support slabs-on-grade and paved areas as well as the
coefficient of subgrade reaction for design of slabs-on-grade and concrete
pavements;
24) Suitability of the soil on site for use as compacted fill under slabs-on-grade and paved
areas, or for use as backfill to exterior walls and the method of compaction;
25) Allowable bond stress for the design of permanent, prestressed soil and/or rock
anchors;
26) Site classification for seismic site response;
M2112-2840010
Page 3
June 2010
27) Recommendations for temporary shoring of excavations, including design

requirements for both raker and tie-back systems;
28) Identification of any unusual problems likely to arise during excavation or during
construction of foundations and site services;
29) Recommended methods of dewatering during construction if a high water table is
encountered;
30) Any flooding requirements;
31) The report shall be certified, signed and stamped by a professional engineer licensed
in the province of Saskatchewan.
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Field Investigations
4.1.1
Geotechnical Boreholes
Ground Breakers Drilling Ltd. (GB) of Carnduff, SK was contracted for the geotechnical
drilling and piezometer installations. GB mobilized to Saskatoon on 16 February 2010 and
utilized a truck-mounted mobile B-61 continuous flight auger drill rig for the investigation. All
8 boreholes for foundation analysis were completed by 27 April 2010. Drilling was stopped
on two occasions during the work period due to soft ground condition after snow melt. The
borehole details are summarized in Table 4.1 and the borehole locations are shown on the
Figure A2 in Appendix A. The boreholes were decommissioned using cement-bentonite
grout (96% cement to 4% bentonite ratio (by weight)) to reduce long-term environmental
liability associated with the boreholes.
Disturbed auger cuttings, split-spoons, and Shelby Tube samples were obtained during the
drilling of boreholes and the soils were logged on-site for field descriptions of the
encountered lithology. All collected soil samples were bagged and transported to MDH soil
testing laboratory in Saskatoon every day after drilling.
Field testing included Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and pocket penetrometers (pocket
pen) testing. SPT testing was conducted at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) intervals. The
sampling depths and the results of field tests are also annotated on the borehole logs
presented in Appendix B. The Terms, Symbols and Abbreviations used on the borehole logs
are also appended.
Detailed descriptions of the drilling activities are discussed in the following sections. The
termination depths of the boreholes ranged from 18.3 m to 29.0 m (60 ft to 95 ft), the
shallower depths were due to the presence of sand layer (Dalmeny aquifer) at approximately
15 m to 20 m (49 ft to 66 ft) below ground.
M2112-2840010
Page 4
4.1.2
June 2010
Geotechnical Test Pits
Nemanishen Contracting Ltd. (NCL) was contracted for the excavation and backfill of the test
pits. NCL mobilized a John Deere 410E backhoe for this project. Sixteen (16) test pits were
excavated within the project site area:
Two (2) of them within the plant site footprint;

Seven (7) of them along the rail line alignment; and,
The remainder in various areas around the site for other project components.
All 16 test pits were completed between 03 May 2010 and 07 May 2010. The test pit details
are summarized in Table 4.1 and the test pit locations are shown on Figure A2 in
Appendix A. The test pit depths were all approximately 3.0 m (10 ft). Pocket pen tests were
carried out in the field at regular intervals and soils were logged on-site for field descriptions.
The test pit logs are presented in Appendix B. The Terms, Symbols and Abbreviations used
on the borehole logs are also appended.
Soil samples were collected every 0.5 m (1.5 ft) vertical interval, placed in polyethylene bags
and transported to the MDH soil laboratory in Saskatoon after excavation and stored in
humidity controlled room. The test pits were backfilled with the excavated material and the
grounds were re-graded by the backhoe excavator.
M2112-2840010
Page 5
June 2010
Table 4.1 Borehole and test pit summary.

Borehole /
Borehole / Testpit Depth
Testpit
Designation
(m)
(ft)
Date
Installation
Drilled /
Type
Excavated
Coordinates (NAD 83)

Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
Piezometer
depth
(meter
Top of
Piezometer
below
Ground piezometer
tip
ground)
cap
Elevation (masl)
Boreholes
M2112-06
19.8
65.0
19-Feb-2010 Piezometer
5802483.01
370350.72
521.86
522.79
513.68
8.18
M2112-07
29.0
95.0
4-Mar-2010
M2112-08
21.3
70.0
5-Mar-2010
5802468.29
370228.35
522.31
5802382.34
370227.96
521.86
M2112-09
18.3
60.0
M2112-10
18.9
62.0
5-Mar-2010
5802380.04
370349.83
523.03
6-Mar-2010
5802378.15
370466.85
522.22
M2112-11
18.9
62.0
6-Mar-2010
5802463.73
370469.03
522.75
M2112-17
M2112-18
18.3
60.0
27-Apr-2010
5802512.67
370487.48
522.82
18.3
60.0
27-Apr-2010
5802560.41
370241.34
522.01
Test Pits
M2112-22
3.1
10.0
29-Apr-2010
5803174.21
370900.16
523.65
M2112-23
3.2
10.5
29-Apr-2010
5803427.80
370700.80
522.64
M2112-24
3.2
10.5
3-May-2010
5802431.25
370399.95
522.63
M2112-25
3.1
10.0
3-May-2010
5802424.27
370281.41
522.53
M2112-26
3.1
10.0
3-May-2010
5802406.73
370187.15
522.22
M2112-27
3.1
10.0
3-May-2010
5802346.30
370030.94
522.34
M2112-28
3.1
10.0
3-May-2010
5802458.86
369982.60
522.68
M2112-29
3.2
10.5
3-May-2010
5802540.06
370100.70
521.94
M2112-30
3.2
10.5
3-May-2010
5802512.55
370315.12
522.59
M2112-31
3.5
11.5
3-May-2010
5802564.35
370334.01
522.40
M2112-32
3.4
11.0
3-May-2010
5802697.60
370358.50
522.83
M2112-33
3.4
11.0
7-May-2010
5802179.49
370895.38
521.94
M2112-34
3.4
11.0
7-May-2010
5802309.56
370772.69
521.99
M2112-35
3.5
11.5
7-May-2010
5802539.27
370891.68
522.51
M2112-36
4.0
13.0
7-May-2010
5802839.57
370705.07
522.49
M2112-37
3.2
10.5
7-May-2010
5802434.60
370642.42
522.38
4.1.3
Standpipe Piezometer Installation and Shallow Groundwater Regime
One (1) Casagrande style standpipe piezometer was installed to a depth of 8.5 m (27.8 ft)
below ground level in borehole M2112-06 to collect shallow groundwater elevations. The
piezometer completion details are provided in Appendix B. The standpipe piezometer
consists of a 50 mm diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe with 1.5 m (5 ft) length of horizontally
slotted screen at the bottom. Water levels in the piezometer were measured between
March 2010 and May 2010 and the data is presented in Table 4.2. The highest measured
groundwater level was at 5.89 m (19.32 ft) below ground. However, the Surficial Stratified
Deposits near ground surface are expected to be saturated during wet seasons.
M2112-2840010
Page 6
June 2010
It is anticipated that the groundwater levels will vary from the observed elevations due to
seasonal fluctuation and in response to wet or dry weather conditions. Changes in
groundwater levels will also be observed in response to changes of surface drainage
patterns.
Table 4.2 Groundwater monitoring records.
Ground
Piezometer
Water Depth (m below ground)
Groundwater Elevation (masl)
Piezometer Elevation Top of Casing
7-Apr-2010 20-Apr-2010 6-May-2010 20-May-2010 7-Apr-2010 20-Apr-2010 6-May-2010 20-May-2010
(masl)
(masl)
M2112-06
521.86
522.79
7.24
7.31
7.35
5.89
514.62
514.55
514.51
515.97
Note: The underlined values are the highest measured groundwater level at the site.
4.2 Laboratory Testing

4.2.1
Geotechnical and Index Soil Properties
The laboratory testing for the samples from boreholes included grain size distributions, water
contents, unconfined compression tests, group index, Atterberg limits, specific gravity, direct
shear tests and high load consolidation tests. Samples were selected for laboratory testing
to best represent the stratigraphic layers encountered during the drilling to produce an
understanding of the soil conditions and soil properties within the project area. Table D1 in
Appendix D provides a summary of the laboratory testing results. Detailed laboratory testing
results are also provided in Appendix D.
All soils testing, with the exception of the detailed salinity testing, was conducted by the MDH
soils laboratory in Saskatoon, SK.
4.2.2
Unconfined Compression Test
Unconfined compressive strength testing was conducted on undisturbed samples from the
Shelby tubes obtained during the drilling investigation, where sample was suitable. A
summary of the test results for the unconfined compressive strengths are shown in
Table 4.3.
M2112-2840010
Page 7
June 2010
Table 4.3 Summary of unconfined compression strength results.

Borehole
Number
M2112-08
M2112-06
M2112-11
M2112-10
M2112-09
M2112-08
M2112-06
M2112-07
M2112-06
M2112-08
M2112-07
4.2.3
Sample
Number
CTS-60
CTS-06
CTS-141
CTS-115
CTS-92
CTS-68
CTS-13
CTS-39
CTS-21
CTS-82
CTS-54
Stratigraphic Layer
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Oxidized Silt Till
Sample Depth
(ft)
(m)
9.0
2.7
13.0
4.0
16.5
5.0
19.0
5.8
21.5
6.6
24.0
7.3
25.5
7.8
26.5
8.1
46.5
14.2
56.5
17.2
61.5
18.7
Unconfined Compressive Strengths, qu

(kPa)
123
282
286
664
680
518
321
407
730
513
421
Oedometer / Consolidation Test
Oedometer Testing was performed to determine one-dimensional consolidation or swelling

using incremental loading (ASTM D2435). Three (3) samples obtained from various depths
were selected for consolidation tests at the MDH soil laboratory. A summary of the test
results is shown in Table 4.4. The detailed results for the Oedometer testing are provided in
Appendix D. The Casagrande semilog method (1936) was used for evaluation of the
preconsolidation pressure, po. The test results for sample CTS-82 were disregarded due to
the unreasonably low pre-consolidation pressure obtained, possibly as a result of soil
disturbance during sampling.
(ft)
(m)
Compression
Index, Cc
Rebound
Index, Cr
Swelling
Pressure (kPa)
Stratigraphic
Layer
Over
Consolidation
Ratio, OCR
Sample
Number
Preconsolidation
Pressure, po
Borehole
Number
Initial Void
Ratio, eo
Table 4.4 Summary of consolidation test results.
7.5 - 9.0
2.3 - 2.7
0.49
100
1.9
0.12
0.03
11.9
6.9 - 7.3
0.32
275
1.7
0.09
0.03
77.4
0.34
Sample Depth
M2112-08
CTS-60 Oxidized Silt Till
M2112-08
CTS-68 Oxidized Silt Till 22.5 - 24.0
M2112-08
CTS-82 Oxidized Silt Till 55.0 - 56.5 16.8 - 17.2
4.2.4
Direct Shear Test
The Direct Shear testing (ASTM D3080-90) was conducted to determine the drained shear
strength of selected in-situ soil samples. Tests on three (3) samples recovered from various
depths were completed at the MDH soil laboratory. The test report graphical plots are
presented in Appendix D and the test results are summarized in Table 4.5.
M2112-2840010
Page 8
June 2010
Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear test results.

Residual
Angle of
Shear
Sample
Sample
Depth (ft) Depth (m) Apparent Resistance
Cohesion, of Soil, '
(degree)
c' (kPa)
Peak
Angle of
Shear
Apparent Resistance
Cohesion, of Soil, '
(degree)
c' (kPa)
Borehole
Number
Sample
Number
Stratigraphic
Layer
M2112-08
CTS-60
Oxidized Silt Till
9.0
2.7
5.0
28.0
14.0
30.0
M2112-09
M2112-10
CTS-92
CTS-120
Oxidized Silt Till

Oxidized Silt Till
21.5
31.5
6.6
9.6
5.0
2.0
29.0
29.0
13.0
25.0
32.0
30.0
4.3 Undrained Shear Strength, su

The average undrained shear strengths obtained from field pocket penetrometers tests and
laboratory unconfined compression tests at various depths are summarized in Table 4.6. No
laboratory undrained shear strength tests were performed on samples from the 30 ft to 40 ft
depth interval because of insufficient sample size and/or poor sample condition.
Table 4.6 Average undrained shear strengths of soil at various depths.
Sample Depth
from
Sample Depth
to
Average Undrained Average Undrained Average Undrained

Shear Strength from Shear Strength from
Shear Strength
Pocket Pen
Lab Tests
(Field & Lab Tests)
su
su
su
(ft)
(m)
(ft)
(m)
kPa
kPa
kPa
0.0
10
3.0
87
62
74
10
3.0
20
6.1
136
205
171
20
6.1
30
9.1
197
241
219
30
9.1
40
12.2
190
190
40
12.2
50
15.2
157
365
261
50
15.2
60
18.3
161
257
209
60
18.3
70
21.3
110
211
160
149
223
184
Overall Average
4.4 California Bearing Ratio, CBR

California Bearing Ratios (CBRs) were calculated for the rail line alignment from Group Index
test results based on the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure Surfacing
M2112-2840010
Page 9
June 2010
Manual (SM 940). The (soaked) CBR results are summarized in Table 4.7. Detailed
laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix D. Sample CTS-543 from test pit
M2112-34 was a non-plastic sand and therefore no Group Index or CBR was obtained for
this sample.
Table 4.7 Summary of calculated CBRs results.
Test Pit
Number
M2112-24
M2112-25
M2112-26
M2112-27
M2112-33
M2112-34
M2112-37
Sample
CTS-501
CTS-506
CTS-511
CTS-515
CTS-539
CTS-543
CTS-556
Sample Depth
(ft)
(m)
3.5
1.1
5.0
1.5
4.0
1.2
2.0
0.6
3.5
1.1
2.0
0.6
3.5
1.1
Group Index
CBR
20.0
11.9
20.0
6.3
17.4
20.0
2.5
4.6
2.5
6.7
3.1
2.5
4.5 Chemical Laboratory Investigation

Six (6) soil samples were submitted to ALS Laboratory in Saskatoon for analysis of soil
chemistry. Detailed salinity testing (saturation paste method) was conducted to determine
Cl-, K, Mg, Na, SO4, electrical conductivity (EC) and pH for the soils in the project area. A
summary of the chemical constituents and Electrical Conductivity (EC) for the pore water in
each of the soil samples tested for the study are is presented in Table 4.8. The original ALS
Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix D.
The laboratory detailed salinity test results show that the soil at the site has moderate to very
severe degree of exposure in sulphate (SO4) content (CSA A23.1-04). Sulphates are
naturally occurring in Saskatchewan tills to differing degrees. The average value of pore
water sulphate contents tested was 3,522 mg/L. Chloride (Cl-) exposure is also known to
lead to corrosion in reinforced concrete structures. The average chloride content in the
samples tested was 49 mg/L. A designer competent in concrete mix design should complete
the concrete mix design specifications, but it is anticipated that sulphate resistant cement
may be used, as this is common practice in Saskatchewan.
M2112-2840010
Page 10
June 2010
Table 4.8 Summary of soil porewater chemistry results.

M2112-07
L872023-1
CTS - 33
14'
mg/L
11.4
Chloride (Cl)
mg/L
531
Calcium (Ca)
mg/L
30.5
Potassium (K)
mg/L
163
Magnesium (Mg)
mg/L
38.7
Sodium (Na)
SAR
0.38
SAR
mg/L
1820
Sulphate (SO4)
%
37.1
% Saturation
pH
7.48
pH in Saturated Paste
dS m-1
2.80
Conductivity Sat. Paste
Detailed Salinity (Corrected for Pore Water)
Parameter
Units
Natural Moisture Content

Corrected Salinity values
Chloride (Cl)
Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
Sulphate (SO4)
Class of Sulphate exposure
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Notes:
M2112-06
L872023-2
CTS - 02
3'
14.3
45.1
12.3
19.3
10.6
0.33
70.0
35.8
7.90
0.43
M2112-09
L872023-3
CTS - 84
3'
23.7
17.7
10.4
53.9
53.6
1.43
78.6
37.8
8.48
0.70
M2112-08
L872023-4
CTS - 59
7'
7.0
29.4
8.4
20.2
14.8
0.51
24.9
77.7
7.84
0.36
M2112-11
L872023-5
CTS - 140
14'
28.9
452
32
738
289
1.95
4240
39.1
7.81
5.70
M2112-10
L872023-6
CTS - 112
10' - 11.5'
5.0
56.7
8.9
24.7
12.0
0.34
82.1
72.0
7.67
0.48
12.93
12.49
9.62
33.41
10.92
36.22
33
1524
88
468
111
5222
S-2
(severe)
41
129
35
55
30
201
S-3
(moderate)
93
70
41
212
211
309
S-3
(moderate)
16
68
20
47
34
58
S-3
(moderate)
103
1618
115
2642
1035
15182
S-1
(very severe)
10
113
18
49
24
163
S-3
(moderate)
1. Chemical contituent concentrations determined using the saturation paste method. Deionized w ater is added to the soil until the soil is
saturated. The paste is allow ed to stand overnight or a minimum of four hours. After equilibration, an extract is obtained by vacuum
filtration. Chloride in the extract is determined colorimetrically at 660nm by complexation w ith mercury (II) thiocynate. Individual cations
are derermined by ICP-OES. pH of the soil paste is measured using a pH meter. Conductivity of the extract is measured by a
conductivity meter.
2. Values provided at bottom of table (in green) are estimates of pore w aterconcentration, determined by: [(%Water Saturation /
%Water natural content)*(Csat.paste)]
3. Class of Sulphate exposure refer to Table 3 of CSA A23.1-04, Concrete materials and methods of concrete construction.
5.0 Subsurface Condition

5.1 Local Geology
The general subsurface stratigraphy within the project site consists of:
0.1 m (0.3 ft) to 0.5 m (1.5 ft) of topsoil, overlying;

0.1 m (0.3 ft) to 3.2 m (10.5 ft) of Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD), overlying;
Approximately 1.0 m (3.3 ft) of Battleford Formation, overlying;
12.0 m (39.4 ft) to 17.0 m (55.8 ft) of Upper Floral Formation, overlying;
Intra-till sand (Upper Floral Aquifer/ Dalmeny Aquifer)
All of the boreholes were terminated within the Upper Floral Formation of the Saskatoon
Group due to the limitation of drilling depths. The glacial till soil encountered in this area is
M2112-2840010
Page 11
June 2010
generally heterogeneous fine grained soil with relatively low permeability which can also be
described as poorly drained soil.
Saskatoon Group
The Saskatoon Group was first proposed by Christiansen (1968) as the portion of drift lying
between the Sutherland Group and the ground surface. The Saskatoon Group is subdivided
into the Floral Formation, the Battleford Formation, and the SSD. The Floral Formation
consists of a Lower and Upper unit by distinct glaciations. These units are often separated
by the Riddell Member of the Floral Formation. The Riddell Member is a stratified interglacial
deposit of Sangamon age (Skwarawoolf, 1981) and forms a significant aquifer in
Saskatchewan which is informally called the Upper Floral Aquifer. This is called the Dalmeny
Aquifer in the project area. This unit is continuous across the project area and was
encountered in all the boreholes. All the boreholes drilled as part of the investigation were
terminated in this stratigraphic unit.
5.1.1
The Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD)
Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD) of the Saskatoon Group were encountered in various
thickness around in the vicinity of the proposed mine site. The SSD are mainly derived from
weathered or re-worked Battleford Formation till and both water and wind derived sand, silt
and clay deposits. The soils encountered in this stratum during this investigation were
layered sand, silt and clay.
5.1.2
The Battleford Formation
The Battleford Formation is located between the Floral Formation and Surficial Stratified
Deposits. This layer of soil was described as sandy silt till consisted some clay and trace
amount of gravel, brown in color, oxidized, soft to firm in consistency, low plasticity, moist,
patchy oxide (iron) staining was prevalent throughout the unit.
The stratigraphic contact with the underlying Floral Formation was primarily based on the
presence of intact fractures within the Floral Formation, color change, and consistency
variation (soil hardness increases in Floral Formation due to the highly overconsolidated
nature of the Floral Formation till compared to that of the Battleford Formation till).
5.1.3
The Floral Formation
The Upper Floral Formation till encountered was described as sandy silt till consisted some
clay and trace amount of gravel, brown in color in the shallower depth (transition from
Battleford Formation above) overlying grey in color with oxide stained fractures in deeper
depth, oxidized, stiff to hard in consistency, low plasticity and moist.
M2112-2840010
Page 12
5.1.4
June 2010
Upper Floral Aquifer (Dalmeny Aquifer)
Upper Floral Aquifer was encountered at depths between 15.2 m (50 ft) (M2112-11) to
20.4 m (67 ft) (M2112-08) and all the boreholes were terminated within this aquifer. This
sand layer was described as fine to coarse sand, trace silt, trace clay, brown or brown to
grey in color, very dense in compactness and wet in moisture condition.
6.0 Ground Resistivity Test

Ground resistivity testing was performed as a part of the geotechnical investigations at the
site. The approximate test locations are shown on Figure A2 in Appendix A. The ground
resistivity test was performed on 07 May 2010. Soil resistivity measurements were taken
with nine (9) incremental probe distances in accordance with the Equally Spaced (Wenner
Arrangement) Four-Point Method in IEEE Std 81 1983. The test configuration and ground
resistivity results are presented in Appendix C.
7.0 Geotechnical Recommendations

7.1 General
The stratigraphy was found to be relatively consistent across all the boreholes, where sandy
silt till is overlain by a SSD layer. All eight (8) boreholes were terminated in a wet sand layer
(Upper Floral Aquifer). The bottom of this sand layer was not encountered in the
geotechnical boreholes as the deepest hole was drilled to 29 m (95 ft), which is beyond the
typical pile depth.
The following subsections provided general guidelines and recommendations for site grading
and subgrade preparation, site drainage, and foundation recommendations. Foundation
recommendations and calculations found in this report are based upon the methods
presented in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CGS, 2006) (CFEM), unless
otherwise indicated.
Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered are presented on the borehole logs in
Appendix B.
7.2 General Site Grading, Clearing, and Site Preparation

7.2.1
General Site Grading and Clearing
As a minimum requirement, all surface vegetation, organics (topsoil), trash, debris, and other
deleterious materials should be cleared and removed from the footprint of planned
structures. Topsoil present at the surface should be stripped and removed from all areas
M2112-2840010
Page 13
June 2010
requiring subgrade support. Areas requiring subgrade support include building footprints,
concrete pads, and roadways.
The plant site area is generally flat in nature. The ground elevation difference revealed from
the topographical survey plan (Figure A3, Appendix A) is within 1.75 m (5.7 ft). The required
site grading is considered to be minimal.
The topsoil should be removed during grading. Topsoil may be stockpiled and re-used for
non-structural areas only, such as landscaping. Reusing this material as backfill soil for
subgrade support is not recommended.
The topsoil thickness encountered in the boreholes and test pit was approximately 0.1 m
(0.3 ft) to 0.5 m (1.5 ft) in general and the expected maximum thickness can be locally up to
0.6 m (2.0 ft) or more. For cost estimation and general site planning, the assumption of
0.3 m (1 ft) of top soil will be appropriate for all locations around the future plant site
buildings.
7.2.2
Permanent Cut Slopes
A slope angle of 2.5H:1V (21.8) to 3H:1V(18.4) for the permanent cut slope may generally
be deemed to be appropriate for general planning and cost estimation. It is recommended
that slope stability analysis be conducted to verify stability of permanent slopes with height
larger than 3 m (9.8 ft). The permanent cut slope angle should be designed by a
professional engineer with geotechnical experience in slope stability design to ensure a
sufficient factor of safety is achieved. The construction process should be supervised by
qualified personnel to ensure the workmanship and the soil encountered has not significantly
deviated from the design soil type.
The stability of the permanent cut slopes is dependent on the soil type, groundwater
conditions and potential loading conditions at the crest. The factor of safety requirement may
vary depending on the type of infrastructure located within the vicinity of slope. A higher
factor of safety may be required if the risk of life or risk of economy loss is higher in the case
of slope failure and vice versa. The design engineer should make the appropriate judgement.
7.2.3
Fill Slopes
The permanent fill slope angle can generally be varied from 2.5H:1V (21.8) to 3H:1V (18.4)
or flatter depending on the property of fill material, facility at crest and the design
groundwater condition. It is recommended that a slope stability analysis be conducted to
verify stability of permanent slope with height larger than 3 m (9.8 ft). The permanent fill
slope angle should be designed by a professional engineer with geotechnical experience in
slope design to ensure a sufficient factor of safety is achieved. The construction process
should be supervised by qualified personnel to ensure the quality workmanship.
M2112-2840010
Page 14
June 2010
The stability of the slopes is dependent on the soil type, groundwater conditions and potential
loading conditions at the crest. The factor of safety requirement may vary depending on the
type of infrastructure located within the vicinity of slope. A higher factor of safety may be
required if the risk of life or risk of economy loss is higher in the case of slope failure and vice
versa. The design engineer should make the appropriate judgement.
7.3 Temporary Excavation and Dewatering

7.3.1
Temporary Cut Slope for Excavation
If workers entering the excavated trench, the temporary slope angle of excavation shall
follow the recommendation stated in the Occupation Health and Safety, 1996 (OHS). The
soil at shallow depth in this site may be classified as type 3 and type 4 at different locations;
the maximum slope angle for type 3 soil and type 4 soil shall be 1H:1V (45) and 3H:1V
(18.4), respectively. A copy of the relevant section for excavation safety in OHS is attached
as Appendix E. Variability in surface soils exists, and it is recommended that a qualified
person conduct an inspection of any excavations prior to workers entering the excavated
area.
The excavation slopes should be checked regularly for signs of spalling, cracking, tension
crack at crest, etc., particularly after periods of rain. Local flattening of the excavation slopes
may be required where instabilities of the cut slopes are observed.
7.3.2
Utility Trench Excavation
Utility trenches with steeper cut slopes may be allowed if no workers will enter the trench;
sufficient measures should be taken to protect the stability of adjacent structures and human
safety. The utility trench slope angle should follow the recommendations in attached OHS
guidelines (Appendix E) if workers will be entering the trench to ensure a safe working
environment. Temporary soil protective measures designed by a professional engineer may
be needed. Variability exists in the surface soils, and it is recommended that a qualified
person conduct an inspection of excavations prior to workers entering the excavated area.
7.3.3
Foundation Excavations
Foundation excavations that are left open for extended periods may collect groundwater
seepage, which can likely be handled by pumps. Any surface water or groundwater
infiltration into the foundation excavation should be diverted away from the foundation base
to avoid softening. In warm, dry weather, care should also be taken to prevent the soil at the
base of the excavation from becoming dry and cracked. It is good practice to protect the
base of the footing excavation with a concrete mud slab immediately after footing excavation,
particularly if wet weather is anticipated.
M2112-2840010
Page 15
June 2010
Where buried services are to be located near building foundations, the bottom of footings
should be established below an imaginary line projected at 1.0H:1.0V (45) upward from the
invert level of the service line to reduce the risk of undermining such footings.
7.3.4
Soil and Material Stockpiling Near Excavation
As stated in OHS 260(1), equipment, spoil pile, rocks and construction materials are to be
kept at least one metre from the edge of an excavation or trench. The stockpiling distance
from the crest of the excavation will be preferably equal to or greater than the depth of
excavation, especially when the trench will remain open for a relatively longer period.
7.3.5
Temporary Dewatering
In most situations, a peripheral trench with one or two low points for a standard sump pump
may be sufficient for dewatering a shallow excavation; close monitoring on the groundwater
ingress into the trench by qualified personnel is recommended. Other dewatering methods
may be required if this method proves to be insufficient. It is difficult to estimate the amount
of water that will be encountered, as surficial soils are stratified and variable across the site.
The surficial stratified soils may be water bearing during spring or following precipitation
events. As a result, it may be beneficial to strip this material away from excavation footprints
to reduce water ingress.
Surface drainage should be directed away from the crest of any excavation.
7.4 Site Surface Drainage

Excess water should be drained from the site as quickly as possible both during and after
construction. Roof and other drains should discharge well clear of any buildings and
equipment. Initial grading operations should also be focused on providing surface drainage,
such that precipitation and surface run-off is directed off the construction area. Within 2 m
(6.6 ft) of the building perimeter, hard surfacing (asphalt or concrete) should be graded to
slope away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent. Landscaped areas should be
graded at least 5 percent to promote run-off from buildings.
7.5 Subgrade Preparation

7.5.1
General
The following provides recommendations for general soil subgrade preparation in order to
produce a uniform bearing condition for the planned structures. Following stripping of topsoil
and excavation to design subgrade elevation (if required), the exposed subgrade should be
inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel to verify the removal of unsuitable materials
and to provide additional recommendations, as appropriate. Unsuitable materials include
topsoil, organic matter, vegetation, oversized material with particle sizes larger than 75 mm,
M2112-2840010
Page 16
June 2010
and other deleterious materials. The lateral extent of all excavations and removals should be
at least 1.5 m (5 ft) from beyond the edge of structures.
As a minimum, all exposed soil subgrades should be scarified to a minimum depth of
200 mm (8 inch), moisture conditioned (wetted or dried) to within optimum moisture content,
and compacted in accordance with the recommendations outlined in Section 7.6. Specific
recommendations for subgrade preparation for the various project components are provided
in the following sections.
7.5.2
Proof Rolling
To verify that competent and uniform soil subgrade support conditions have been achieved,
proof-rolling of the subgrade should be performed by two passes of a dual-wheel truck (or
comparable equipment) with an 80 kN single axle load. Soils which display rutting or
appreciable deflections upon proof-rolling should be over-excavated to expose the underlying
more competent soil and replaced with suitable engineered fill compacted in accordance with
the recommendations outlined in Section 7.6.
If yielding or pumping conditions are encountered in subgrade areas, they may be stabilized
by placing a layer of geogrid (Tensar BX 1200 or approved equivalent) directly on the bottom
of the subgrade and backfilled with well graded 25 mm minus gravel compacted to at least
95 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Fill placement
procedures should follow the recommendations provided in Section 7.6.
Loose or soft areas should be identified during the initial site grading phase and addressed
during construction. All finished subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and
erosion as soon as possible.
7.5.3
Roadways
For subgrade support of the roadway, a uniformly smooth subgrade surface should be
prepared, containing no ruts, pot holes, loose soils, or any imperfections that can retain water
on the surface. Isolated pockets of frost susceptible material and organic topsoil should be
removed and replaced with similar material adjoining the excavation to allow for uniform
performance. As a minimum, the soils in all areas supporting vehicle traffic should be
excavated to provide a minimum 0.3 m (1.0 ft) sub-cut below design subgrade elevations and
re-compacted to provide a uniform bearing condition. The following soil subgrade
recommendations should be followed, depending on whether the design soil subgrade is
above or below the existing grade. The prepared subgrade should be crowned or crosssloped to facilitate the flow of surface water off the roadway. A minimum of 3 percent crossslope is recommended. As a minimum, all road subgrades should be designed in
accordance with the standard specifications set forth by Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways
and Infrastructure (SMHI).
M2112-2840010
Page 17
June 2010
Fill Sections
If the exposed subgrade surface is more than 0.3 m (1.0 ft) below the design subgrade
elevation, the subgrade should only be prepared by scarifying to a minimum depth of
200 mm (8 inch), moisture conditioned (wetted or dried) to within 2 percent of optimum
moisture content, and compacted to 98 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry
Density (SPMDD).
If the exposed subgrade surface is less than 0.3 m (1.0 ft) below the design subgrade
elevation, the subgrade should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 0.3 m (1.0 ft) below
the design subgrade surface. The lateral extent of over-excavation should be at least 1.5 m
(5 ft), or equal to the depth of over-excavation, whichever is greater. The exposed subgrade
should then be scarified and compacted as outlined above. All fill soils placed to raise the
subgrade elevation to design grade should be placed in loose lifts, moisture conditioned, and
compacted as outlined above.
Excavation Sections
If the design subgrade elevation requires excavation, the subgrade should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 0.3 m (1.0 ft) below the design subgrade surface. The
lateral extent of over-excavation should be at least 1.5 m (5 ft), or equal to the depth of overexcavation, whichever is greater. The exposed soil subgrade should then be scarified and
compacted as outlined above.
Subgrade preparation should not be performed on very soft, loose or wet subgrade as
construction equipment may further weaken the subgrade. Subsequent to scarification and
compaction, the prepared subgrade should be proof rolled as discussed in Section 7.5.1 to
create a uniform bearing condition and firm even surface. Recommendations to stabilize
saturated, yielding or pumping subgrade conditions, should they be encountered, were also
provided in Section 7.5.2.
If any problems are encountered during the subgrade preparation, or if the site conditions
deviate from those indicated by the boreholes, a qualified geotechnical personnel should be
notified to provide additional recommendations.
7.6 Fill Placement and Compaction

7.6.1
Fill Materials
Excavations at the site between 0.0 metres below ground surface (mBGS) to 1.5 mBGS
(0 ftBGS to 5 ftBGS) will generally consist of sand (SM), clay (CH) or sandy silt till (CL). The
sand, clay and silt till were generally suitable for use as general fill materials provided that
the soils are acceptably moisture conditioned (wetted or dried), free of appreciable amounts
of contaminations, deleterious and/or organic materials, and free of particle sizes over
75 mm in diameter.
M2112-2840010
Page 18
June 2010
If imported soils are selected for use as fill materials, the preferred soils are granular
consisting of relatively clean, well graded, sand or mixture of sand and gravel with a
maximum particle diameter of 75 mm. According to the local contractor, there is a granular
material borrow-pit located 20 km to the west of Langham, but the soil will need to be tested
prior to use.
Prior to placement of fill material, representative bulk samples (about 25 kg) should be taken
of the proposed fill soils and laboratory tests should be conducted to determine Atterberg
limits, natural moisture content, grain size-distribution, and moisture-density relationships for
compaction. These test results will be necessary for the proper control of construction for
new engineered fill.
Fill soils should not be placed in a frozen state, or placed on a frozen subgrade. All lumps of
materials should be broken down during placement.
Prior to placing any fill, the exposed surface soils should be observed by qualified
geotechnical personnel to evaluate the removal of unsuitable materials, and to provide
additional geotechnical recommendations, as appropriate.
7.6.2
General/Common Fill
The in-situ, sandy SSD, clay and silt till are likely suitable for general fill material but are not
suitable for structural fill. As indicated from the soils encountered in the eight boreholes in
this investigation, the in-situ silt till can be encountered anywhere from near the ground
surface to 3.4 m (11 ft) below ground. This approximate depth is only for cost estimation and
general development planning, and the base of the organic layer (topsoil) may be deeper
near wetland and shallower in the other locations. Materials excavated at the proposed
ponds within the site may be used as general fill for construction.
General/common fill materials should be placed in loose lifts of 150 mm (6 inch) in thickness,
be moisture conditioned (wetted or dried) to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content,
and compacted to and 98% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) tested in
accordance with ASTM Method D 698.
7.6.3
Structural fill
Structural fill should be free draining granular material that conforms to the gradation of subbase material specified in Table 7.1, or other gradations specified by a geotechnical engineer
or structural engineer. The results of the investigation showed no easily available sources of
structural fill within the project site. There are a few privately owned gravel pits within
100 km of the site, but a more detailed investigation of the available sources should be
performed before construction.
M2112-2840010
Page 19
June 2010
The structural fill should extend laterally 1 m or equal to the full depth of fill (whichever is the
greater) beyond the footprint of a grade-supported area. It is important that the fill soils be
compacted uniformly across the footing foundation/ slab area in order to minimize the
potential of subsequent differential vertical movements.
Structural fill materials should be placed in loose lifts of 150 mm (6 inch) in thickness, be
moisture conditioned (wetted or dried) to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and
compacted to and 100% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) tested in
accordance with ASTM Method D 698.
7.6.4
Road base
The well-graded granular sub-base and base materials should conform to the gradation
shown in Table 7.1. Placement of the sub-base and base granular fill should not be
conducted in freezing conditions.
Both granular base fill material and granular sub-base material should be placed in loose lifts
of 150 mm (6 inch) in thickness, be moisture conditioned (wetted or dried) to within 2
percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to and 100% of Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) tested in accordance with ASTM Method D 698.
7.6.5
Underground utilities bedding
Bedding material varies for different utilities, and attention should be given to the
specifications for the different utilities types. However, well-graded granular base material
conforming to the sub-base gradation shown in Table 7.1 may be used as a free draining
bedding material or surrounding material for water carrying utilities. Placement of the
bedding material should not be conducted in freezing conditions.
7.6.6
Utilities trench backfill
Well-graded granular base material conforming to the sub-base gradation shown in Table 7.1
or another gradation approved by a geotechnical engineer may be used for utilities trench
backfill in traffic areas and the general fill described in Section 7.6.2 can be used for utilities
backfill in off-road areas.
7.7 Procedures to Mitigate Frost Action in Buried Utilities

The native soil near ground surface consisting of silt and clay is considered to be moderately
to highly frost susceptible. Buried utilities that are frost susceptible should have a minimum
frost cover of 2.7 m (9.0 ft) if granular backfill (gravel and sand) is used. Utilities buried with
less than the recommended soil cover should be protected with insulation to avoid frost
effects that may cause damage to the utility pipes. Rigid insulation placed under areas
subject to vehicular wheel loads should be provided with a minimum cover of 600 mm (2 ft)
of compacted granular base and/or pavement.
M2112-2840010
Page 20
June 2010
Table 7.1 Base and sub-base gradation specifications.

Percent Passing by Weight
Sub-Base
Base Coarse
Type 31
Type 33
Type 6
100
100
Sieve Size
50
mm
31.5
mm
25
mm
22.4
mm
18
mm
16
mm
12.5
mm
9
mm
5
mm
2
mm
900
m
400
m
m
160
m
71
Plasticity Index
Fractured Face %
Lightweight pieces %
75 - 90
100
65 - 83
75-100
40 - 69
26 - 47
17 - 32
12 - 22
7 - 14
6 - 11
0-7
Min 50
Max 5
50 - 75
32 - 52
20 - 35
15 - 25
8 - 15
6 - 11
0-6
Min 50
Max 5
0 - 80
0 - 45
0 - 20
0-6
0-6
Note: Adopted from SMHI's Standard Specification Manual.
7.8 Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients

The determination of lateral earth pressures will be required for the design of subsurface
foundation walls, sumps, retaining walls, etc. Horizontal soil forces should be determined
based on at-rest (Ko) earth pressure conditions where the horizontal stress is:
h = Kov = KoH
The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and unit weights are provide in
Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Lateral earth pressure coefficients and soil unit weights.
Soil Type
Ko
Ka
Total Unit Weight,

(kN/m 3)
Compacted Granular Fill
0.45
0.29
22
Compacted Cohesive Fill
0.6
0.42
20
Native Silt Till
0.6
0.42
22
Where the parameters in Table 7.2 are used for estimating horizontal loads on walls
backfilled with granular soil, the width of the granular section should be at least 3 m wide at
M2112-2840010
Page 21
June 2010
the bottom of the wall and should be sloped upwards at no steeper than 1H:1V away from
the wall.
The shape of the lateral pressure distribution will depend on the degree of compaction
achieved in the soil backfill against the wall. Where the backfill adjacent to the wall will be
compacted to 95 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) or greater,
the design earth pressure should adopt a combined trapezoidal/triangular distribution as per
Figure 7.1. The relationships to be used in calculating the lateral pressures are also given in
Figure 7.1 and load of typical compactors are given in Table 7.3. Where subdrainage will not
be provided, two cases should be considered in the calculation of the lateral pressures:
1) The case immediately following fill placement and compaction, where the
groundwater level has not been re-established. In this case the total soil unit weights
provided in Table 7.2 should be used.
2) The longer term case where the groundwater level is re-established. In this case
buoyant soil unit weights ( = 9.8 kN/m3) should be used to calculate the
horizontal stress below the depth of the groundwater level and a hydrostatic pressure
component due to water pressure will need to be added.
The greater of case 1) or 2) above should be used for design.
In addition to earth pressure, lateral stresses generated by line, point or surcharge loads,
from such as equipment and/or embankment fill, also require consideration in the design of
retaining structures. MDH would be pleased to assist with the design of such cases upon
request.
To reduce the potential of lateral hydrostatic or frost forces developing due to accumulation
of water, it is recommended that clean free-draining, non-frost susceptible granular soil with
less than 5 percent particles by weight smaller than 0.08 mm in size, be used as backfill
within a minimum 1 m wide zone behind retaining structures. A perforated drainage pipe
enclosed in a geotextile sock should be installed along the bottom of the walls with positive
drainage to a discharge point. The structural engineer may present other options to deal with
the effects of lateral hydrostatic or frost forces acting upon structures. However, it may be
noted that shallow groundwater conditions at some locations may prevent the use of some
alternatives (i.e. void forms) in the frost zone. In areas that are not paved, the upper 600 mm
of backfill should consist of inorganic clay fill, to reduce the potential of surface water
infiltration behind the wall. The ground or pavement surface should be graded to promote
positive drainage away from the wall.
M2112-2840010
Page 22
June 2010
Zc
Z
d
'h
For Zc Z d,
For Z > d,
'h
= soil unit weight

K = Ko (see report text)
see also table Table 7.3 for typical compactor load

Figure 7.1 Horizontal pressure on walls induced by compaction effort.
Table 7.3 Typical compaction equipment data for estimating compaction-induced
loads.
Single-drum walk-behind
Dead Weight of
Roller (kN)
2.3
Centrigugal Force
(kN)
8.3
Roller Width
(mm)
560
Dual-drum walk-behind
1.6
10.1
560
20.9
12.1
8.8
760
27.5
9.2
19.8
750
38.7
Equipment Type
P (kN/m)
18.9
M2112-2840010
Page 23
June 2010
7.9 Frost Penetration Depth

The observed frozen ground depth during previous preliminary geotechnical drilling in
February 2010 and March 2010 was approximately 1.8 m to 2.7 m (6 ft to 9 ft) below grade.
The frost depths calculated by the modified Berggren equation given by CFEM are
summarized in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Calculated frost penetration depth under various surface covers.
Return Period
(years)
10
25
Frost Penetration Depth

(mBGS)
(ftBGS)
2.5
8.3
2.7
9.0
7.10 Foundations
7.10.1 Shallow Foundations
Boreholes M2112-06, M2112-07, M2112-11, M2112-17 and M2112-18 were drilled at the
location of the proposed plant site. The soil below 2.7 mBGS (9.0 ft) was firm clay to very
stiff sill till. The future shallow foundations are assumed to be founded on stiff to very stiff till.
The firm clay shall be replaced with sub-base material specified in Table 7.1 and compacted
in accordance with Section 7.6 of this report.
If shallow foundations are selected by the foundation designer, it is recommended that the
shallow foundations be founded below the estimated depth of frost penetration at 2.7 m
(9.0 ft) to avoid frost heave. It is recommended that provisions be made for drainage around
the foundation perimeter, to the depth of maximum frost penetration. However, the shallow
foundation may be founded at a shallower depth if the superstructure can tolerate seasonal
vertical movement. A properly designed thermal shield around the future building may also
help to reduce the foundation depth.
The recommended allowable bearing capacity for a square and strip footing
foundation from 0.0 m (0.0 ft) below ground to 4.6 m (15.0 ft) below ground and under
are presented in Table 7.5. The recommended serviceability limited state (SLS)
allowable bearing capacity is based on foundation settlement less than 25 mm
(1 inch). For ultimate limit state (ULS) design, a resistance factor of 0.5 shall be
applied on the ultimate bearing capacities given in the table. The self weight of the
shallow foundation should be considered when determining the total capacity of the
foundation.
M2112-2840010
Page 24
June 2010
Table 7.5 Ultimate and allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations.
Depth Below Ground

(m)
(ft)
0 to 1.5
1.5 to 3.0
3.0 to 4.6
4.6 and below
0 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 and below
Ultimate
Bearing
Capacity
(kPa)
450
600
750
1020
Allowable Bearing Capacity

(Estimated Settlement < 25 mm)
(kPa)
150
200
250
250
Recommendations for shallow foundations are as follows:
It is anticipated that groundwater inflow may be encountered at shallow depths below

ground during wet periods should shallow foundations be selected as the desired
option. This is expected to represent challenges for the construction of shallow
foundations, as it may be necessary to dewater any excavations prior to concrete
forming and pouring and/or include construction of a concrete mud slab.
It may be possible to construct a mat foundation at a relatively deeper depth (floating
foundation). Should this option be selected, adequate measures will be required to
keep the excavation free of water during construction. General recommendations for
dewatering in a temporary excavation are given in Section 7.3.5 of this report.
Shoring and/or bracing may also be required in order to reduce the excavation area
or excavation volume. If so required, MDH will prepare additional recommendations
for dewatering and shoring at Fortune Minerals request.
The exposure of concrete to sulphate attack is classified as moderate to very severe
at the site. A designer competent in concrete mix design should complete the
concrete mix specifications.
The self weight of the foundation shall be considered when determining the total
capacity of the foundation.
The recommended coefficient of friction, at the base of footing is 0.38.
Shallow footing foundations may experience settlement after construction. The total
settlement will be affected by the size, shape and founding depth of the footing,
rigidity of the footing, geology and soil characteristics. The estimated total settlement
vs. applied pressure for various sizes of square footings founded at 3 m (10 ft) below
ground is provided in Figure 7.2.
M2112-2840010
Page 25
June 2010
45
40
EstimatedSettlement(mm)
35
30
25
20
15
12ft
10
10ft
8ft
5
6ft
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
AppliedPressure(kPa)
Figure 7.2 Estimated settlement vs. applied presure for various sized square footing
found at 10 ft below ground.
7.10.2 Grade Supported Floor Slabs
It is anticipated that a grade supported floor slab may be required as part of the construction
work, which should be supported on a prepared subgrade as recommended in Section 7.5 of
this report. The recommended allowable bearing capacity of a grade supported floor slab
shall follow the recommended values given in Table 7.5.
It should be recognized that exterior grade-supported slabs will be subjected to vertical
movements due to frost action and therefore such slabs should be free floating and should
not be tied into the grade beams, pile caps or the interior slabs. Where the vertical
movement of equipment or facilities on grade supported concrete slabs will be critical to
operations, consideration should be given to the installation of structural floor systems
supported on separate foundations. The silt near ground surface has medium to high
swelling potential and the total volume change can be up to 15% and the clay near ground
surface has very high swelling potential, the total volume change can be up to 40% (After
Holtz and Gibbs, 1956).
M2112-2840010
Page 26
June 2010
Mechanical equipment supported on the floor slab should contain provisions for re-leveling.
Piping and electrical conduits should be laid out to permit some flexibility. A designer
competent in concrete mix design should complete the specifications for the concrete mix.
7.10.3 Pile Foundations
Pile foundations may be selected for the support of the plant buildings. The use of bored
cast-in-place concrete friction-type piles is anticipated due to the soil characteristics of the
site. Driven steel pile and continuous helical screwed piles may not be suitable options due
to the potential presence of rock in the glacial till soil. The ultimate and allowable skin friction
and end bearing values for general pile design are given in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 General design parameters for bored, cast-in-place pile foundations.
Ultimate
Shaft
Resistance
(m)
(ft)
(kPa)
0 to 10
0 to 3.0
10 to 15
3.0 to 4.6
50
15 to 35
4.6 to 10.7
66
35 and below 10.7 and below
75
Depth Below Ground
Allowable Ultimate End Allowable

Bearing
End Bearing
Shaft
Capacity
Capacity
Resistance
(kPa)
(FS=3.0)
(FS=2.0)
25
750
250
33
1275
425
37
1800
600
The above values are considered applicable for downward (compressive) static loads. The
factored geotechnical axial capacity at ultimate limit states (ULS) should be taken as the
ultimate axial capacity multiplied by the geotechnical resistance factor of 0.4 for compression
and 0.3 for tension.
The following recommendations for cast-in-place pile design should be considered:
It is recommended to limit the pile depth to 13.7 m (45 ft) below ground level, as there
is a wet sand layer at approximately 15.2 m (50 ft) below ground.
For resistance of uplift loads (such as frost), it is recommended to use 70 percent of
the allowable static skin friction parameters provided.
The self weight of the pile should be considered when determining the total capacity
of the pile.
Shaft friction should be neglected in the upper 1.5 m (5 ft) of the pile below finished
ground surface due to soil desiccation effects. Should fill soils be encountered, the
skin friction should be neglected for the entire depth of fill and the pile lengthened
accordingly.
Piles subjected to dynamic loads or uplift loads including frost should have a
minimum length of 6.0 m (19.7 ft) and should be reinforced over their entire length.
M2112-2840010
Page 27
June 2010
There is a potential for seepage and/or sloughing during pile drilling of bored concrete
pile. It is recommended to have casing available on site and if necessary, to control
groundwater seepage and/or caving conditions.
Concrete shall be fed to the bottom of the drilled shaft by pumping and filled from
bottom up or, using the free fall method or, another method approved by the
structural engineer. If the free fall method is used, the concrete must be poured
through a centering chute, making it fall down the centre of the hole, so that it does
not hit the reinforcing steel or the side of the shaft. This results in adequate
compaction below the upper 1.5 m. Vibration of the concrete in the upper 3.0 m near
ground surface is required to produce uniform strength concrete.
Pile excavations should be filled with concrete as soon as possible after drilling of the
pile hole to reduce the risk of groundwater seepage and/or sloughing soil.
Water should not be allowed to accumulate in the pile excavation and should be
removed by pumping prior to pouring concrete.
It is recommended that the installation of piles be monitored by qualified geotechnical

personnel to verify that the piles are properly installed and embedded into the appropriate
soil stratum.
The recommendations provided herein, for the design and construction of pile foundations
should be reviewed and revised as required, once the structures and grade elevations have
been identified and established.
Pile Group Effects
If pile groups are required to achieve the required structural capacity, the minimum
centre-to-centre pile spacing for cast-in-place concrete piles should be 3 times the
pile diameter.
The group efficiency of a friction pile group will be affected by the number of piles, the
pile layout and pile diameters.
Group efficiency factors for compressive loads need not be applied to groups of two
or three piles, however, reduction in pile capacity would be required for larger groups.
For centre-to-centre pile spacing greater than 7 pile diameters, the group efficiency is
equal to 1.0 (i.e., no reduction in pile capacity for group effect). Group efficiency
values are presented in Table 7.7 for some typical pile groups. MDH is available for
further consultation on the issue of pile group efficiency if required, once a preliminary
pile layout is determined.
M2112-2840010
Page 28
June 2010
Table 7.7 Typical group efficiency for 3x3 and 9x9 pile groups (After NAVFAV 7.02).
Pile
Group
3x3
9x9
3x3
9x9
3x3
9x9
3x3
9x9
Centre-to Centre Pile Spacing

(pile diameter)
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
Pile Length
(m)
22
22
22
22
11
11
11
11
Pile Diameter
(m)
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Group
Efficiency
0.75
0.71
0.80
0.77
0.80
0.76
0.87
0.85
7.10.4 Frost Action and Foundations

The volume increase that occurs when water changes to ice is one of the causes of frost
heave, but it is also recognized that a phenomenon known as ice segregation is the
predominant mechanism: water is drawn from unfrozen soil to the freezing zone where it
accumulates to form layers of ice, forcing soil particles apart and causing the soil surface to
heave.
A different form of frost action, called adfreezing, occurs when soil freezes to the surface of
a foundation. Heaving pressures developing at the base of the freezing zone are transmitted
through the adfreezing bond to the foundation, producing uplift forces capable of appreciable
vertical displacements. Relatively little is known of the magnitude of the forces that may be
generated, but bond strengths of adfreezing of 100 kPa (15 lb/in2) for steel surfaces and
70 kPa (10 lb/in2) for wood and concrete have been measured.
It is recommended that void forms be used below grade beams (considering also the depth
of frost penetration and location of the water table), and that they be designed to
accommodate the possible jack force and volume change due to frost heave below the
structure. The recommended minimum thickness of the void is 75 mm (3.0 inch). The
finished grade adjacent to each grade beam should be capped with well compacted clay or
other low permeable material and sloped away so that the surface runoff is not allowed to
infiltrate and collect in the void space. If water is allowed to accumulate in the void space,
the beneficial effect will be negated and frost heaving pressures will occur.
7.11 Seismic Design Ground Motions

7.11.1 Seismic Considerations
The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006)
emphasizes that earthquake shaking is an important source of external load that must be
considered in the design of civil engineering structures. The level of importance of
earthquake loading at any given site is related to factors such as the subsoil conditions and
M2112-2840010
Page 29
June 2010
behaviour, the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) (National Research Council
of Canada, 2005) are based on a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of
2,475 years). This means that within a 50 year period, there is a 2% chance that the ground
motions specified in the 2005 NBCC will be exceeded.
7.11.2 Site Soil Classification
The site soil classification was determined from the energy-corrected average Standard
Penetration resistance (N60). Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, the site is
classified as Class C (i.e., very dense soil and soft rock profile or N60 > 50).
7.11.3 Site Spectral Acceleration
The parameters used to represent seismic hazard for specific geographical locations are the
5% damped spectral acceleration values, Sa(T), for 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 second periods and
the Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) value that have a 2% probability of being
exceeded in 50 years.
In order to determine the design spectral acceleration values for the project site, the PHGA
and the 5% damped spectral response acceleration values for the reference ground
conditions (Site Class C) (i.e., very dense soil and soft rock profile or N60 > 50) need to be
determined. Using the 2005 NBCC seismic hazard value interpolator obtained from the
Natural Resources Canada website, the spectral acceleration values corresponding to the
Class C soil profile were obtained. The spectral acceleration values for the reference ground
conditions are tabulated in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8 Damped spectral acceleration for 2% probability of exceedance in 50
Years.
Period (Sec)
Spectral Acceleration as a fraction of gravity

Reference site Class C (Very dense soil and soft rock)
0.059
0.2
0.116
0.5
0.056
1.0
0.023
2.0
0.006
7.11.4 Uniform Hazard Spectra

The four spectral parameters, including the PHGA define the Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS).
The UHS for the reference ground conditions (Class C) is shown in Figure 7.3.
M2112-2840010
Page 30

ReferenceGroundConditions(SiteClassC)
0.14
SpectralAcceleration, 5%damped(g)
June 2010
ReferenceGround Conditions (SiteClassC)
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
0.5
1.5
Period(seconds)
Figure 7.3 Uniform hazard spectrum for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years.
7.12 Modulus of Vertical Subgrade Reaction, ks

The modulus of subgrade reaction, ks is a conceptual relationship between soil pressure and
deflection that is widely used in the structural analysis of foundation members. The modulus
of vertical subgrade reaction can also be determined by using the testing result from plate
loading test on site. However, the foundation designer may approximate the ks by the
following formula:
ks = 40 x FOS x qa
where:
FOS
qa
= Factor of Safety
= 3.0
= allowable bearing capacity = recommended values in Table 7.5.
MDH is available to provide plate loading test consulting service for the determination of the
field measured subgrade reaction if required by Fortune Minerals.
7.13 Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction, kh

The horizontal subgrade reaction, ks for fine grained soils from 0 m (0 ft) to 3.0 m (10 ft)
below ground, kh = 6,700 kN/m3 and the fine grained silt till from 3.0 m (10 ft) and below,
kh = 15,000 kN/m3.
Please note that the above values of kh are appropriate for pile deflections at the ground line
of 6 mm or less. For larger ground line deflections, these values may need to be reduced to
account for the non-linear response of the soil adjacent to the pile. If the lateral loads are
M2112-2840010
Page 31
June 2010
large and critical (with ground line deflections exceeding 6 mm), the analysis of laterally
loaded piles should be conducted using a method that takes into account non-linear soil
response such as Reeses method of p-y curves. MDH is available to provide p-y curves if
required by Fortune Minerals.
The Group reduction factor for kh is summarized in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9 Group reduction factor for modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh.
Centre-to-Centre Pile
Spacing in Direction of
Load
Group Reduction Factor

for Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction
3d
0.25
4d
0.40
6d
0.70
8d
(after Davisson, 1970)
1.00
The recommended modulus of subgrade reaction are for both vertical pile and batter pile.
7.14 Foundation Concrete

The water-soluble sulphate content of six representative soil samples was determined in the
laboratory by ALS Group in Saskatoon, SK. The tests showed the presence of 58 mg/L to
15,182 mg/L of water-soluble sulphate (SO4) content in the soil samples, indicating that there
is a moderate to very severe degree of exposure to sulphate attack as per Table 3.0 of CSA
A23.1-04. A wide variety of CSA concrete types (HS, HSb, MS, MSb and LH) were
recommended in the table.
The recommendations stated above for the subsurface concrete at this site may require
further additions and/or modifications due to structural, durability, service life or other
considerations which are beyond the geotechnical scope. A designer competent in concrete
mix design should complete the specifications for the concrete mix.
In addition, if imported fill material is required to be used at the site and will be in contact with
concrete, it is recommended that the fill soil be tested for sulphate content to determine
whether the above-stated recommendations remain valid.
7.15 Paved Areas

7.15.1 Pavement Subgrade Strength
The characteristic material property of subgrade soils used for pavement design is the
resilient modulus (MR). The MR is defined as a measure of the elastic property of a soil
M2112-2840010
Page 32
June 2010
recognizing selected non-linear characteristics. Using the Group Index of soil to determine
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and MR is a standard method use in Saskatchewan. A
separate report will provide pavement surfacing design for the site roadways and parking
areas.
8.0 Construction Control and Monitoring

All recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that full time
inspection, monitoring, and control testing are provided by qualified geotechnical
personnel(s) during site grading and clearing, construction and foundation installation.
Hence, quality control should be provided as follows:
Full time inspection during site grading, clearing and excavation to verify the removal
of unsuitable materials.
Full time in-situ density and moisture content testing should be carried out during
subgrade preparation, and placement of fill.
Full time in-situ density and moisture content testing should be provided during utility
backfill.
Full time inspection during footing or pile construction.
M2112-2840010
Page 33
June 2010
9.0 Closure
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp., hereinafter collectively referred to as MDH, has
exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in preparing this report. MDH will not be liable
under any circumstances for the direct or indirect damages incurred by any individual or
entity due to the contents of this report, omissions and/or errors within, or use thereof,
including damages resulting from loss of data, loss of profits, loss of use, interruption of
business, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage. This limitation of liability will apply regardless of the form of
action, whether in contract or tort, including negligence.
MDH has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Fortune Minerals Limited and the
representatives of Fortune Minerals Limited, and does not accept any responsibility for the
use of this report for any purpose other than intended. Any alternative use, reliance on, or
decisions made based on this document are the responsibility of the alternative user or third
party. MDH accepts no responsibility to any third party for the whole or part of the contents
and exercise no duty of care in relation to this report. MDH accepts no responsibility for
damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report.
Should you have any questions or comments please contact us.
Regards,
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp.
Association of Professional Engineers

And Geoscientists of Saskatchewan
Certificate of Authorization Number 662
M2112-2840010
Page 34
June 2010
9.0 Closure
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp., hereinafter collectively referred to as MDH, has
exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in preparing this report. MDH will not be liable
under any circumstances for the direct or indirect damages incurred by any individual or
entity due to the contents of this report, omissions and/or errors within, or use thereof,
including damages resulting from loss of data, loss of profits, loss of use, interruption of
business, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage. This limitation of liability will apply regardless of the form of
action, whether in contract or tort, including negligence.
MDH has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Fortune Minerals Limited and the
representatives of Fortune Minerals Limited, and does not accept any responsibility for the
use of this report for any purpose other than intended. Any alternative use, reliance on, or
decisions made based on this document are the responsibility of the alternative user or third
party. MDH accepts no responsibility to any third party for the whole or part of the contents
and exercise no duty of care in relation to this report. MDH accepts no responsibility for
damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report.
Should you have any questions or comments please contact us.
Regards,
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp.
Association of Professional Engineers

And Geoscientists of Saskatchewan
Certificate of Authorization Number 662
M2112-2840010
Page 34
June 2010
10.0 References
Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), 2006, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th
Edition. 488 pp.
CSA A23.1-04, Concrete materials and methods of concrete construction, CSA, 2004
Earthquakes Canada website (http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca), accessed January 8,
2008.
NBCC, 2005, Users Guide NCB 2005, Structural Commentaries (Part 4 of Division B).
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. National Research Council of
Canada.
Donald P Coduto, Foundation Design, Principles & Practices, 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall Inc.
ISBN 0-13-589706-8.
Pavement Design Manual, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Edition 1, June 1997.
Pile Design and Construction Practise, M J Thomlinson, First Ed. Chapman & Hall.
Bowles J E, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Ed. McGraw-Hill International Ed.,
ISBN 0-07-118844-4.
National
Research
Council
Canada
website,
Canadian
Building
Digest,
(http://irc.nrc-rc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd182_e.html),
(http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd128_e.html)
and
(http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd156_e.html), CBD-128, CBD-182 and CBD-156,
NRC-CNRC.
Foundation and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02, 1986, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command.
M2112-2840010
Page 35
June 2010
TERMS, SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
M2112-2840010
Appendices
Terms, Symbols and Abbreviations

Field geological description of a soil is achieved through a brief description of the following points.
All points should be included to accurately describe a soil for geoenvironmental applications:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Lithology/texture (size, proportion, and shape);

Colour and oxidation;
Consistency and plasticity (cohesive soils);
Condition (non-cohesive soils);
Moisture; and
Other miscellaneous descriptors.
1)
Lithology / Texture
The texture of a soil is a combination of the size and shape of the particles and the relative
proportions of each of the constituents (eg. subrounded to subangular gravel, sandy, some silt,
trace cobble).
Particle Size (ASTM D2487-85)
Boulder
300mm plus
Cobble
75 300 mm
Gravel
4.75 75 mm
Sand
0.075 4.75mm
Fine:
0.075 0.425 mm
Medium:
0.425 2 mm
Coarse:
2 4.75 mm
Rounded
Subrounded
Subangular
Angular
Particle Shape (coarse grained soils)

No edges and smoothly curved sides
Well-rounded corners and edges, nearly plane sides
Similar to angular but have rounded edges
Sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces
Well Graded
Uniform (Poorly Graded)
Gap Graded
2)
Relative Proportions (by weight)

Parent Material
>35% and main
fraction
Modifier
20 35%
eg: gravely, sandy, silty, clayey, etc.
Some
10 20%
Trace
0 10%
Gradation (coarse grained soils)

Having a wide range of grain sizes and substantial amount of all
intermediate sizes
Possessing particles of predominantly one size
Possessing particles of several distinct sizes
Colour and Oxidation
A soils colour may be described either qualitatively in the field at the soils natural moisture
content using common colours (eg. light grey, light brown, dark grey, etc.) or quantitatively by
comparison with a colour chart. Soils colour is typically quantified using a Munsell Book of
Colour. The soil colour description is characterized by a combination of hue, value and chroma.
The hue notation of a colour indicates its relation to red, yellow, green, blue and purple; the value
notation indicates its lightness; and the chroma notation indicates its strength (or departure from a
neutral of the same lightness (eg 2.5Y 4/2). Quantitative determination of colour using a Munsell
Book of Colours is completed after the soil has been allowed to dry at a low temperature.
When a soil is exposed to an oxygen rich environment it oxidizes and the soils colour departs
from neutral (eg from dark grey-5Y 4/1 to dark reddish brown-5Y4/2). The colour change is
generally a result of iron oxidation and staining (red) or manganese staining (purple to black).
The oxidation may occur throughout the entire soil mass or commonly as fracture and joint
coatings and haloes.
3)
Consistency and Plasticity (Cohesive Soils)
The consistency of a soil is a qualitative description of a cohesive soils ability to resist

deformation and may be correlated to the undrained shear strength. Consistency and undrained
shear strength (Su) of a soil may be field-tested using the thumb and thumbnail or more
accurately with a pocket penetrometer.
The plasticity of a soil is a measure of the soils ability to deform without rupture. The plasticity of
a cohesive soil should be estimated as low (LL <30), medium (30<LL<50), or high (LL>50)
plasticity. The plasticity can be verified in the laboratory through Atterberg Limit testing.
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Undrained Shear
Strength - Su (kPa)
(CFEM, 2nd edition,
1985)
<12
12 25
25 50
50 100
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
100 200
>200
N/A
Field Identification
(ASTM D 2488-84)
Thumb will penetrate soil more than 25mm
Thumb will penetrate soil about 25mm
Thumb will indent soil about 6 mm
Thumb will indent but penetrate only with great effort
(CFEM)
Readily indented by thumbnail (CFEM)
Thumb will not indent but readily indented with thumbnail
Thumbnail will not indent soil
Note:
- Pocket penetrometer readings can be used to measure Su directly where Su is equal to

approximately of the pocket penetrometer reading (ie. The pocket penetrometer
measures unconfined compressive strength (approx 2Su)
4)
Compactness Condition (Non-Cohesive Soils)
A Standard Penetration Test (STP) is used to estimate the compactness condition of a soil.
Compactness Condition
Very Loose
Loose
Compact
Dense
Very Dense
5)
SPT N-Index (Blows / 300mm)

04
4 10
10 30
30 50
>50
Moisture Conditions (ASTM D2488-84)
6)
Dry
Moist
Wet
- No moisture, dusty, dry to touch

- Damp but contains no visible water
- Visible, free water, indicating soil is below water table
Other Descriptors
Primary structure - structure formed during soil deposition (eg. stratified, laminated,
lensed, bedded, massive, cross-bedded, etc.)
Secondary structure - structure formed following original deposition (eg. cementation, salt
crystallization, jointing, fissuring, fracturing, slickensides, blocky, brecciated, mottled, etc.)
Carbonate content - weakly, moderately, or strongly calcareous (based on effervescence
in dilute (10%) HCl acid)
Organics (spongy feel, fibrous texture)
Sensitivity (sands)
Odour
7)
Soil Type Symbols
8)
Sampling Symbols (left hand side of testhole log)
9)
Oxidized Zones (right hand side of testhole log)
10)
Field and Laboratory Test Symbols
11)
Piezometer and Inclinometer Symbols
Common Abbreviations
Pale = pl.
Olive = ol.
Light = lt.
Yellow = ylw.
Brown = br
Grey = gr.
Green =grn.
Pink = Pk.
Dark = dk.
Very = v.
Large = lg.
Strongly = st.
Weakly = wkly.
Subrounded = sbrnd.
Subangular = sbang.
Rounded = rnd.
Angular = ang.
Medium = m.
Fine = f.
Coarse = c.
Calcareous = calc.
Non-Calcareous = noncalc.
Laminated = lam.
Predominantly = predom.
Carbonate = carb.
Quartz = qz.
Ablation = abl.
Weathered = wthrd.
Material = mat.
Mottled (Mottling) = mot.
Fracture = frac.
Iron = Fe
Manganese = Mn
Examples
1) Sand, silty, some subrounded to subangular gravel, light brownish grey (2.5Y6/2),
oxidized, well graded, loose, wet, stratified, weakly calcareous
2) Silt, clayey, trace fine sand, grey (5Y5/1), unoxidized, soft-very soft, moist, thinly
laminated, strongly calcareous, Fe and Mn staining
3) Clay till, sandy, some subangular-angular gravel, trace subrounded cobble, greyish
brown (2.5Y5/2), oxidized, moderate plasticity, stiff, moist, moderately calcareous, Fe
stained fractures, Glaubers salts
4) Gravel (sbrnd-rnd) predominantly shield and carbonate lithos, sandy (f.-c.), well sorted,
unoxidized, compact, wet, wood chips
June 2010
Appendix A
Site Plans
M2112-2840010
Appendices
Path: P:\Fortune Minerals Ltd\M2112-2840010 - Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Environmental Assessments For Saskatchewan metals Processing Plant\3. GIS\2. Drawings\M2112-21-14 (Site Location - 8.5 x 11).mxd
370,000
31
KA
TC
25
23
NO R
5,800,000
S
SA
TH24
14
01
06
05
04
03
02
01
06
05
04
03
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
16
15
20
18
12
02
01
08
06
09
05
36
04
31
25
23
LANGHAM
16
17
07
26
19
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
10
11
12
07
08
09
DALMENY
10
11
12
07
08
09
10
01
06
05
04
03
02
33
01
34
06
35
11
18
28
27
26
25
20
21
22
23
24
04
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
16
26
23
24
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
08
09
10
11
12
07
08
09
10
11
12
07
08
09
10
05
04
03
02
01
06
05
04
03
02
01
06
05
04
03
SASKATCHEWAN
31
32
33
MANITOBA
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
26
25
30
29
28
27
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
20
21
22
19
TP37-RG07-W3
14
13
11
12
18
17
07
08
LLODYMINSTER
06
SASKATOON !
36
31
DUNFERMLINE
SWIFT CURRENT
!
26
25
30
HUMBOLDT
05
!
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
13
18
17
16
15
14
09
10
11
12
07
08
09
10
11
12
07
08
09
10
11
04
03
02
01
06
05
04
03
02
01
06
05
04
03
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
YORKTON
32
33
REGINA
MOOSE JAW
29
MONTANA
Legend
WEYBURN
28
27
ESTEVAN !
14
26
25
30
NORTH DAKOTA370,000
MAJOR HIGHWAY
RAILWAY
SCALE
SUPERVISED BY
1:150,000
APPROVED BY
M. STURBY, P.Eng.
S. LONG, GIS Cert.
DATE
04-OCT-10
04-OCT-10
29
28
27
26
25
30
33
SASKATOON
34
28
27
29
02
35
26
380,000
Note
1. LOT PARCEL BOUNDARIES OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES
CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC) AND ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. LOT PARCELS ARE LABELED BY ISC SURFACE PARCEL NUMBER.
PROVINCE SCALE: 1:6,000,000
SITE LOCATION
DRAWN BY
TP37-RG05-W3
16
PRINCE ALBERT
!
NORTH BATTLEFORD
! MELFORT
!
DETAIL
01
11
TP37-RG06-W3
02
TP38-RG05-W3
14
06
25
TP38-RG06-W3
15
07
36
02
16
01
ALBER
TA
35
03
17
12
02
35
05
36
29
12
305
TP38-RG07-W3
13
TP39-RG05-W3
TP39-RG06-W3
03
32
30
24
14
5,790,000
19
13
11
30
02
TP39-RG07-W3
35
5,780,000
HE
W
AN
26
03
5,800,000
36
04
5,790,000
35
380,000
05
5,780,000
06
01
RI
VE
02
CLIENT
TITLE
PRODUCED BY
PROJECT No.
DRAWING No.
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT AREA
M2112-2840010
M2112-21-14
FIG. No.
A1
PIEZOMETER
371,129.40
M2112-01B
M2112-02B
M2112-03A
M2112-03B
M2112-04A
M2112-04B
M2112-05A
5,803,500
M2112-38
ID
M2112-06
M2112-07
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
PIEZOMETER
TEST
PRODUCTION
WELL
371,116.93
371,130.76
369,558.97
369,557.40
370,331.48
370,331.40
370,555.47
370,562.21
PIEZOMETER
BOREHOLE
370,350.73
370,228.35
M2112-18
BOREHOLE
370,241.34
5,802,560.41
5,802,818.63
SE13-14-39-07-W3
5,802,958.14
5,802,817.39
5,803,004.27
5,803,005.83
5,802,366.22
5,802,433.56
M2112-12
PIEZOMETER
M2112-14
BOREHOLE
M2112-13
M2112-15
PIEZOMETER
BOREHOLE
370,469.03
370,124.80
370,361.25
370,567.18
370,792.66
SE9-14-39-07-W3
NE16-14-39-07-W3
SE13-14-39-07-W3
NE14-14-39-07-W3
NE14-14-39-07-W3
SE10-14-39-07-W3
NE10-14-39-07-W3
NORTHING
LAND DESCRIPTION
5,802,468.29
NE11-14-39-07-W3
5,802,483.02
5,802,378.15
370,466.85
NW10-14-39-07-W3
NE16-14-39-07-W3
BOREHOLE
BOREHOLE
5,802,512.67
5,802,960.41
5,802,188.84
M2112-10
370,349.83
LAND DESCRIPTION
5,802,617.47
5,802,382.34
M2112-11
370,227.96
NORTHING
370,356.07
SE-22-39-07-W3
BOREHOLE
EASTING
PIEZOMETER
M2112-08
M2112-09
BOREHOLE
EASTING
TYPE
M2112-16
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
TYPE
ID
SE9-14-39-07-W3
NE11-14-39-07-W3
SE11-14-39-07-W3
5,802,380.04
SW10-14-39-07-W3
5,802,463.73
NW10-14-39-07-W3
5,802,470.74
5,802,842.38
5,802,891.35
5,803,581.59
SW10-14-39-07-W3
NW11-14-39-07-W3
NE14-14-39-07-W3
NE15-14-39-07-W3
SW8-23-39-07-W3
M2112-17
M2112-19
BOREHOLE
BOREHOLE
M2112-20
PIEZOMETER
M2112-23
TEST PIT
M2112-21
M2112-22
M2112-24
M2112-25
M2112-26
M2112-27
M2112-28
M2112-29
M2112-30
M2112-31
M2112-32
M2112-33
M2112-34
M2112-35
M2112-36
M2112-37
N/A
PIEZOMETER
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
TEST PIT
GROUND RESISTIVITY
TEST LOCATION
370,487.48
370,578.27
370,755.05
370,779.73
370,900.16
370,700.80
370,399.95
370,281.41
370,187.15
370,030.94
369,982.60
370,100.70
370,315.12
370,334.01
NE11-14-39-07-W3
5,803,226.18
5,802,406.88
NE2-23-39-07-W3
NW9-14-39-07-W3
5,802,988.00
5,803,174.21
NW16-14-39-07-W3
SE1-23-39-07-W3
5,802,431.25
NW10-14-39-07-W3
5,802,406.73
SE11-14-39-07-W3
5,803,427.80
5,802,424.27
5,802,540.06
NW11-14-39-07-W3
5,802,564.35
NE11-14-39-07-W3
NE11-14-39-07-W3
370,642.42
NE10-14-39-07-W3
370,895.38
5,802,179.49
370,772.69
370,891.68
370,193.00
NE15-14-39-07-W3
5,802,434.60
5,802,492.00
PRODUCTION WELL
MDH BOREHOLE
MDH PIEZOMETER
MDH TEST PIT
)
"
GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION

PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
RAILWAY
APPROXIMATE SASKTEL LINE LOCATION
PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE
STORAGE FACILITY AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SE-23-39-07-W3
NW8-14-39-07-W3
5,802,309.56
5,802,539.27
!
(
N
!
&
M2112-15
M2112-23
SW15-14-39-07-W3
5,802,839.57
!
(
NW11-14-39-07-W3
370,358.50
5,802,697.60
SW-23-39-07-W3
370,705.07
"
NE11-14-39-07-W3
SW11-14-39-07-W3
5,802,512.55
Legend
SE7-23-39-07-W3
5,802,346.30
5,802,458.86
SE14-14-39-07-W3
M2112-02A
LAND DESCRIPTION
5,802,190.77
NORTHING
371,117.26
371,000
5,803,500
EASTING
PIEZOMETER
370,500
TYPE
M2112-01A
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
370,000
369,500
ID
HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
369,000
SW9-14-39-07-W3
NW9-14-39-07-W3
NW11-14-39-07-W3
!
(
M2112-19
Note
1. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY
M2112-22
FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED. (July 21 2010 2000g001.dwg)
2. 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION
SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
M2112-04A
M2112-04B
N
!
&
N
&
M2112-21 !
!
(
M2112-13
M2112-36
M2112-03A
M2112-03B
!
N
&
M2112-02A
N
&
M2112-02B !
M2112-14
N
!
&
5,803,000
5,803,000
3. UTM COORDINATES ARE IN NAD 83 ZONE 13.
M2112-32
M2112-16
M2112-08
!
(
5,802,500
!
(
M2112-11
M2112-24
M2112-09
!
(
)
"
M2112-38
M2112-10
PROPOSED
RAILWAY SPUR
N
!
&
M2112-25
M2112-35
!
(
M2112-06
!
(
M2112-17
M2112-37
N M2112-05A
!
&
N
!
&
M2112-20
!
N
&
M2112-01A
M2112-01B
370,500
371,000
5,802,000
370,000
M2112-21-28
FIG. No.
A2
PRODUCED BY
SCALE
369,500
M2112-2840010
CLIENT
M2112-33
369,000
SASKATCHEWAN METALS
PROCESSING PLANT
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
DRAWING No.
M2112-05B
M2112-34
TITLE
PROJECT No.
M2112-26
!
(
M2112-27
!
N
!
&
AILWA
Y
M2112-07
5,802,500
M2112-12
NE-14-39-07-W3
CN R
M2112-28
M2112-31
M2112-30
!
(
M2112-18
M2112-29
N
!
&
NW-14-39-07-W3
NE-15-39-07-W3
1:7,500
DESIGN BY
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY
DATE
S. LONG, GIS Cert.
M. STURBY, P.Eng.
04-OCT-10
04-OCT-10
75
.7 5
52
1
.7 5
52
2
522.25
521
522
FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED. (July 21 2010 2000g001.dwg)
.5
NE-14-39-07-W3
522.75
522.7
5
523
.7
521
523
52
3
522
522
522.5
52
2
521
521
.7
521.5
522
.2
522.7
SITE GROUND ELEVATION

CONTOUR PLAN
522.5
521.75
52
1
1
52
521
521
523
TITLE
.2 5
521
.
.7 5
521.5
52
2
PROJECT No.
DRAWING No.
CLIENT
.5
523.5
521.2
522.5
M2112-21-21
FIG. No.
A3
PRODUCED BY
0
52
523.2
5
.7
521
523
522
.7
SCALE
1:4,000
DESIGN BY
DRAWN BY
370,000
M2112-2840010
521
522.5
522.25
521
521.75 522.2
5
521.5
522
1
52
522
522.75
5
.2
21
52 5
1.
75 5
21.5
522
522
521.5
.7
75
522
522.5
521.
7
52
2
2
52
2
52
522.7
5
522
.
521
523.2
5
521.25
.2 5
.5
3. UTM COORDINATES ARE IN NAD 83 ZONE 13.
52
2
2
52
.7 5
SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC).
522
523
.2
522
522.2
5
2. 2008 AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION
5,802,500
.2 5
52
2
521.5
522.5
522
522.75
5
521.2
52
1
522.7
522
523
Note
1. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY
521.25
522.75
.7 5
52
1
.7 5
52
1
522.5
522
521
.5
523
522.5
522
.5
.2
523
.2
522
.
521.5
52
3
3
52
.7 5
.2
521.5
2
52
.2 5
25
.5
2
52
522
.7
.5
5
522.7
25
3
52
5,802,500
52
3
.7
521
522.25
.7
522
522
522.25
2
52
523
.
25
.2 5
MINOR CONTOUR
.7 5
521
522
.
2
52
MAJOR CONTOUR
1
52
522
.
.5
522
2
52521
.5
.
522
522
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
0.25 METER GROUND ELEVATION CONTOUR (masl)
522
3
52
5
522.75
522.25
52
2
521.7
521.5
523.75
.2 5
523
521.25
522
52
1
523.25
.5
522
52
1
NW-14-39-07-W3
.
522
.5
Legend
.5
521.7
521.75
52
3
522.75
1
52
521.25
.7
2
52
52
2
.5
522.25
52
1
.7
522.75
522
.2
523
523.75
523.5
522.25
523
523
.5
523
521.5
25
2
52
.
523
523.5
25
523.5
2
52
523
.
5
523.7
523
.
75
524
524
523
1
52
52
1
75
3
52
521.75
5
521.2
521
.5
523
.
522
522
.
523
.
523.5
.2 5
5,803,000
523.25
.2
522
5,803,000
523
.7 5
523
524
523
523.25
.7
523
523
523.75
4
52
523.5
371,000
523.25
370,500
523
370,000
370,500
371,000
APPROVED BY
DATE
S. LONG, GIS Cert.
M. STURBY, P.Eng.
04-OCT-10
04-OCT-10
June 2010
Appendix B
Borehole Logs and Test Pit Logs
M2112-2840010
Appendices
June 2010
Appendix C
Ground Resistivity Test Results
M2112-2840010
Appendices
GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST DISTRIBUTION

M2112 Fortune Mineral Ltd.
1. Test configuration
TRAVERSE 3
TRAVERSE
TRAVERSE
C1
P1
P2
C2
2. Coordinates
Point
A
E
370193
N
5802492
GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST

Inter-pin
Spacing a
(m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Generally flat
C Pin Depth
(cm)
P Pin Depth
(cm)
Apparent Resistivity
(-m)
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
114.4
102.8
98.4
72.7
64.3
50.8
39.6
32.0
26.6
Resistivity (
-m)
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Probe Spacing (m)
Test
Traverse 1
Location Langham, Saskatchewan
Date
07 May 2010
Time
2:48 PM
Weather Sunny/Clear
Brief Description of terrain:
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
50.0
100.0

Test
Traverse 2
Date
07 May 2010
Time
3:18 PM
Weather Sunny/Clear
C Pin Depth
(cm)
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
P Pin Depth Apparent Resistivity ((cm)

m)
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Resistivity (
-m)
92.8
101.4
83.8
65.8
48.7
40.8
33.9
29.5
21.4
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Probe Spacing (m)
Inter-pin
Spacing a
(m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Generally flat
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

Test
Traverse 3
Date
07 May 2010
Time
3:40 PM
Weather Sunny/Clear
C Pin Depth
(cm)
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
P Pin Depth Apparent Resistivity ((cm)

m)
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Resistivity (
-m)
107.1
116.4
98.1
80.5
71.3
57.3
39.3
29.2
18.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Probe Spacing (m)
Inter-pin
Spacing a
(m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Generally flat
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
100.0

Test
Traverse 4
Date
07 May 2010
Time
4:00 PM
Weather Sunny/Clear
C Pin Depth
(cm)
P Pin Depth
(cm)
(-m)
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
136.4
104.0
80.5
70.7
65.4
47.1
37.1
30.7
27.7
Resistivity (
-m)
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Probe Spacing (m)
Inter-pin
Spacing a
(m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Generally flat
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

Inter-pin
Spacing a
(m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Generally flat
C Pin Depth
(cm)
P Pin Depth
(cm)
(-m)
3.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
85.1
88.4
100.1
101.0
87.2
68.9
51.4
36.3
23.6
Resistivity (
-m)
0.0
0.5
1.0
Probe Spacing (m)
Test
Traverse 5
Date
07 May 2010
Time
4:14 PM
Weather Sunny/Clear
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
100.0
June 2010
Appendix D
Laboratory Testing Results
M2112-2840010
Appendices
M2112 - Fortune Minerals Ltd. Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant (SMPP) project
M2112-06
M2112-07
M2112-08
M2112-09
CBR
Classification of FineGrained Soil/ FinedGrained Fraction of

Coarse-Grained Soil
(by Plasticity Chart)
Group Index
L.L. (%)
P.I.
(%)
(ft)
(m)
CTS-02
3.0
0.9
12.92
CTS-04
9.0
2.7
43
40
15
CL
2.62
13.0
25.7
12.7
CL
12.60
CTS-06
13.0
4.0
CTS-09
15.5
4.7
CTS-12
23.0
7.0
CTS-13
25.5
7.8
CTS-18
33.0
10.1
CTS-21
46.5
14.2
CTS-28
4.5
1.4
32
65
CL
2.66
28.5
79.5
51.0
CTS-32
12.0
3.7
40
39
18
CL
2.59
12.2
29.4
17.2
CTS-33
14.0
4.3
CTS-39
26.5
8.1
CTS-40
28.0
8.5
44
38
16
CL
2.72
12.2
26.9
14.7
CL
9.66
CTS-52
52.0
15.8
41
37
19
CL
2.59
11.6
27.4
15.8
CL
9.61
CTS-54
61.5
18.7
CTS-59
7.0
2.1
2020 2259 22.1
P.L. (%)
Unconfined
Compression
Strength, qu (kPa)
Atterberg Limits
Water Content (%)
Gravel San Silt Clay

USCS
(%) d (%) (%) (%) (ASTM D2487)
Specific Gravity
(fine Material)
Unified Soil
Classification
Grain Size
Unit Weight (kN/m )
Sample
I.D.
Bulk Density (kg/m )
Borehole
No.
Depth
Dry Density (kg/m )
Table D1 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results
282
48
37
15
CL
2.63
13.4
26.5
13.1
CL
12.29
43
39
17
CL
2.70
13.7
27.6
13.9
CL
9.82
321
41
39
17
CL
13.3
27.8
14.5
CL
11.72
730
CH
28.98
CL
12.54
12.93
407
2002 2201 21.6

-
2058 2301 22.5
2071 2272 22.3
2133 2311 22.6

-
CTS-60
9.0
2.7
CTS-63
12.5
3.8
CTS-68
24.0
7.3
CTS-74
38.0
11.6
CTS-79
49.0
14.9
CTS-82
56.5
17.2
CTS-84
3.0
0.9
CTS-86
7.5
2.3
CTS-92
21.5
6.6
CTS-94
25.0
7.6
CTS-99
1592 1953 19.1

-
2103 2300 22.5
421
66
33
CL
2.71
23.2
50.9
27.7
CH
33.41
123
40
41
18
CL
2.67
12.5
26.0
13.5
CL
12.78
518
41
35
22
CL
2.66
13.2
27.6
14.4
CL
12.09
40
38
20
CL
2.66
13.8
25.3
11.5
CL
11.04
513
9.62
44
37
16
CL
2.59
12.4
24.6
12.2
CL
10.00
2067 2253 22.1
2063 2236 21.9

-
680
43
37
17
CL
2.66
11.5
25.4
14.0
CL
10.82
34.0
10.4
43
37
18
2.67
11.46
CTS-107 59.5
18.1
85
10
2.63
19.59
CTS-108
1.5
0.5
74
19
SC/SM
CTS-110
6.5
2.0
25.44
CTS-111
9.0
2.7
66
33
SC
2.61
22.5
50.8
28.4
CH
36.22
M2112-10 CTS-113 13.5
4.1
34
44
21
CL
2.67
14.1
31.1
17.0
CL
15.38
CTS-115 19.0
5.8
664
CTS-117 24.0
7.3
41
37
18
CL
2.64
12.8
23.6
10.8
CL
11.14
CTS-130 54.0
16.5
38
39
20
CL
2.66
12.9
25.4
12.4
CL
9.38
CTS-137
8.0
2.4
44
37
17
CL
2.64
13.4
26.6
13.2
CL
11.83
CTS-140 14.0
4.3
10.92
CTS-141 16.5
5.0
286
CTS-143 19.0
5.8
49
33
16
SC
2.68
13.5
22.6
9.1
CL
9.34
CTS-145 22.0
6.7
10
51
29
10
2.71
CTS-257 34.0
10.4
42
33
22
CL
2.66
12.8
30.5
17.7
CL
11.49
AL0101
1.5
0.5
AL0102
3.0
0.9
59
AL0103
4.5
1.4
AL0104
6.0
1.8
AL0105
7.5
2.3
AL0106
9.0
2.7
AL0201
1.5
0.5
AL0202
3.0
0.9
10
AL0203
4.5
1.4
AL0204
6.0
1.8
AL0205
7.5
2.3
AL0206
9.0
2.7
CTS-500
2.0
0.6
CTS-501
3.5
1.1
CTS-502
5.5
1.7
CTS-503 10.5
3.2
M2112-11
M2112-22
M2112-23
M2112-24
2081 2274 22.3
2056 2287 22.4
32.38
10.3
29.3
19.0
CL
12.30
11.17
12.8
26.5
13.7
CL
11.22
11.54
10.74
22.30
22.1
59.2
37.1
CH
22.93
19.8
29.86
33.49
32.15
32.55
13.34
21.2
84.2
63.0
CH
25.32
20
2.5
13.32
10.62
36
90
93
L.L. (%)
P.I.
(%)
Classification of FineGrained Soil/ FinedGrained Fraction of

Coarse-Grained Soil
(by Plasticity Chart)
Water Content (%)
Unconfined
Compression
Strength, qu (kPa)
Group Index
CBR
13.87
3.93
20.6
40.2
19.6
CL
24.82
11.9
4.6
9.2
27.9
18.7
CL
10.14
11.61
20.94
5.08
26.2
60.8
34.6
CH
28.37
20
2.5
12.81
11.15
17.35
11.3
27.9
16.6
CL
14.22
6.3
6.7
(m)
CTS-504
2.0
0.6
CTS-505
2.5
0.8
M2112-25 CTS-506
5.0
1.5
CTS-507
6.0
1.8
CTS-508
8.5
2.6
CTS-509
1.5
0.5
CTS-510
2.0
0.6
M2112-26 CTS-511
4.0
1.2
12
CTS-512
7.0
2.1
CTS-513
9.5
2.9
CTS-514
1.0
0.3
CTS-515
2.0
0.6
42
CTS-516
M2112-27
M2112-28
M2112-29
M2112-30
M2112-31
M2112-32
Atterberg Limits
P.L. (%)
Gravel San Silt Clay

USCS
(%) d (%) (%) (%) (ASTM D2487)
(ft)
99
86
54
Specific Gravity
(fine Material)
Unified Soil
Classification
Grain Size
Unit Weight (kN/m )
Sample
I.D.
Bulk Density (kg/m )
Borehole
No.
Dry Density (kg/m )
Depth
5.0
1.5
9.6
27.0
17.4
CL
10.81
CTS-517 10.0
3.0
12.87
CTS518
1.0
0.3
8.11
CTS519
4.0
1.2
59
11.9
28.7
16.8
CL
15.32
1.6
CTS520
9.0
2.7
10.3
26.2
15.9
CL
12.07
CTS521
10.0
3.0
12.09
CTS522
1.5
0.5
34
19.7
35.6
15.9
CL
23.98
8.5
CTS523
2.0
0.6
4.34
CTS524
2.5
0.8
5.93
CTS525
7.0
2.1
13.3
27.5
14.2
CL
13.56
CTS526
1.0
0.3
21.84
CTS527
4.0
1.2
26.2
50.9
24.7
CH
29.83
16.1
CTS528
7.0
2.1
23.46
CTS529
8.5
2.6
17.69
CTS530
1.5
0.5
10.32
CTS531
4.0
1.2
13
23.6
54.8
31.2
CH
18.44
19
36
66
96
87
CTS532
7.0
2.1
30.31
CTS533
11.5
3.5
11.39
CTS534
2.0
0.6
25.78
CTS535
4.0
1.2
17.3
48.8
31.5
CL
11.75
17.8
98
CTS536
7.0
2.1
8.89
CTS537
11.0
3.4
10.45
CTS-538
1.5
0.5
14.30
CTS-539
3.5
1.1
24
25.8
52.9
27.1
CH
29.75
17.4
3.1
M2112-33 CTS-540
7.0
2.1
32.22
CTS-541
8.5
2.6
12.35
CTS-542 11.0
3.4
11.15
CTS-543
2.0
0.6
88
Non-Plastic Sand
10.02
CTS-544
3.5
1.1
25.29
M2112-34 CTS-545
5.0
1.5
33.2
83.7
50.5
CH
31.74
CTS-546
M2112-35
76
12
8.0
2.4
37.42
CTS-547 11.0
3.4
28.78
CTS548
2.0
0.6
3.25
CTS549
4.0
1.2
33
15.7
48.3
32.6
CL
21.79
13.8
59
CTS550
7.0
2.1
12.33
CTS551
11.5
3.5
19.65
CTS552
2.0
0.6
11.74
M2112-36 CTS553
4.0
1.2
13
22.7
54.5
31.8
CH
17.41
18.9
87
CTS554
8.5
2.6
29.90
CTS-555
1.5
0.5
15.62
M2112-37 CTS-556
3.5
1.1
10
28.1
64.7
36.6
CH
20.46
20
2.5
CTS-557 10.0
3.0
10.07
90
-
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112
Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd.

Date:
26-Apr-10
CTS-02
CTS-04
CTS-09
CTS-12
CTS-18
CTS-28
Test Hole #
06
06
06
06
06
07
Depth
3'
9'
15.5'
23'
34'
4.5'
Tare #
2A5
K3
5H3
FF3
J21
O9
Tare Mass (g)
86.09
100.10
81.80
83.60
84.45
99.18
Wet sample + tare (g)
160.49
182.77
150.14
158.54
156.52
132.74
Dry sample + tare (g)
151.98
173.52
142.66
151.84
148.96
125.2
Wt. Dry sample (g)
65.89
73.42
60.86
68.24
64.51
26.02
Water Content (%)
12.92
12.60
12.29
9.82
11.72
28.98
CTS-32
CTS-33
CTS-40
CTS-52
CTS-59
CTS-63
Test Hole #
07
07
07
07
08
08
Depth
12'
14'
28'
52'
7'
12.5'
Tare #
EFF
8A5
EE
O2
M4
J47
Tare Mass (g)
86.72
80.28
99.77
108.33
106.38
96.62
152.4
165.78
158.47
165.23
184.05
162.56
145.08
155.99
153.3
160.24
164.6
155.09
Wt. Dry sample (g)
58.36
75.71
53.53
51.91
58.22
58.47
Water Content (%)
12.54
12.93
9.66
9.61
33.41
12.78
CTS-74
CTS-79
CTS-84
CTS-86
CTS-94
CTS-99
Test Hole #
08
08
09
09
09
09
Depth
38'
49'
2'
7.5'
25'
34'
Tare #
5H3
J17
O9
TT3
J44
K18
Tare Mass (g)
81.83
92.01
99.2
86.96
85.01
78.41
148.02
155.59
189.47
156.5
179.02
172.68
140.88
149.27
181.55
150.18
169.84
162.99
Wt. Dry sample (g)
59.05
57.26
82.35
63.22
84.83
84.58
Water Content (%)
12.09
11.04
9.62
10.00
10.82
11.46
Sample #
Sample #
Sample #
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
26-Apr-10
CTS 107
CTS-107
CTS 111
CTS-111
CTS 113
CTS-113
CTS 117
CTS-117
CTS 130
CTS-130
CTS 137
CTS-137
09
10
10
10
10
11
Depth
59.5'
9'
13.5'
24'
54'
8"
Tare #
FF6
2X2
FF3
NCK
EE
5X5
Tare Mass (g)
87.39
85.77
83.61
95.54
99.78
101.52
177 66
177.66
182 73
182.73
174 55
174.55
188 81
188.81
171 03
171.03
196 03
196.03
162.87
156.95
162.43
179.46
164.92
186.03
Wt. Dry sample (g)
75.48
71.18
78.82
83.92
65.14
84.51
Water Content (%)
19.59
36.22
15.38
11.14
9.38
11.83
CTS-140
CTS-143
CTS-257
CTS-110
Test Hole #
11
11
11
10
Depth
14'
19'
34'
5-6.5'
Tare #
K9
FFT
M5
H2
Tare Mass (g)
111.17
85.25
94.04
88.77
183.98
164.24
184.87
202.28
176.81
157.49
175.51
179.26
Wt. Dry sample (g)
65.64
72.24
81.47
90.49
Water Content (%)
10.92
9.34
11.49
25.44
Test Hole #
Sample #
Sample #
Test Hole #
Depth
T
Tare
#
Tare Mass (g)
Wt. Dry sample (g)
Water Content (%)
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
18-May-10
ALO 101
ALO-101
ALO 102
ALO-102
ALO 103
ALO-103
ALO 104
ALO-104
ALO 105
ALO-105
ALO 106
ALO-106
Test Hole #
22
22
22
22
22
22
Depth
1.5
4.5
7.5
Tare #
ZZ4
PP5
AA07
UFC
AA18
CC21
Tare Mass (g)
37.46
37.60
37.45
37.27
37.05
37.48
184 55
184.55
222 90
222.90
209 20
209.20
195 20
195.20
168 53
168.53
204 77
204.77
148.57
202.61
191.95
179.27
154.93
188.55
Wt. Dry sample (g)
111.11
165.01
154.5
142
117.88
151.07
Water Content (%)
32.38
12.30
11.17
11.22
11.54
10.74
ALO-201
ALO-202
ALO-203
ALO-204
ALO-205
ALO-206
Test Hole #
23
23
23
23
23
23
Depth
1.5
4.5
7.5
Tare #
BB3
BB34
BB29
BB06
BB32
AA21
Tare Mass (g)
37.12
38.05
37.32
37.4
37.54
34.5
169.73
219.6
157.84
134.09
146.79
166.89
145.55
185.73
130.13
109.83
120.21
134.38
Wt. Dry sample (g)
108.43
147.68
92.81
72.43
82.67
99.88
Water Content (%)
22.30
22.93
29.86
33.49
32.15
32.55
Sample #
Sample #
Test Hole #
Depth
T
Tare
#
Tare Mass (g)
Wt. Dry sample (g)
Water Content (%)
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
18-May-10
CTS 500
CTS-500
CTS 501
CTS-501
CTS 502
CTS-502
CTS 503
CTS-503
CTS 504
CTS-504
CTS 505
CTS-505
Test Hole #
24
24
24
24
25
25
Depth
3.5
5.5
10.5
2.5
Tare #
AA11
BB02
AA15
BB01
BB16
ZZ7
Tare Mass (g)
36.38
37.88
37.52
37.43
37.24
37.02
165 12
165.12
200 92
200.92
182 09
182.09
218 95
218.95
245 74
245.74
322 50
322.50
149.97
167.98
165.1
201.52
220.35
311.7
Wt. Dry sample (g)
113.59
130.1
127.58
164.09
183.11
274.68
Water Content (%)
13.34
25.32
13.32
10.62
13.87
3.93
CTS-506
CTS-507
CTS-508
CTS-509
CTS-510
CTS-511
Test Hole #
25
25
25
26
26
26
Depth
8.5
1.5
Tare #
BB22
BB24
CC32
AA03
AA09
BB09
Tare Mass (g)
37.47
37.42
37.32
37.61
37.48
37.68
145.34
186.39
194.68
200.33
291.47
212.83
123.89
172.68
178.31
172.16
279.2
174.12
Wt. Dry sample (g)
86.42
135.26
140.99
134.55
241.72
136.44
Water Content (%)
24.82
10.14
11.61
20.94
5.08
28.37
CTS-512
CTS-513
CTS-514
CTS-515
CTS-516
CTS-517
Test Hole #
26
26
27
27
27
27
Depth
9.5
10
T
Tare
#
PP34
AA06
BB11
BB07
AA02
PP4
Tare Mass (g)
37.41
35.61
37.44
37.63
34.82
37.26
233.2
214.22
179.45
244.15
265.19
210.84
210.96
196.3
158.45
218.44
242.71
191.05
Wt. Dry sample (g)
173.55
160.69
121.01
180.81
207.89
153.79
Water Content (%)
12 81
12.81
11 15
11.15
17 35
17.35
14 22
14.22
10 81
10.81
12 87
12.87
Sample #
Sample #
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
18-May-10
CTS 518
CTS-518
CTS 519
CTS-519
CTS 520
CTS-520
CTS 521
CTS-521
CTS 522
CTS-522
CTS 523
CTS-523
Test Hole #
28
28
28
28
29
29
Depth
10
1.5
Tare #
ZZ9
BB38
ZZ8
BB05
BB5
BB1
Tare Mass (g)
37.47
37.58
37.47
37.29
37.85
37.54
252 79
252.79
294 35
294.35
238 74
238.74
243 7
243.7
250 44
250.44
298 93
298.93
236.63
260.23
217.06
221.44
209.32
288.05
Wt. Dry sample (g)
199.16
222.65
179.59
184.15
171.47
250.51
Water Content (%)
8.11
15.32
12.07
12.09
23.98
4.34
CTS-524
CTS-525
CTS-526
CTS-527
CTS-528
CTS-529
Test Hole #
29
29
30
30
30
30
Depth
2.5
8.5
Tare #
BB37
BB26
BB41
ZZ5
BB23
BB36
Tare Mass (g)
37.16
37.11
37.57
37.86
37.65
37.48
245.91
181.45
200.37
299.83
205.91
228.32
234.22
164.21
171.19
239.64
173.94
199.64
Wt. Dry sample (g)
197.06
127.1
133.62
201.78
136.29
162.16
Water Content (%)
5.93
13.56
21.84
29.83
23.46
17.69
CTS-530
CTS-531
CTS-532
CTS-533
CTS-534
CTS-535
Test Hole #
31
31
31
31
32
32
Depth
1.5
11.5
T
Tare
#
BB4
BB25
BB9
ZZ10
ZZ
AA24
Tare Mass (g)
37.07
37.74
37.36
37.48
37.4
35.62
266.41
236.57
158.59
215.93
174.08
240.46
244.95
205.61
130.39
197.69
146.07
218.93
Wt. Dry sample (g)
207.88
167.87
93.03
160.21
108.67
183.31
Water Content (%)
10 32
10.32
18 44
18.44
30 31
30.31
11 39
11.39
25 78
25.78
11 75
11.75
Sample #
Sample #
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
18-May-10
CTS 536
CTS-536
CTS 537
CTS-537
CTS 538
CTS-538
CTS 539
CTS-539
CTS 540
CTS-540
CTS 541
CTS-541
Test Hole #
32
32
33
33
33
33
Depth
11
1.5
3.5
8.5
Tare #
BB14
CC10
BB08
PP9
BB10
AA13
Tare Mass (g)
37.26
37.39
37.38
37.61
37.12
35.02
173 27
173.27
219 14
219.14
237 83
237.83
202 55
202.55
142 14
142.14
190 45
190.45
162.17
201.95
212.75
164.73
116.55
173.37
Wt. Dry sample (g)
124.91
164.56
175.37
127.12
79.43
138.35
Water Content (%)
8.89
10.45
14.30
29.75
32.22
12.35
CTS-542
CTS-543
CTS-544
CTS-545
CTS-546
CTS-547
Test Hole #
33
34
34
34
34
34
Depth
11
3.5
11
Tare #
AA20
BB04
BB15
BB42
BB03
PP20
Tare Mass (g)
36.10
37.68
37.44
37.48
37.23
37.65
177.43
228.72
222.04
159.05
200.09
219.43
163.25
211.32
184.78
129.76
155.74
178.8
Wt. Dry sample (g)
127.15
173.64
147.34
92.28
118.51
141.15
Water Content (%)
11.15
10.02
25.29
31.74
37.42
28.78
CTS-548
CTS-549
CTS-550
CTS-551
CTS-552
CTS-553
Test Hole #
35
35
35
35
31
31
Depth
11.5
T
Tare
#
ZZ?
BB2
PP1
BB7
BB31
BB6
Tare Mass (g)
37.46
37.95
37.7
37.33
37.45
37.74
283.54
266.35
154.34
187.19
214.40
230.05
275.8
225.48
141.54
162.58
195.81
201.53
Wt. Dry sample (g)
238.34
187.53
103.84
125.25
158.36
163.79
Water Content (%)
3 25
3.25
21 79
21.79
12 33
12.33
19 65
19.65
11 74
11.74
17 41
17.41
Sample #
Sample #
Comments:
WATER CONTENTS
Project:
M2112

Date:
S
Sample
l #
18-May-10
CTS
554
CTS-554
CTS 555
CTS-555
CTS 556
CTS-556
CTS 557
CTS-557
Test Hole #
31
37
37
37
Depth
8.5
1.5
3.5
10
Tare #
AA14
AA12
AA01
AA10
Tare Mass (g)
35.01
37.37
37.66
35.47
184 49
184.49
233 06
233.06
230 33
230.33
196 04
196.04
150.08
206.63
197.6
181.35
Wt. Dry sample (g)
115.07
169.26
159.94
145.88
Water Content (%)
29.90
15.62
20.46
10.07
Sample #
Test Hole #
Depth
Tare #
Tare Mass (g)
Wt. Dry sample (g)
Water Content (%)
Sample #
Test Hole #
Depth
T
Tare
#
Tare Mass (g)
Wt. Dry sample (g)
Water Content (%)
Comments:
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL)

Project:
M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd.

Geotechnical Investigation Foundation
Technician:
Sample:
DG
Date: April 9/10
CTS-04
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g):
215.39
Mass of pycnometer with water (g):
713.75
Temperature ( C):
20.4
PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION:

Water Content (wet sample):
Wet weight (g):
50.10
Tare #:
M17
Calc. Dry Weight (g):
49.84
Tare Mass (g):
89.99
Wet sample + tare (g):
101.66
Dry sample + tare (g):
101.6
Dry sample (g):
11.61
Water Content (%):
0.52
POST-TEST INFORMATION:
Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g):
o
744.66
Temperature ( C):
19.8
Mass of dry sample (g):
49.84
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.62

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
DG
Date: April 9/10
CTS-09
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
195.33
693.77
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
50.05
Tare #:
49.96
J71
Tare Mass (g):
90.83
128.45
128.38
Dry sample (g):
37.55
Water Content (%):
0.19
o
724.75
Temperature ( C):
19.9
49.96
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.63

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-12
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
195.33
693.77
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
55.64
Tare #:
55.31
7B5
Tare Mass (g):
83.40
189.72
189.08
Dry sample (g):
105.68
Water Content (%):
0.61
o
728.41
Temperature ( C):
22.1
55.31
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.70

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-28
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
188.24
686.87
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
51.49
Tare #:
50.64
O9
Tare Mass (g):
99.19
121
120.64
Dry sample (g):
21.45
Water Content (%):
1.68
o
718.25
Temperature ( C):
22.5
50.64
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-32
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C1A
187.75
686.51
Temperature ( C):
20.8

Wet weight (g):
51.58
Tare #:
51.26
O9
Tare Mass (g):
99.17
124.71
124.55
Dry sample (g):
25.38
Water Content (%):
0.63
o
718.09
Temperature ( C):
19.4
51.26
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.59

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-40
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
195.33
693.77
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
45.79
Tare #:
45.55
4A5
Tare Mass (g):
84.15
97.46
97.39
Dry sample (g):
13.24
Water Content (%):
0.53
o
722.43
Temperature ( C):
21.4
45.55
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.72

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
TH
Date: Jan 04/10
CTS-52
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C1A
187.75
686.51
Temperature ( C):
20.8

Wet weight (g):
50.01
Tare #:
49.64
L25
Tare Mass (g):
57.60
99.19
98.88
Dry sample (g):
41.28
Water Content (%):
0.75
o
717.12
Temperature ( C):
19.8
49.64
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.59

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-59
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
165.42
680.63
Temperature ( C):
21.2

Wet weight (g):
62.46
Tare #:
61.10
5X5
Tare Mass (g):
101.52
176.86
175.22
Dry sample (g):
73.70
Water Content (%):
2.23
o
Temperature ( C):
18

Specific gravity:
Comments:
719.48
2.71
61.10

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-63
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
165.42
680.63
Temperature ( C):
21.2

Wet weight (g):
54.99
Tare #:
54.81
FF4
Tare Mass (g):
87.74
118.05
117.95
Dry sample (g):
30.21
Water Content (%):
0.33
o
714.76
Temperature ( C):
22.4
54.81
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.67

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
DG
Date: April 9/10
CTS-74
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
173.23
672.04
Temperature ( C):
21

Wet weight (g):
52.96
Tare #:
52.59
M3
Tare Mass (g):
88.50
135.87
135.54
Dry sample (g):
47.04
Water Content (%):
0.70
o
705.16
Temperature ( C):
17.7
52.59
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-79
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
188.24
686.87
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
51.30
Tare #:
51.00
O2
Tare Mass (g):
108.05
156.66
156.38
Dry sample (g):
48.33
Water Content (%):
0.58
o
718.47
Temperature ( C):
22.3
51.00
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-86
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
165.42
680.63
Temperature ( C):
21.2

Wet weight (g):
50.01
Tare #:
49.85
M3
Tare Mass (g):
88.50
103.7
103.65
Dry sample (g):
15.15
Water Content (%):
0.33
o
711.45
Temperature ( C):
18.9
49.85
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.59

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-94
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C9A
172.56
671.08
Temperature ( C):
21

Wet weight (g):
50.40
Tare #:
XXX
50.08
Tare Mass (g):
80.78
120.26
120.01
Dry sample (g):
39.23
Water Content (%):
0.64
o
702.13
Temperature ( C):
22.9
50.08
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-99
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
215.39
713.75
Temperature ( C):
20.4

Wet weight (g):
49.95
Tare #:
49.81
EE
Tare Mass (g):
99.79
145.41
145.28
Dry sample (g):
45.49
Water Content (%):
0.29
o
744.69
Temperature ( C):
22.5
49.81
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.67

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-107
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C9A
172.56
671.08
Temperature ( C):
21

Wet weight (g):
49.22
Tare #:
M17
49.09
Tare Mass (g):
85.17
100.37
100.33
Dry sample (g):
15.16
Water Content (%):
0.26
o
701.26
Temperature ( C):
23.1
49.09
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.63

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-111
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C9A
172.56
671.08
Temperature ( C):
21

Wet weight (g):
51.00
Tare #:
50.26
FF4
Tare Mass (g):
87.74
174.57
173.31
Dry sample (g):
85.57
Water Content (%):
1.47
o
702.23
Temperature ( C):
19.7
50.26
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.61

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-113
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
165.42
680.63
Temperature ( C):
21.2

Wet weight (g):
59.36
Tare #:
59.03
2X2
Tare Mass (g):
85.75
197.87
197.25
Dry sample (g):
111.50
Water Content (%):
0.56
o
717.45
Temperature ( C):
22.1
59.03
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.67

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-117
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
173.23
672.04
Temperature ( C):
21

Wet weight (g):
51.64
Tare #:
M17
51.39
Tare Mass (g):
85.19
153.5
153.17
Dry sample (g):
67.98
Water Content (%):
0.49
o
704.05
Temperature ( C):
20.3
51.39
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.64

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-130
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C1A
187.75
686.51
Temperature ( C):
20.8

Wet weight (g):
50.51
Tare #:
50.26
FF3
Tare Mass (g):
83.63
117.72
117.55
Dry sample (g):
33.92
Water Content (%):
0.50
o
717.81
Temperature ( C):
21.6
50.26
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-137
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
C1A
187.75
686.51
Temperature ( C):
20.8

Wet weight (g):
54.54
Tare #:
54.13
J44
Tare Mass (g):
85.33
140.62
140.2
Dry sample (g):
54.87
Water Content (%):
0.77
o
719.96
Temperature ( C):
22.3
54.13
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.64

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 9/10
CTS-143
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
188.24
686.87
Temperature ( C):
20.3

Wet weight (g):
50.40
Tare #:
49.97
5H3
Tare Mass (g):
81.80
95.87
95.75
Dry sample (g):
13.95
Water Content (%):
0.86
o
718.41
Temperature ( C):
17.8
49.97
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.68

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
RM
Date: April 8/10
CTS-145
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
215.39
713.75
Temperature ( C):
20.4

Wet weight (g):
52.98
Tare #:
XXO
52.65
Tare Mass (g):
84.92
107.21
107.07
Dry sample (g):
22.15
Water Content (%):
0.63
o
Temperature ( C):
22

Specific gravity:
Comments:
746.81
2.71
52.65

Project:

Technician:
Sample:
DG
Date: April 8/10
CTS-257
PYCNOMETER DATA:
Pycnometer #:
173.23
672.04
Temperature ( C):
21

Tare #:
T1
Tare Mass (g):
83.77
135.56
135.17
Dry sample (g):
51.40
Water Content (%):
0.76
o
703.23
Temperature ( C):
19.6
49.71
Specific gravity:
Comments:
2.66
Wet weight (g):
50.09
49.71
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT

(Test Reference: ASTM D 422)
Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
Dosage of dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
98
2.00
95
0.850
91
0.425
85
0.250
77
0.150
66
0.075
55
0.0638
51.1
0.0460
45.7
0.0334
38.1
0.0239
35.3
0.0172
30.2
0.0127
25.6
0.0091
24.0
0.0064
21.3
0.0046
18.6
0.0032
17.0
0.0024
15.3
0.0014
12.9
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
Geotechnical Investigation Foundations
MDH Job No: M2112-06
SAMPLE:
CTS-04
DATE:
11-Apr-10
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
43
% FINES (SILT, CLAY)
55
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
Unified Soil Classification System
The testing services reported here have been performed in accordance with accepted local industry standards.
The results presented are for the sole use of the designated client only.
This report constitutes a testing service only. It does not represent any interpretation or opinion regarding specification compliance or material suitability.
Engineering interpretation will be provided by MDH Engineered Solutions Corp upon request.
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
98
0.850
90
0.425
80
0.250
72
0.150
62
0.075
52
0.0652
47.6
0.0474
40.0
0.0339
36.1
0.0242
34.1
0.0173
30.4
0.0123
27.5
0.0091
24.6
0.0065
20.9
0.0046
19.1
0.0032
17.7
0.0024
15.9
0.0014
13.1
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-09
DATE:
18-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
48
52
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
99
2.00
97
0.850
93
0.425
87
0.250
77
0.150
67
0.075
56
0.0617
52.0
0.0452
43.4
0.0325
39.2
0.0231
37.8
0.0166
33.8
0.0122
31.0
0.0086
27.3
0.0062
25.7
0.0044
23.6
0.0029
20.5
0.0022
17.4
0.0013
15.5
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-12
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
1
% SAND
43
56
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
97
2.00
95
0.850
91
0.425
84
0.250
76
0.150
66
0.075
56
0.0635
52.3
0.0463
44.5
0.0332
40.7
0.0238
36.6
0.0170
33.9
0.0125
31.0
0.0089
27.8
0.0064
24.2
0.0045
22.4
0.0032
20.5
0.0024
18.8
0.0014
14.9
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-18
DATE:
11-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
41
56
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
100
0.850
99
0.425
99
0.250
98
0.150
98
0.075
97
0.0539
90.8
0.0386
88.1
0.0273
87.5
0.0194
87.3
0.0137
87.3
0.0100
87.3
0.0071
84.0
0.0051
81.1
0.0037
76.9
0.0026
72.0
0.0019
64.6
0.0012
56.3
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-28
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
3
97
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
98
4.75
97
2.00
95
0.850
91
0.425
86
0.250
78
0.150
67
0.075
57
0.0639
53.0
0.0468
44.1
0.0336
40.1
0.0239
38.0
0.0171
35.2
0.0126
32.0
0.0088
29.7
0.0064
26.5
0.0045
24.6
0.0032
22.7
0.0023
19.1
0.0012
16.6
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-32
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
40
57
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
98
2.00
95
0.850
90
0.425
83
0.250
74
0.150
64
0.075
54
0.0631
48.9
0.0459
40.9
0.0328
38.1
0.0233
36.7
0.0167
33.3
0.0123
30.4
0.0084
27.6
0.0062
24.7
0.0045
22.2
0.0030
20.3
0.0022
16.8
0.0014
14.3
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-40
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
44
54
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
97
9.5
97
4.75
97
2.00
94
0.850
89
0.425
83
0.250
76
0.150
67
0.075
56
0.0630
52.2
0.0460
43.8
0.0331
39.4
0.0237
35.3
0.0159
34.0
0.0124
31.6
0.0090
28.4
0.0062
26.0
0.0045
24.2
0.0032
22.7
0.0023
20.4
0.0013
15.1
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-52
DATE:
29-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
41
56
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
100
0.850
100
0.425
100
0.250
100
0.150
100
0.075
99
0.0520
95.8
0.0378
90.3
0.0271
87.9
0.0192
87.1
0.0141
79.5
0.0101
68.9
0.0079
59.6
0.0058
51.2
0.0041
45.5
0.0029
41.1
0.0021
34.0
0.0013
28.4
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-59
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
1
99
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
99
2.00
96
0.850
91
0.425
85
0.250
78
0.150
70
0.075
59
0.0618
54.3
0.0450
46.5
0.0323
42.5
0.0231
39.6
0.0165
36.2
0.0122
33.5
0.0087
30.0
0.0062
27.5
0.0044
25.2
0.0031
23.2
0.0022
19.4
0.0014
16.6
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-63
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
1
% SAND
40
59
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
98
2.00
95
0.850
92
0.425
85
0.250
77
0.150
67
0.075
57
0.0638
53.9
0.0468
44.1
0.0336
40.3
0.0238
39.2
0.0170
36.5
0.0125
34.0
0.0087
31.5
0.0063
28.1
0.0045
26.3
0.0032
24.8
0.0022
22.1
0.0012
18.4
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-74
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
41
57
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
98
2.00
95
0.850
93
0.425
88
0.250
79
0.150
69
0.075
58
0.0623
54.6
0.0452
47.5
0.0325
43.5
0.0231
41.6
0.0166
36.4
0.0123
33.8
0.0086
30.5
0.0062
28.4
0.0044
26.4
0.0029
24.0
0.0022
20.7
0.0013
17.9
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-79
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
40
58
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
98
4.75
97
2.00
94
0.850
89
0.425
82
0.250
74
0.150
63
0.075
53
0.0638
51.2
0.0460
46.2
0.0334
38.6
0.0239
35.8
0.0171
32.0
0.0126
29.4
0.0090
26.6
0.0064
23.1
0.0045
20.5
0.0032
19.0
0.0023
17.3
0.0014
14.6
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-86
DATE:
11-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
44
53
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
98
4.75
97
2.00
94
0.850
89
0.425
83
0.250
74
0.150
64
0.075
54
0.0646
49.7
0.0471
41.7
0.0337
38.5
0.0242
34.4
0.0172
32.3
0.0127
29.5
0.0089
27.0
0.0064
24.3
0.0045
23.2
0.0032
19.7
0.0023
17.9
0.0012
14.2
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-94
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
43
54
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
98
2.00
97
0.850
93
0.425
87
0.250
77
0.150
66
0.075
55
0.0642
52.1
0.0470
42.8
0.0337
39.0
0.0240
37.0
0.0172
33.0
0.0123
29.3
0.0087
26.3
0.0062
25.5
0.0045
24.2
0.0032
20.2
0.0022
18.4
0.0013
14.5
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-99
DATE:
26-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
43
55
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
99
0.850
98
0.425
90
0.250
51
0.150
22
0.075
15
0.0721
14.2
0.0514
11.6
0.0364
11.0
0.0258
10.6
0.0183
9.4
0.0134
9.0
0.0095
8.5
0.0067
7.9
0.0047
6.8
0.0034
6.2
0.0024
4.6
0.0013
4.2
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-107
DATE:
24-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
85
15
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
100
0.850
100
0.425
98
0.250
84
0.150
49
0.075
26
0.0715
24.4
0.0509
19.9
0.0366
14.3
0.0259
13.3
0.0174
12.3
0.0128
11.6
0.0094
10.8
0.0067
10.3
0.0047
9.6
0.0033
8.7
0.0023
8.3
0.0014
6.0
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-108
DATE:
11-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
74
26
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
100
2.00
100
0.850
100
0.425
100
0.250
100
0.150
99
0.075
99
0.0532
93.7
0.0383
89.8
0.0273
88.0
0.0195
86.4
0.0142
79.7
0.0108
69.3
0.0078
59.7
0.0058
51.3
0.0042
45.6
0.0028
39.8
0.0022
33.4
0.0013
27.2
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-111
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
% SAND
1
99
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
99
2.00
97
0.850
92
0.425
87
0.250
81
0.150
74
0.075
65
0.0592
61.0
0.0437
51.0
0.0316
45.6
0.0225
44.1
0.0161
40.7
0.0119
37.7
0.0084
34.1
0.0060
31.1
0.0044
28.0
0.0030
25.7
0.0022
21.4
0.0014
17.3
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-113
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
1
% SAND
34
65
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
98
4.75
96
2.00
95
0.850
92
0.425
86
0.250
77
0.150
66
0.075
55
0.0624
51.5
0.0451
45.6
0.0323
42.2
0.0232
38.6
0.0166
35.4
0.0106
30.9
0.0086
29.1
0.0062
27.1
0.0044
24.4
0.0031
23.3
0.0022
19.5
0.0014
16.4
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS117
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
4
% SAND
41
55
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
99
4.75
97
2.00
95
0.850
91
0.425
86
0.250
78
0.150
69
0.075
59
0.0620
54.9
0.0451
47.5
0.0322
45.2
0.0230
41.6
0.0165
38.4
0.0122
35.4
0.0087
32.6
0.0062
28.7
0.0036
26.1
0.0030
24.1
0.0022
20.8
0.0013
17.5
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-130
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
38
59
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
98
2.00
95
0.850
91
0.425
86
0.250
78
0.150
67
0.075
54
0.0641
50.9
0.0465
44.1
0.0334
39.9
0.0239
36.3
0.0171
32.7
0.0123
29.1
0.0087
26.7
0.0063
24.1
0.0045
22.7
0.0032
20.8
0.0022
18.6
0.0013
15.2
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-137
DATE:
26-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
44
54
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
100
4.75
98
2.00
96
0.850
87
0.425
78
0.250
69
0.150
59
0.075
49
0.0655
46.6
0.0475
40.0
0.0342
34.9
0.0243
33.0
0.0174
29.3
0.0125
25.7
0.0090
23.9
0.0064
21.2
0.0046
19.6
0.0032
18.7
0.0023
17.4
0.0014
13.1
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-143
DATE:
11-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
2
% SAND
49
49
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
91
19.1
91
9.5
91
4.75
90
2.00
89
0.850
85
0.425
75
0.250
64
0.150
52
0.075
39
0.0670
35.4
0.0487
28.3
0.0349
24.0
0.0248
22.8
0.0177
19.8
0.0130
18.4
0.0092
16.8
0.0065
15.0
0.0046
13.1
0.0033
12.5
0.0023
10.4
0.0013
8.2
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-145
DATE:
24-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
10
% SAND
51
39
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS

Sieve Analysis
Sieve
3"
2"
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
# 10
# 20
# 40
# 60
# 100
# 200
Hydrometer Analysis
Dispersing agent:
40 g/L
100
Diameter
(mm)
% Finer
76.2
100
50.8
100
25.4
100
19.1
100
9.5
98
4.75
97
2.00
95
0.850
92
0.425
85
0.250
76
0.150
66
0.075
55
0.0639
52.3
0.0465
44.6
0.0331
42.9
0.0237
39.3
0.0169
36.4
0.0125
33.2
0.0088
30.1
0.0064
27.7
0.0042
25.0
0.0032
24.1
0.0023
22.2
0.0014
16.4
U.S. Standard Sieve
CLIENT:
Fortune Minerals
PROJECT:
SAMPLE:
CTS-257
DATE:
22-Apr-10
% GRAVEL
3
% SAND
42
55
COMMENTS:
#200
#100 #60
#40
#20
#4
#10
3/8"
3/4" 1"
2"
3"
6"
10"
90
Percent Finer Than
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Grain Size (mm)
10
SAND
FINES (SILT, CLAY)

Fine
Medium
100
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
COBBLES
Coarse
1000
BOULDERS
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT

Client:
Fortune Minerals Ltd.
Project
Geological Investigation Foundations
MDH Job No: M2112-06A
Sample:
CTS-04
Technician:
DG
Date:
20/4/2010
(air-dried)
9'
Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA
Plastic Limit
Tare #
Liquid Limit (method A)

# of Blows
17
25
42
10A
Z5
TLL
66A
ADT
Tare #
Tare Wt, g
14.47
14.31
Tare Wt, g
14.35
14.11
14.14
Wet + Tare, g
20.88
21.55
Wet + tare, g
24.63
21.78
23.22
Dry + Tare, g
20.15
20.71
average Dry + tare, g
22.37
20.26
21.48
12.9%
13.1%
M%
13.0%
Water content
28.2%
24.7%
23.7%
13.0%
Liquid Limit:
25.7%
Plasticity Index:
12.7%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
29%
SUMMARY
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
23%
Natural Water Content:
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
Plasticity Index, PI
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Comments: The testing services reported here have been performed in accordance with accepted local industry standards.

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-09
Technician:
DG
Date:
19/4/2010
(air-dried)
15.5'
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
17
46
1J
T8A
T5
Tare #
MVP
46A
Tare Wt, g
14.53
14.14
Tare Wt, g
14.61
14.42
14.42
Wet + Tare, g
20.75
19.17
Wet + tare, g
26.36
22.31
21.96
Dry + Tare, g
20.02
18.57
23.78
20.68
20.52
13.3%
13.5%
M%
Tare #
28
13.4%
Water content
28.1%
26.0%
23.6%
13.4%
Liquid Limit:
26.5%
Plasticity Index:
13.1%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
29%
SUMMARY
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
23%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-12
Technician:
RG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
23'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
16
40
Z2
44A
1A
PA
L2
Tare Wt, g
14.08
14.36
Tare Wt, g
14.25
14.48
14.28
Wet + Tare, g
19.75
19.49
Wet + tare, g
21.73
21.84
21.58
Dry + Tare, g
19.07
18.87
20.04
20.24
20.07
13.6%
13.7%
M%
Tare #
24
13.7%
Water content
29.2%
27.8%
26.1%
30.0%
SUMMARY
13.7%
Liquid Limit:
27.6%
Plasticity Index:
13.9%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
29.5%
29.0%
28.5%
28.0%
27.5%
27.0%
26.5%
26.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-18
Technician:
DG
Date:
4-Sep-2010
(air-dried)
34'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
13
48
1A
40A
46A
B3
L2
Tare Wt, g
14.26
14.37
Tare Wt, g
14.28
14.39
14.14
Wet + Tare, g
22.62
21.70
Wet + tare, g
24.53
25.12
25.98
Dry + Tare, g
21.67
20.81
22.16
22.78
23.59
12.8%
13.8%
M%
Tare #
26
13.3%
Water content
30.1%
27.9%
25.3%
13.3%
Liquid Limit:
27.8%
Plasticity Index:
14.5%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
31%
SUMMARY
30%
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-28
Technician:
TH/DG
Date:
21/4/2010
(air-dried)

Plastic Limit
44
B7
YAN
MDH
29A
23A
Tare Wt, g
14.44
14.30
Tare Wt, g
14.45
14.41
14.62
Wet + Tare, g
19.82
20.38
Wet + tare, g
20.50
20.58
20.63
Dry + Tare, g
18.62
19.04
17.76
17.89
18.05
28.7%
28.3%
M%
Tare #
29
28.5%
Water content
Plastic Limit:
28.5%
Liquid Limit:
79.5%
Plasticity Index:
51.0%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
CH
82.8%
83%
82%
81%
80%
79%
78%
77%
76%
75%
74%
77.3%
# of Blows
10
n/a
75.2%
25 blows
Tare #

# of Blows
18
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-32
Technician:
TH
Date:
7-Apr-2010
(air-dried)

Plastic Limit

# of Blows
16
28
46
T8A
L2
PA
Tare #
ADT
MDH
Tare #
Tare Wt, g
14.31
14.63
Tare Wt, g
14.41
14.35
14.14
Wet + Tare, g
20.89
20.93
Wet + tare, g
24.08
21.94
20.93
Dry + Tare, g
20.18
20.24
21.80
20.22
19.47
12.1%
12.3%
M%
12.2%
Water content
30.9%
29.3%
27.4%
31.0%
SUMMARY
12.2%
Liquid Limit:
29.4%
Plasticity Index:
17.2%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
30.5%
30.0%
29.5%
29.0%
28.5%
28.0%
27.5%
27.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-40
Technician:
RG
Date:
24-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
28'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
15
2J
T9B
Tare Wt, g
14.39
Wet + Tare, g
Dry + Tare, g
M%
25
43
Tare #
MCA
TLL
ADT
14.36
Tare Wt, g
14.64
14.14
14.31
21.82
22.60
Wet + tare, g
23.28
22.15
21.21
21.01
21.70
21.35
20.46
19.82
12.2%
12.3%
12.2%
Water content
28.8%
26.7%
25.2%
29.0%
SUMMARY
12.2%
Liquid Limit:
26.9%
Plasticity Index:
14.7%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
28.5%
28.0%
27.5%
27.0%
26.5%
26.0%
25.5%
25.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
MDH Job No: M2112
Sample:
CTS-52
Technician:
CH
Date:
25-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
52'
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
12
42
B7
17A
48A
Tare #
MDH
6A
Tare Wt, g
14.63
14.26
Tare Wt, g
14.46
14.61
14.13
Wet + Tare, g
22.10
21.32
Wet + tare, g
21.75
20.56
20.02
Dry + Tare, g
21.33
20.58
20.07
19.27
18.82
11.5%
11.7%
M%
Tare #
24
11.6%
Water content
29.9%
27.7%
25.6%
11.6%
Liquid Limit:
27.4%
Plasticity Index:
15.8%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
30%
SUMMARY
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-59
Technician:
CG
Date:
9-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
7'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
18
50
B4
OBI
40A
54A
1A
Tare Wt, g
14.51
14.28
Tare Wt, g
14.45
13.89
14.39
Wet + Tare, g
18.78
18.51
Wet + tare, g
18.80
18.63
18.56
Dry + Tare, g
17.97
17.72
17.31
17.03
17.20
23.4%
23.0%
M%
Tare #
27
23.2%
Water content
52.1%
51.0%
48.4%
23.2%
Liquid Limit:
50.9%
Plasticity Index:
27.7%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CH
25 blows
53%
SUMMARY
52%
51%
50%
49%
48%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-63
Technician:
CG
Date:
4-Sep-2010
(air-dried)

Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
17
46
1A
21A
MCA
B4
OBI
Tare Wt, g
14.46
13.91
Tare Wt, g
14.28
14.62
14.64
Wet + Tare, g
19.51
19.12
Wet + tare, g
19.71
19.47
20.24
Dry + Tare, g
18.94
18.55
18.53
18.52
19.16
12.7%
12.3%
M%
Tare #
33
12.5%
Water content
27.8%
24.4%
23.9%
12.5%
Liquid Limit:
26.0%
Plasticity Index:
13.5%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
28%
SUMMARY
27%
26%
25%
24%
23%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-74
Technician:
DG
Date:
7-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
38'
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
17
28
44
4A
Z2
21A
Tare #
YAN
MCA
Tare #
Tare Wt, g
14.42
14.65
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.24
14.62
Wet + Tare, g
20.36
20.37
Wet + tare, g
24.36
25.17
25.19
Dry + Tare, g
19.67
19.70
22.14
22.82
23.01
13.1%
13.3%
M%
13.2%
Water content
28.6%
27.4%
26.0%
29.0%
SUMMARY
13.2%
Liquid Limit:
27.6%
Plasticity Index:
14.4%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
28.5%
28.0%
27.5%
27.0%
26.5%
26.0%
25.5%
25.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-79
Technician:
CG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
49'
Plastic Limit
39
9A
TRAN
13A
2J
6A
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.28
Tare Wt, g
14.27
14.03
14.06
Wet + Tare, g
19.50
20.08
Wet + tare, g
19.63
20.08
20.38
Dry + Tare, g
18.87
19.39
18.42
18.86
19.20
14.1%
13.5%
M%
Tare #
27
13.8%
Water content
Plastic Limit:
13.8%
Liquid Limit:
25.3%
Plasticity Index:
11.5%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
CL
29.2%
30%
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
23%
22%
25.3%
# of Blows
10
n/a
23.0%
25 blows
Tare #

# of Blows
10
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-86
Technician:
CG
Date:
20/4/2010
(air-dried)
7.5'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
16
28
38
Tare #
54A
PA
47A
40A
L2
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.37
Tare Wt, g
14.51
14.13
14.47
Wet + Tare, g
18.53
18.55
Wet + tare, g
20.90
21.61
19.75
Dry + Tare, g
18.07
18.09
19.59
20.13
18.76
12.5%
12.4%
M%
12.4%
Water content
25.8%
24.7%
23.1%
12.4%
Liquid Limit:
24.6%
Plasticity Index:
12.2%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
26.0%
SUMMARY
25.5%
25.0%
24.5%
24.0%
23.5%
23.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-94
Technician:
CG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
25'
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
16
Tare #
YAN
L2
Tare Wt, g
14.41
Wet + Tare, g
Dry + Tare, g
M%
24
32
Tare #
ADT
29A
T8A
14.36
Tare Wt, g
14.30
14.45
14.42
18.60
18.93
Wet + tare, g
19.93
19.56
20.40
18.16
18.47
18.75
18.51
19.21
11.7%
11.2%
11.5%
Water content
26.5%
25.9%
24.8%
11.5%
Liquid Limit:
25.4%
Plasticity Index:
14.0%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
27.0%
SUMMARY
26.5%
26.0%
25.5%
25.0%
24.5%
24.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-111
Technician:
CG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
9'
Plastic Limit
50
23A
TELL
B7
Z2
PA
Tare Wt, g
14.25
14.11
Tare Wt, g
14.31
14.15
14.45
Wet + Tare, g
19.03
18.15
Wet + tare, g
19.66
18.42
18.35
Dry + Tare, g
18.14
17.42
17.78
16.98
17.10
22.9%
22.1%
M%
Tare #
25
22.5%
Water content
Plastic Limit:
22.5%
Liquid Limit:
50.8%
Plasticity Index:
28.4%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
CH
54.2%
55%
54%
53%
52%
51%
50%
49%
48%
47%
50.9%
# of Blows
10
n/a
47.2%
25 blows
Tare #

# of Blows
13
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-113
Technician:
RG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
14
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
17
40
S2A
T9B
4J
Tare #
T7M
66A
Tare Wt, g
14.5
14.15
Tare Wt, g
14.03
14.35
14.49
Wet + Tare, g
22.77
20.19
Wet + tare, g
24.28
22.70
22.91
Dry + Tare, g
21.73
19.46
21.77
20.72
20.99
14.4%
13.7%
M%
Tare #
27
14.1%
Water content
32.4%
31.1%
29.5%
33.0%
SUMMARY
14.1%
Liquid Limit:
31.1%
Plasticity Index:
17.0%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
32.5%
32.0%
31.5%
31.0%
30.5%
30.0%
29.5%
29.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-117
Technician:
CG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
24'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
19
29
40
Tare #
TAK
Z5
44A
Z2
66A
Tare Wt, g
14.41
14.47
Tare Wt, g
14.27
14.13
14.49
Wet + Tare, g
19.17
19.31
Wet + tare, g
19.49
20.00
19.86
Dry + Tare, g
18.62
18.77
18.46
18.87
18.92
13.1%
12.6%
M%
12.8%
Water content
24.6%
23.8%
21.2%
25.0%
SUMMARY
12.8%
Liquid Limit:
23.6%
Plasticity Index:
10.8%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
24.5%
24.0%
23.5%
23.0%
22.5%
22.0%
21.5%
21.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-130
Technician:
CG
Date:
26/3/2010
(air-dried)
54'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
19
35
4A
MDH
PPE
40A
54A
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.51
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.63
14.23
Wet + Tare, g
19.18
19.06
Wet + tare, g
19.38
20.04
19.77
Dry + Tare, g
18.63
18.54
18.34
18.96
18.70
13.0%
12.9%
M%
Tare #
29
12.9%
Water content
26.3%
24.9%
23.9%
27.0%
SUMMARY
12.9%
Liquid Limit:
25.4%
Plasticity Index:
12.4%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
26.5%
26.0%
25.5%
25.0%
24.5%
24.0%
23.5%
23.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-137
Technician:
CL
Date:
7-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
8'
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
13
28
45
Tare #
OBI
B2
R2
66A
47A
Tare Wt, g
14.47
14.47
Tare Wt, g
13.88
14.20
14.18
Wet + Tare, g
21.84
20.81
Wet + tare, g
23.14
22.84
24.44
Dry + Tare, g
20.97
20.06
21.08
21.02
22.42
13.4%
13.4%
M%
13.4%
Water content
28.6%
26.7%
24.5%
13.4%
Liquid Limit:
26.6%
Plasticity Index:
13.2%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
29%
SUMMARY
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-143
Technician:
CL
Date:
7-Apr-2010
(air-dried)
19'
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
15
43
65A
48A
3J
Tare #
MDH
20A
Tare Wt, g
14.64
14.44
Tare Wt, g
14.32
14.13
14.50
Wet + Tare, g
18.86
18.90
Wet + tare, g
20.01
20.23
20.89
Dry + Tare, g
18.36
18.37
18.89
19.10
19.79
13.4%
13.5%
M%
Tare #
23
13.5%
Water content
24.5%
22.7%
20.8%
25.0%
SUMMARY
13.5%
Liquid Limit:
22.6%
Plasticity Index:
9.1%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
24.5%
24.0%
23.5%
23.0%
22.5%
22.0%
21.5%
21.0%
20.5%
20.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-257
Technician:
DG
Date:
20/4/2010
(air-dried)

Plastic Limit

# of Blows
19
34
48
Tare #
PE
4A
46A
Tare #
23A
29A
Tare Wt, g
14.3
14.45
Tare Wt, g
14.22
14.39
14.14
Wet + Tare, g
22.16
20.55
Wet + tare, g
22.69
23.96
20.29
Dry + Tare, g
21.25
19.87
20.70
21.73
18.88
13.1%
12.5%
M%
12.8%
Water content
30.7%
30.4%
29.7%
31.0%
12.8%
Liquid Limit:
30.5%
Plasticity Index:
17.7%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
30.5%
30.0%
29.5%
29.0%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-501
Technician:
CCB
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
37
46A
64A
16A
52A
55A
Tare Wt, g
14.03
14.15
Tare Wt, g
14.18
14.54
14.11
Wet + Tare, g
19.43
19.27
Wet + tare, g
24.65
22.42
22.70
Dry + Tare, g
18.49
18.37
19.59
18.79
18.91
21.1%
21.3%
M%
Tare #
24

21.2%
Water content
Plastic Limit:
21.2%
Liquid Limit:
84.2%
Plasticity Index:
63.0%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
CH
93.5%
94%
92%
90%
88%
86%
84%
82%
80%
78%
85.4%
# of Blows
10
n/a
79.0%
25 blows
Tare #

# of Blows
12
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-506
Technician:
JI
Date:
18-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
25
45
15
Tare #
A24
6A
37A
A18
A37
Tare Wt, g
13.52
13.61
Tare Wt, g
13.03
14.27
14.10
Wet + Tare, g
18.06
18.32
Wet + tare, g
17.82
19.01
19.13
Dry + Tare, g
17.28
17.52
16.47
17.71
17.61
20.7%
20.5%
M%
20.6%
Water content
39.2%
37.8%
43.3%
44%
20.6%
Liquid Limit:
40.2%
Plasticity Index:
19.6%
Classification:
CL
43%
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
42%
41%
40%
39%
38%
37%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-507
Technician:
CCB
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
13
23
46
Tare #
T8A
1A
69A
21A
70A
Tare Wt, g
14.63
14.32
Tare Wt, g
14.43
14.28
14.37
Wet + Tare, g
21.74
20.74
Wet + tare, g
23.71
24.66
25.00
Dry + Tare, g
21.13
20.21
21.51
22.38
22.86
M%
9.4%
9.0%

9.2%
Water content
31.1%
28.1%
25.2%
32%
9.2%
Liquid Limit:
27.9%
Plasticity Index:
18.7%
Classification:
CL
31%
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
30%
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-511
Technician:
JI
Date:
18-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
17
47
B7
48A
21A
17A
1A
Tare Wt, g
14.63
14.29
Tare Wt, g
14.54
14.14
14.62
Wet + Tare, g
18.57
18.35
Wet + tare, g
22.41
19.15
19.64
Dry + Tare, g
17.74
17.52
19.34
17.27
17.85
26.7%
25.7%
M%
Tare #
29

26.2%
Water content
64.0%
60.1%
55.4%
65%
26.2%
Liquid Limit:
60.8%
Plasticity Index:
34.6%
Classification:
CH
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
63%
61%
59%
57%
55%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-515
Technician:
BP
Date:
18-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
14
51
44A
69A
70A
2J
27A
Tare Wt, g
14.39
14.36
Tare Wt, g
14.52
14.39
14.32
Wet + Tare, g
18.82
19.57
Wet + tare, g
22.29
21.48
21.49
Dry + Tare, g
18.36
19.05
20.50
19.95
20.03
11.6%
11.1%
M%
Tare #
29

11.3%
Water content
29.9%
27.5%
25.6%
30%
11.3%
Liquid Limit:
27.9%
Plasticity Index:
16.6%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-516
Technician:
CCB
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
13
51
44A
37A
TRN
28A
A18
Tare Wt, g
14.27
13.52
Tare Wt, g
14.49
14.10
14.03
Wet + Tare, g
19.43
19.71
Wet + tare, g
24.44
23.33
24.61
Dry + Tare, g
18.97
19.18
22.17
21.36
22.52
M%
9.8%
9.4%
Tare #
23

9.6%
Water content
29.6%
27.1%
24.6%
9.6%
Liquid Limit:
27.0%
Plasticity Index:
17.4%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CL
25 blows
30%
SUMMARY
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Geological Investigation Storage Facilities
Sample:
CTS-520
Technician:
JI
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 1
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
12
36
A47
54A
PPE
T9B
B7
Tare Wt, g
14.35
14.50
Tare Wt, g
13.69
14.52
14.25
Wet + Tare, g
20.98
20.56
Wet + tare, g
25.78
28.22
24.28
Dry + Tare, g
20.35
20.00
23.08
25.37
22.27
10.5%
10.2%
M%
Tare #
24
10.3%
Water content
28.8%
26.3%
25.1%
29%
10.3%
Liquid Limit:
26.2%
Plasticity Index:
15.9%
Classification:
CL
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
28%
27%
26%
25%
24%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-525
Technician:
JI
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 1
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
10
Tare #
MSS
68A
Tare Wt, g
14.67
Wet + Tare, g
Dry + Tare, g
M%
24
36
Tare #
MCA
65A
T100
14.37
Tare Wt, g
14.68
14.34
14.56
19.83
19.92
Wet + tare, g
23.85
20.90
21.13
19.22
19.27
21.68
19.44
19.80
13.4%
13.3%
13.3%
Water content
31.0%
28.6%
25.4%
32%
13.3%
Liquid Limit:
27.5%
Plasticity Index:
14.2%
Classification:
CL
31%
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
30%
29%
28%
27%
26%
25%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Test Pits
Sample:
CTS-539
Technician:
JI
Date:
25-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 6
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
10
38
1A
TAK
68A
Tare #
A21
OBI
Tare Wt, g
13.2
13.92
Tare Wt, g
14.28
14.27
14.37
Wet + Tare, g
17.01
18.51
Wet + tare, g
18.71
18.29
18.14
Dry + Tare, g
16.22
17.58
17.11
16.89
16.87
26.2%
25.4%
M%
Tare #
27

25.8%
Water content
56.5%
53.4%
50.8%
57%
25.8%
Liquid Limit:
52.9%
Plasticity Index:
27.1%
Classification:
CH
56%
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
55%
54%
53%
52%
51%
50%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-543
Technician:
JI
Date:
18-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 2
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
Tare #
Tare #
Tare Wt, g
Tare Wt, g
Wet + Tare, g
Wet + tare, g
Dry + Tare, g
Dry + tare, g
M%
Water content
44%
Plastic Limit:
Liquid Limit:
Plasticity Index:
Classification: Non-Plastic
43%
25 blows
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
42%
41%
40%
39%
38%
37%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Comments: Could not roll Plastic Limit - too Sandy


Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-545
Technician:
DK
Date:
21-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 2
Plastic Limit
Tare #

# of Blows
11
49
52A
55A
1J
13A
38A
Tare Wt, g
14.08
14.58
Tare Wt, g
14.03
14.15
14.63
Wet + Tare, g
19.47
19.06
Wet + tare, g
21.00
21.25
19.62
Dry + Tare, g
18.14
17.93
17.76
17.98
17.40
32.8%
33.7%
M%
Tare #
22

33.2%
Water content
86.9%
85.4%
80.1%
87%
33.2%
Liquid Limit:
83.7%
Plasticity Index:
50.5%
Classification:
CH
86%
25 blows
Plastic Limit:
Water Content (%)
SUMMARY
85%
84%
83%
82%
81%
80%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Client:
Project
Sample:
CTS-556
Technician:
DK
Date:
26-May-2010
(air-dried)
Task 2
Plastic Limit

# of Blows
13
28
49
13A
58A
T100
Tare #
TAK
T7M
Tare #
Tare Wt, g
14.27
14.51
Tare Wt, g
14.08
14.20
14.56
Wet + Tare, g
19.06
18.71
Wet + tare, g
18.28
18.26
18.54
Dry + Tare, g
18.01
17.79
16.52
16.70
17.07
28.1%
28.0%
M%

28.1%
Water content
72.1%
62.4%
58.6%
28.1%
Liquid Limit:
64.7%
Plasticity Index:
36.7%
Classification:
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit:
CH
25 blows
72%
SUMMARY
70%
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
58%
# of Blows
10
n/a
100
70%
60%
U-line
50%
A-line
CH or OH
40%
30%
20%
MH or OH
CL or OL
10%
ML or OL
CL-ML
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Liquid Limit
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Group Index Results
Client:
Project #
M2112 Task 6
Date
May 21/10
Hole Number
Depth
Sample Name
Non-Plastic (y/n)
24
3.5'
CTS-501
n
25
5'
CTS-506
n
26
4'
CTS-511
n
27
2'
CTS-515
n
33
3.5'
CTS-539
n
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
PI
21.2
84.2
63.0
20.6
40.2
19.6
26.2
60.8
34.6
11.3
27.9
16.6
25.8
52.9
27.1
% Passing
#10
#40
#200
98.95
98.22
92.77
99.99
99.67
98.88
98.53
95.92
86.32
95.55
85.46
53.9
99.62
98.55
75.78
T (LL)
U (-71)
I (PI)
M (-71)
60
75
30
55
40
75
20
55
60
75
30
55
40
54
17
54
53
75
27
55
Hole #
Depth
Sample Name
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
24
3.5'
CTS-501
21.2
84.2
25
5'
CTS-506
20.6
40.2
26
4'
CTS-511
26.2
60.8
27
2'
CTS-515
11.3
27.9
33
3.5'
CTS-539
25.8
52.9
Plastic Index
Group Index
Unified Class
63.0
20.0
CH
19.6
11.9
CL
34.6
20.0
CH
16.6
6.3
CL
27.1
17.4
CH
Group Index Results
Client:
Project #
M2112 Task 2
Date
May 21/10
Hole Number
Depth
Sample Name
Non-Plastic (y/n)
34
2'
CTS-543
y
37
3.5'
CTS-556
n
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
PI
0.0
28.1
64.7
36.6
% Passing
#10
#40
#200
99.82
98.3
12.19
99.92
98.35
90.05
T (LL)
U (-71)
I (PI)
M (-71)
40
35
10
15
60
75
30
55
Hole #
Depth
Sample Name
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
34
2'
34
2'
CTS-543
0.0
0.0
37
3.5'
37
3.5'
CTS-556
28.1
64.7
Plastic Index
Group Index
Unified Class
NP
0.0
NP-sand
36.6
20.0
CH
Group
Index
Results
Client:
FortuneMineralsLtd.
Project#
M2112
HOLENUMBER
DEPTH
SAMPLE#
PLASTICLIMIT
LIQUIDLIMIT1
LIQUIDLIMIT2
LIQUID LIMIT AVG
LIQUIDLIMITAVG
PLASTICINDEX
GROUPINDEX
UNIFIEDCLASS
2mm
400mm
71mm
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
35
36
3'
3'
4'
1.5'
4'
4'
4'
4'
4'
ALO102 ALO202 CTS519 CTS522 CTS527 CTS531 CTS535 CTS549 CTS553
10.3
22.1
11.9
19.7
26.2
23.6
17.3
15.7
22.7
29.8
58.9
28.6
34.3
50.2
54.5
49.4
49.4
54
28.7
59.4
28.7
36.9
51.6
55.1
48.1
47.1
55
29 3
29.3
59 2
59.2
28 7
28.7
35 6
35.6
50 9
50.9
54 8
54.8
48 8
48.8
48 3
48.3
54 5
54.5
19
2
CL
37.1
19.8
CH
94.7
79.6
35.6
16.8
1.6
CL
100
98.3
90
15.9
8.5
CL
94.8
79.9
35.8
24.7
16.1
CH
99.8
96.1
65.6
31.2
19
CH
99.9
99.1
95.7
31.5
17.8
CL
99.9
98.8
87.3
32.6
13.8
CL
100
99.6
97.9
31.8
18.9
CH
91.5
77.5
59
100
99.2
86.9
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report

(Reference Standards: ASTM D2166)
Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-06
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g
Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
Initial Diameter, Do, cm
2
Initial Area, Ao, cm
Initial Height, Lo, cm
3
Initial Volume, Vo, cm
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
B71
357.99
329.84
91.91
11.8%
7.26
41.38
14.51
600.33
Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
115
2.0
211
4.0
260
6.0
312
8.0
352
9.0
364
10.0
385
11.0
397
12.0
413
13.0
420
14.0
433
15.0
440
16.0
447
17.0
448
18.0
453
19.0
445
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0
0.09
100
40.13
200
60.57
300
82.26
400
98.94
450
103.95
500
112.71
550
117.71
600
124.38
650
127.30
700
132.73
750
135.65
800
138.57
850
138.98
900
141.07
950
137.73

M2112 - Geotechnical Investigation Foundations
16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH
Mass of test specimen, g

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
Degree of Saturation
=
=
=
=
=
1356.33
2259
2020
2.70 (assumed)
0.95
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
= Ao/(1 - unit strain)
L/Lo
=
=
2.00
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.88 %/min
282 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
2.54
5.09
7.63
10.18
11.45
12.72
13.99
15.26
16.54
17.81
19.08
20.35
21.62
22.90
24.17
Corrected
2
Unit Strain Area, cm
0.00%
41.38
1.75%
42.11
3.51%
42.88
5.26%
43.67
44.50
7.01%
44.92
7.89%
45.35
8.77%
45.79
9.64%
46.24
10.52%
46.70
11.40%
47.17
12.27%
47.64
13.15%
48.13
14.03%
48.62
14.90%
49.13
15.78%
49.65
16.66%
Stress,
kPa
0.2
93.4
138.5
184.7
218.1
226.9
243.7
252.1
263.8
267.3
276.0
279.2
282.3
280.3
281.6
272.1
pre-test
compressive stress, kPa
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
axial strain, %
12%
14%
16%
18%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-013
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
=
=
=
=

2
3
1TI
250.99
233.36
56.28
10.0%
6.88
37.16
15.39
571.71

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
115
2.0
248
3.0
280
4.0
307
5.0
329
6.0
346
7.0
365
8.0
385
9.0
397
10.0
413
11.0
428
12.0
438
12.5
440
13.0
440
13.5
441
14.0
440
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0
0.09
100
55.56
150
68.91
200
80.17
250
89.35
300
96.44
350
104.36
400
112.71
450
117.71
500
124.38
550
130.64
600
134.81
625
135.65
650
135.65
675
136.06
700
135.65

16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1258.52
2201
2002
2.70 (assumed)
0.77
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
2.24
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.83 %/min
321 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
2.54
3.82
5.09
6.36
7.63
8.90
10.18
11.45
12.72
13.99
15.26
15.90
16.54
17.17
17.81
Corrected
2
0.00%
37.16
1.65%
37.78
2.48%
38.10
3.31%
38.43
38.76
4.13%
39.10
4.96%
39.44
5.79%
39.79
6.61%
40.15
7.44%
40.51
8.27%
40.88
9.09%
41.25
9.92%
41.44
10.33%
41.63
10.75%
41.83
11.16%
42.02
11.57%
Stress,
kPa
0.2
144.2
177.3
204.6
226.0
241.9
259.5
277.8
287.5
301.1
313.4
320.5
321.0
319.5
319.0
316.5
pre-test
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
axial strain, %
10%
12%
14%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-21
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
=
=
=
=

2
3
J71
203.53
191.65
90.81
11.8%
7.23
41.01
13.73
563.27

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
6
1.0
132
2.0
213
3.0
273
4.0
309
5.0
348
6.0
369
7.0
391
8.0
401
9.0
424
10.0
440
11.0
456
11.5
460
12.0
465
12.5
459
13.0
450
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0
3.01
50
96.53
100
156.64
150
201.18
200
227.89
250
256.84
300
272.43
350
288.75
400
296.18
450
313.25
500
325.12
550
337.00
575
339.97
600
343.68
625
339.22
650
332.54

16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1296.08
2301
2058
2.70 (assumed)
1.00
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.90
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.93 %/min
730 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
1.27
2.54
3.82
5.09
6.36
7.63
8.90
10.18
11.45
12.72
13.99
14.63
15.26
15.90
16.54
Corrected
2
0.00%
41.01
0.93%
41.40
1.85%
41.79
2.78%
42.19
42.59
3.70%
43.01
4.63%
43.43
5.56%
43.86
6.48%
44.30
7.41%
44.74
8.34%
45.20
9.26%
45.67
10.19%
45.90
10.65%
46.14
11.11%
46.39
11.58%
46.63
12.04%
Stress,
kPa
7.2
228.7
367.6
467.6
524.7
585.7
615.2
645.6
655.7
686.5
705.4
723.7
726.3
730.4
717.2
699.4
pre-test
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
axial strain, %
10%
12%
14%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-39 25'-26.5'

Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
=
=
=
=

2
3
=
=
=
=
TFF
304.99
285.37
83.68
9.7%
7.25
41.34
13.92
575.48

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
11
1.0
63
2.0
100
3.0
130
4.0
164
5.0
200
6.0
221
6.5
229
7.0
235
7.5
241
8.0
242
8.5
250
9.0
255
9.5
260
10.0
261
10.5
260
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
3.01
0
41.60
50
69.06
100
91.33
150
116.56
200
143.28
250
158.87
300
164.81
325
169.26
350
173.71
375
174.46
400
180.39
425
184.10
450
187.82
475
188.56
500
187.82
525

16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1307.6
2272
2071
2.70 (assumed)
0.86
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.92
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.91 %/min
407 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
1.27
2.54
3.82
5.09
6.36
7.63
8.27
8.90
9.54
10.18
10.81
11.45
12.08
12.72
13.36
Corrected
2
41.34
0.00%
41.72
0.91%
42.11
1.83%
42.50
2.74%
42.90
3.65%
43.32
4.57%
43.73
5.48%
5.94%
43.95
6.40%
44.16
6.85%
44.38
7.31%
44.60
44.82
7.77%
45.04
8.22%
45.27
8.68%
9.14%
45.49
45.72
9.59%
Stress,
kPa
7.1
97.8
160.9
210.7
266.4
324.4
356.2
367.8
375.9
383.9
383.6
394.7
400.9
406.9
406.5
402.8
pre-test
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
6%
axial strain, %
8%
10%
12%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-054
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
=
=
=
=

2
3
M5
480.85
451.00
94.03
8.4%
6.95
37.89
14.54
550.73

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
4
0.5
61
1.0
113
1.5
142
2.0
160
2.5
178
3.0
193
3.5
194
4.0
204
4.5
211
5.0
220
5.5
227
6.0
231
6.5
230
7.0
230
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
3.01
0
45.31
25
83.91
50
105.43
75
118.79
100
132.15
125
143.28
150
144.03
175
151.45
200
156.64
225
163.32
250
168.52
275
171.49
300
170.75
325
170.75
350

29-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1272.85
2311
2133
2.70 (assumed)
0.85
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
2.09
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.88 %/min
421 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
0.64
1.27
1.91
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
5.72
6.36
7.00
7.63
8.27
8.90
Corrected
2
37.89
0.00%
38.05
0.44%
38.22
0.88%
38.39
1.31%
38.56
1.75%
38.73
2.19%
38.91
2.63%
3.06%
39.08
3.50%
39.26
3.94%
39.44
4.38%
39.62
39.80
4.81%
39.99
5.25%
40.17
5.69%
6.13%
40.36
Stress,
kPa
7.8
116.8
215.3
269.3
302.1
334.6
361.1
361.4
378.3
389.5
404.2
415.2
420.6
416.8
414.9
pre-test
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
axial strain, %
5%
6%
7%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-060
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
2
3
=
=
=
=
3X3
160.22
146.86
87.95
22.7%
7.22
40.98
14.63
599.39

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
115
1.0
185
2.0
205
3.0
221
4.0
230
5.0
237
5.5
241
6.0
241
6.5
243
7.0
245
7.5
247
8.0
246
8.5
248
9.0
248
9.5
248
10.0
248
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0
0.09
50
29.29
100
37.63
150
44.30
200
48.05
250
50.97
275
52.64
300
52.64
325
53.48
350
54.31
375
55.15
400
54.73
425
55.56
450
55.56
475
55.56
500
55.56

29-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
1170.9
1953
1592
2.70 (assumed)
0.88
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
2.02
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.87 %/min
123 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
1.27
2.54
3.82
5.09
6.36
7.00
7.63
8.27
8.90
9.54
10.18
10.81
11.45
12.08
12.72
=
=
=
=
=
Corrected
2
0.00%
40.98
0.87%
41.34
1.74%
41.71
2.61%
42.08
42.46
3.48%
42.84
4.35%
43.04
4.78%
43.24
5.22%
43.44
5.65%
43.64
6.09%
43.84
6.52%
44.05
6.96%
44.25
7.39%
44.46
7.83%
44.67
8.26%
44.88
8.70%
Stress,
kPa
0.2
69.5
88.5
103.2
111.0
116.7
119.9
119.4
120.7
122.1
123.4
121.9
123.1
122.6
122.0
121.4
pre-test
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
6%
axial strain, %
8%
10%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-68 22.5'-24'

Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
2
3
=
=
=
=
K14
328.00
307.93
94.38
9.4%
7.23
41.07
14.20
583.43

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
121
1.0
166
2.0
303
3.0
413
3.5
444
4.0
486
4.5
517
5.0
622
5.5
651
6.0
663
6.5
671
7.0
664
7.5
673
8.0
674
8.5
674
9.0
669
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0.09
0
18.86
50
76.00
100
121.88
125
134.81
150
152.33
175
165.26
200
209.06
225
221.15
250
226.16
275
229.49
300
226.57
325
230.63
350
231.62
375
231.62
400
228.66
425

16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1341.97
2300
2103
2.70 (assumed)
0.89
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.96
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.90 %/min
518 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
1.27
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
5.72
6.36
7.00
7.63
8.27
8.90
9.54
10.18
10.81
Corrected
2
41.07
0.00%
41.45
0.90%
41.82
1.79%
42.02
2.24%
42.21
2.69%
42.40
3.13%
42.60
3.58%
4.03%
42.80
4.48%
43.00
4.93%
43.20
5.37%
43.41
43.61
5.82%
43.82
6.27%
44.03
6.72%
7.16%
44.24
44.46
7.61%
Stress,
kPa
0.2
44.6
178.2
284.5
313.2
352.3
380.4
479.0
504.4
513.4
518.5
509.5
516.1
515.9
513.4
504.4
pre-test
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
axial strain, %
6%
8%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-82
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
2
3
=
=
=
=
H9
218.53
207.99
91.42
9.0%
7.27
41.52
14.04
583.13

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
114
0.5
132
1.0
257
1.5
328
2.0
404
2.5
464
3.0
520
3.5
581
4.0
603
4.5
641
5.0
658
5.5
658
6.0
665
6.5
664
7.0
663
7.5
663
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0.09
0
7.60
25
59.73
50
89.35
75
121.05
100
146.07
125
169.43
150
194.87
175
204.05
200
219.90
225
226.99
250
226.99
275
229.65
300
229.49
325
229.08
350
229.08
375

16-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1314.01
2253
2067
2.70 (assumed)
0.80
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.93
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.91 %/min
513 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
0.64
1.27
1.91
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
5.72
6.36
7.00
7.63
8.27
8.90
9.54
Corrected
2
41.52
0.00%
41.71
0.45%
41.90
0.91%
42.09
1.36%
42.29
1.81%
42.48
2.26%
42.68
2.72%
3.17%
42.88
3.62%
43.08
4.08%
43.29
4.53%
43.49
43.70
4.98%
43.91
5.43%
44.12
5.89%
6.34%
44.33
44.55
6.79%
Stress,
kPa
0.2
17.9
139.8
208.2
280.7
337.2
389.3
445.7
464.5
498.2
511.8
509.4
512.9
510.1
506.7
504.3
pre-test
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0%
2%
4%
axial strain, %
6%
8%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
29-Apr-10
Tested by: RG
Checked by: DH
Sample too fragile to attempt to trim closer to a 2:1
ratio
Sample: CTS-092
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
=
=
=
=

2
3
NCK
203.54
195.18
95.52
8.4%
6.41
32.27
11.46
369.66

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
0
0.5
21
1.0
56
1.5
101
2.0
134
2.5
169
3.0
214
3.5
253
4.0
278
4.5
307
5.0
315
5.5
204
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
0
3.01
25
18.59
50
44.57
75
77.97
100
102.46
125
128.44
150
161.84
175
190.78
200
209.34
225
230.86
250
236.80
275
154.42

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
826.55
2236
2063
2.70 (assumed)
0.73
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.79
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
1.11 %/min
680 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
0.64
1.27
1.91
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
5.72
6.36
7.00
Corrected
2
0.00%
32.27
0.56%
32.45
1.11%
32.63
1.67%
32.81
33.00
2.22%
33.19
2.78%
33.38
3.33%
33.57
3.89%
33.77
4.44%
33.96
5.00%
34.16
5.55%
34.37
6.11%
Stress,
kPa
9.1
56.2
134.0
233.0
304.5
379.5
475.5
557.3
608.0
666.6
679.7
440.6
pre-test
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
axial strain, %
5%
6%
7%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
29-Apr-10
Tested by: RG
Checked by: DH
Sample too fragile to attempt to trim closer to a 2:1
ratio
Sample: CTS-115
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
2
3
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
7.27
41.54
13.26
550.88

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
0
1.0
120
1.5
165
2.0
207
2.5
252
3.0
287
3.5
307
4.0
327
4.5
363
5.0
379
5.5
386
6.0
394
6.5
400
7.0
400
7.5
387
8.0
359
J17
228.60
217.04
91.96
9.2%
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
3.01
0
92.07
50
125.47
75
156.64
100
190.04
125
216.02
150
230.86
175
245.71
200
272.43
225
284.30
250
289.50
275
295.43
300
299.89
325
299.89
350
290.24
375
269.46
400

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1252.57
2274
2081
2.70 (assumed)
0.84
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.82
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.96 %/min
664 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
1.27
1.91
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
5.72
6.36
7.00
7.63
8.27
8.90
9.54
10.18
Corrected
2
41.54
0.00%
41.95
0.96%
42.15
1.44%
42.36
1.92%
42.57
2.40%
42.78
2.88%
42.99
3.36%
3.84%
43.20
4.32%
43.42
4.80%
43.64
5.28%
43.86
44.08
5.76%
44.31
6.24%
44.54
6.71%
7.19%
44.77
45.00
7.67%
Stress,
kPa
7.1
215.3
291.9
362.7
437.8
495.2
526.7
557.7
615.3
638.9
647.3
657.2
663.7
660.4
635.8
587.2
pre-test
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
axial strain, %
6%
7%
8%
9%
post-test
24-48
48-96

Client:
Project:
Date:
Tested by:
Sample: CTS-141
Specimen Data
Tare No:
Weight of Tare, g
Water content, %
2
3
=
=
=
=
4A5
300.90
278.99
84.15
11.2%
7.30
41.86
14.09
589.70

Elapsed Load-cell
Time
Dial
(min)
Reading
0.0
4
0.5
37
1.0
74
1.5
108
2.0
135
2.5
155
3.0
169
3.5
169
4.0
162
=
=
=
=
Axial Strain
Load, kg Dial
3.01
0
27.50
25
54.96
50
80.20
75
100.24
100
115.08
125
125.47
150
125.47
175
120.28
200

29-Apr-10
RG
Checked by: DH

3
Wet density, kg/m

3
Dry density, kg/m
Specific Gravity
=
=
=
=
=
1348.51
2287
2056
2.70 (assumed)
0.97
Stress
corr. Area
unit strain
Lo/Do
= load/(corr. area)
L/Lo
=
=
1.93
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium
qu, kPa
0-24
strain rate
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
96-192
192-383
>383
0.90 %/min
286 kPa
Total
Strain,
mm
0.00
0.64
1.27
1.91
2.54
3.18
3.82
4.45
5.09
Corrected
2
41.86
0.00%
42.05
0.45%
42.24
0.90%
42.43
1.35%
42.63
1.81%
42.83
2.26%
43.02
2.71%
3.16%
43.23
3.61%
43.43
Stress,
kPa
7.0
64.1
127.6
185.3
230.6
263.5
286.0
284.7
271.6
pre-test
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0%
1%
2%
axial strain, %
3%
4%
post-test
24-48
48-96

M2112-10
CTS-120 @ 30'-31.5'
Shear Strength, kPa
250
200
= 25 + n tan 30
Peak
150
Residual
Linear (Best fit residual)
= 2 + n tan 29
Linear (Best fit peak)

100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Normal Stress, kPa
350
400
450
500

M2112-08
CTS-60 @ 7.5'-9'
Shear Strength, kPa
100
75
Peak
Residual
= 14 + n tan 30
50
= 5 + n tan 28
25
0
0
25
50
75
100
Normal Stress, kPa
125
150
175
200

M2112-09
CTS-92 @20'-21.5'
150
Shear Strength, kPa
125
= 13 + n tan 32
100
Peak
Residual
= 5 + n tan 29
75
50
25
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Normal Stress, kPa
200
225
250
275
300
One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435

M2112
Project Name
30-Mar-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-60
JG
Checked by:
Trimmed from shelby specimen
Method B
Condition of test: inundated
Calculations:
Cross-sectional area:
32.01 cm 2
3.2E-03 m 2
Volume of solids:
40.57 cc
4.1E-05 m 3
Total volume:
60.37 cc (prior to loading)
Volume of voids:
Initial void ratio:
0.49 (prior to loading)
Dry mass of solids:
109.54 g
Initial wet density:
2033 kg/m 3 (prior to loading)
Initial dry density:
Initial LVDT reading:
12.19 mm
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:
At End of Primary Consolidation
Corrected Sample
Height (mm)
Volume of
Sample (cc)
Volume of Voids
(cc)
Void Ratio
Average Void
Ratio
0.0272
0.0548
0.0730
0.0962
0.1228
0.1548
0.2078
0.2652
0.1936
0.1404
0.1088
0.0622
18.7626
18.4784
18.1416
17.9458
17.6079
17.1194
16.6969
16.2568
16.2262
16.3360
16.5524
16.8258
60.06
59.15
58.07
57.44
56.36
54.80
53.45
52.04
51.94
52.29
52.98
53.86
19.49
18.58
17.50
16.87
15.79
14.23
12.88
11.47
11.37
11.72
12.41
13.29
0.49
0.48
0.46
0.43
0.42
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.48
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.37
0.33
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.32
12.09
11.82
11.46
11.24
10.90
10.41
9.95
9.46
18.79
18.55
18.21
18.01
17.70
17.24
16.84
16.40
coefficient of
compressibility a v
(per kPa)
Equipment
Compressibility
(mm)
18.7354
18.4236
18.0686
17.8496
17.4851
16.9646
16.4891
15.9916
16.0326
16.1956
16.4436
16.7636
9.39
9.28
9.10
9.00
8.85
8.62
8.42
8.20
180
186
480
192
138
156
108
108
9.66E-04
9.11E-04
3.40E-04
8.32E-04
1.12E-03
9.39E-04
1.29E-03
1.23E-03
6.65E-04
3.94E-04
1.15E-04
9.89E-05
7.15E-05
3.09E-05
1.58E-05
Uncorrected
Sample Height
(mm)
12.0618
11.7500
11.3950
11.1760
10.8115
10.2910
9.8155
9.3180
9.3590
9.5220
9.7700
10.0900
(cm /s)
R100
(mm)
11.9
28.7
62.4
129.9
264.7
534.4
1073.8
2152.6
4345.2
1073.8
264.7
62.4
11.9
Corrected Sample
Height at R50
(mm)
Pressure
(kPa)
swelling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
R50
(mm)
Loading
Increment
Coefficient of Consolidation
Coefficient of
Consolidation c v
mm
time50
(sec)
mm
mm
(actual)
g
%
mm
g
(mm)
63.84
18.86
2.70
122.71
12.5
12.1864
109.54
11.00
0.0002
HD50
Input:
Diameter of ring:
Height of sample:
Specific gravity:
Initial wet sample mass:
Initial water content:
Final dry mass of sample:
Mechanical Advantage:
Deviation intervals
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:

M2112
Project Name
30-Mar-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-60
Checked by: JG
Method B
Condition of test:
inundated
po = ~ 100 kPa
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
Void Ratio
0.70
0.20
0.20
0.1
10
100
Effective Stress (kPa)
1000
10000
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
Coefficient of Consolidation (cm2/sec)

Project Name
M2112-08A
12-Apr-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-68
JG
Checked by:
Method B
Calculations:
31.92 cm 2
3.2E-03 m 2
Volume of solids:
44.47 cc
4.4E-05 m 3
Total volume:
Volume of voids:
Initial void ratio:
Dry mass of solids:
120.06 g
7.67 mm
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:
Volume of
Sample (cc)
Volume of Voids
(cc)
Void Ratio
Average Void
Ratio
0.0040
0.0100
0.0220
0.0320
0.0520
0.0860
0.1360
0.0660
0.0380
0.0200
0.0140
18.3310
18.2475
18.1105
17.9200
17.6420
17.2950
16.9108
16.9310
17.0540
17.1880
17.2450
58.51
58.24
57.81
57.20
56.31
55.20
53.98
54.04
54.43
54.86
55.04
14.04
13.78
13.34
12.73
11.84
10.74
9.51
9.58
9.97
10.40
10.58
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.27
0.24
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
7.62
7.53
7.38
7.19
6.92
6.58
6.17
18.37
18.28
18.15
17.97
17.72
17.41
17.05
coefficient of
compressibility a v
(per kPa)
Corrected Sample
Height (mm)
18.3270
18.2375
18.0885
17.8880
17.5900
17.2090
16.7748
16.8650
17.0160
17.1680
17.2310
9.18
9.14
9.08
8.98
8.86
8.71
8.52
1740
900
252
234
306
318
300
9.55E-05
1.83E-04
6.44E-04
6.79E-04
5.05E-04
4.70E-04
4.77E-04
8.86E-05
7.27E-05
5.06E-05
3.69E-05
2.30E-05
1.26E-05
Equipment
Compressibility
(mm)
7.5810
7.4915
7.3425
7.1420
6.8440
6.4630
6.0288
6.1190
6.2700
6.4220
6.4850
(cm /s)
Uncorrected
Sample Height
(mm)
77.4
111.2
178.8
314.0
584.5
1125.4
2207.2
4403.2
1125.4
314.0
111.2
77.4
Corrected Sample
Height at R50
(mm)
R100
(mm)
swelling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R50
(mm)
Pressure
(kPa)
Loading
Increment
Coefficient of
Consolidation c v
mm
time50
(sec)
mm
mm
(assumed)
g
%
mm
g
(mm)
63.75
18.42
2.70
131.03
9.1
7.6740
120.06
11.00
0.0010
HD50
Input:
Diameter of ring:
Height of sample:
Specific gravity:
Deviation intervals
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:

M2112-08A
Project Name
12-Apr-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-68
Checked by: JG
Method B
Condition of test:
inundated
Void Ratio
po = ~ 275 kPa
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
Coefficient of Consolidation (cm2/sec)

Project Name
M2112-08A
12-Apr-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-82
JG
Checked by:
Method B
Calculations:
32.01 cm 2
3.2E-03 m 2
Volume of solids:
43.61 cc
4.4E-05 m 3
Total volume:
Volume of voids:
Initial void ratio:
Dry mass of solids:
116.45 g
7.22 mm
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:
Volume of
Sample (cc)
Volume of Voids
(cc)
Void Ratio
Average Void
Ratio
0.0060
0.0200
0.0400
0.0680
0.1040
0.1360
0.1920
0.1260
0.0720
0.0400
0.0320
18.1569
18.0270
17.7740
17.4740
17.1018
16.7170
16.2910
16.3600
16.5110
16.7290
16.7730
58.12
57.70
56.89
55.93
54.74
53.51
52.15
52.37
52.85
53.55
53.69
14.50
14.09
13.28
12.32
11.13
9.90
8.53
8.75
9.24
9.93
10.07
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
7.16
7.04
6.78
6.46
6.09
5.70
5.25
18.19
18.08
17.85
17.55
17.21
16.86
16.47
coefficient of
compressibility a v
(per kPa)
Corrected Sample
Height (mm)
18.1509
18.0070
17.7340
17.4060
16.9978
16.5810
16.0990
16.2340
16.4390
16.6890
16.7410
9.10
9.04
8.92
8.78
8.61
8.43
8.23
1320
360
420
570
840
1020
900
1.23E-04
4.47E-04
3.73E-04
2.66E-04
1.74E-04
1.37E-04
1.48E-04
1.41E-04
1.38E-04
8.16E-05
5.06E-05
2.62E-05
1.43E-05
Equipment
Compressibility
(mm)
7.1269
6.9830
6.7100
6.3820
5.9738
5.5570
5.0750
5.2100
5.4150
5.6650
5.7170
(cm /s)
Uncorrected
Sample Height
(mm)
58.6
92.3
159.7
294.6
564.3
1103.7
2182.5
4372.3
1103.7
294.6
92.3
58.6
Corrected Sample
Height at R50
(mm)
R100
(mm)
swelling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R50
(mm)
Pressure
(kPa)
Loading
Increment
Coefficient of
Consolidation c v
mm
time50
(sec)
mm
mm
(actual)
g
%
mm
g
(mm)
63.84
18.24
2.67
127.1
9.0
7.2160
116.45
11.00
0.0010
HD50
Input:
Diameter of ring:
Height of sample:
Specific gravity:
Deviation intervals
Project No:
Date:
Sample No:
Test Procedure:
Method of testing:

M2112-08A
Project Name
12-Apr-10
Tech:
TH
CTS-82
Checked by: JG
Method B
Condition of test:
inundated
po = ~ 200 kPa
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
Void Ratio
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
2
Coefficient of Consolidation (cm /sec)
Certificate of Analysis
MDH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CORP.
Report Date:
Version:
ATTN: MICHELLE STURBY
30-MAR-10 16:10 (MT)

FINAL
232 111 RESEARCH DRIVE

SASKATOON SK S7N 3R2
Lab Work Order #:
Project P.O. #:
Job Reference:
L872023
Date Received:
NOT SUBMITTED
M2112
Legal Site Desc:

CofC Numbers:
C061280
Other Information:
Comments:
____________________________________________
Brian Morgan
Account Manager
THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF THE LABORATORY.
ALL SAMPLES WILL BE DISPOSED OF AFTER 30 DAYS FOLLOWING ANALYSIS. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAB IF YOU
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SAMPLE STORAGE TIME.
#819-58th St E., Saskatoon, SK S7K 6X5

Phone: +1 306 668 8370 Fax: +1 306 668 8383 www.alsglobal.com
A Campbell Brothers Limited Company
25-MAR-10
M2112
L872023 CONTD....
PAGE
2 of 5
ALS LABORATORY GROUP ANALYTICAL REPORT
Sample Details/Parameters
L872023-1
Sampled By:
CTS - 33
NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste)
Chloride (Cl)
Result
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl)
Extracted
Analyzed
Batch
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201
2.0
4.0
2.0
8.0
0.10
12
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
37.1
7.48
2.80
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
Saturated Paste pH and EC

% Saturation
CTS - 02
Units
mg/L
531
30.5
163
38.7
0.38
1820
Sampled By:
D.L.
3.0
11.4
SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil

Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
L872023-2
Qualifier*
DLA
DLA
DLA
DLA
DLA
14.3
3.0
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201

Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
45.1
12.3
19.3
10.6
0.33
70.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.10
6.0
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038

% Saturation
35.8
7.90
0.43
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
L872023-3
Sampled By:
CTS - 84
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl)
23.7
3.0
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201

Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
17.7
10.4
53.9
53.6
1.43
78.6
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.10
6.0
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038

% Saturation
37.8
8.48
0.70
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.
M2112
L872023 CONTD....
PAGE
3 of 5
ALS LABORATORY GROUP ANALYTICAL REPORT
Sample Details/Parameters
L872023-4
Sampled By:
CTS - 59
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl)
Result
Qualifier*
D.L.
Units
Extracted
Analyzed
Batch
7.0
3.0
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201

Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
29.4
8.4
20.2
14.8
0.51
24.9
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.10
6.0
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038

% Saturation
77.7
7.84
0.36
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
28.9
3.0
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201
5.0
10
5.0
20
0.10
30
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
L872023-5
Sampled By:
CTS - 140
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl)
Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
452
32
738
289
1.95
4240

% Saturation
39.1
7.81
5.70
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
L872023-6
Sampled By:
CTS - 112
Matrix:
SOIL
Detailed Salinity
Chloride (Cl)
DLA
DLA
DLA
DLA
DLA
5.0
3.0
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224201

Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
SAR
Sulfur (as SO4)
56.7
8.9
24.7
12.0
0.34
82.1
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.10
6.0
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SAR
mg/L
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
30-MAR-10
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038
R1224038

% Saturation
72.0
7.67
0.48
1.0
0.10
0.10
%
pH
dS m-1
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
29-MAR-10
R1223531
R1223531
R1223531
* Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.
M2112
L872023 CONTD....
Reference Information
PAGE
4 of 5
QC Samples with Qualifiers & Comments:

QC Type Description
Parameter
Qualifier
Applies to Sample Number(s)
Duplicate
Calcium (Ca)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Duplicate
Magnesium (Mg)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Duplicate
Potassium (K)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Duplicate
Sodium (Na)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Duplicate
Sulfur (as SO4)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Internal Reference Material
Calcium (Ca)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Magnesium (Mg)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Potassium (K)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Sodium (Na)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Sulfur (as SO4)
DLA
L872023-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6
Sample Parameter Qualifier Key:

Qualifier
Description
DLA
Detection Limit Adjusted For required dilution
Test Method References:

ALS Test Code
CL-SAR-SK
Matrix
Soil
Test Description
Method Reference**
APHA 4500 Cl E-Colorimetry
Deionized water is added to the soil until the soil is saturated, but not over saturated (ie. no free standing water). The paste is allowed to stand overnight
or a minimum of four hours.
Chloride in the extract is determined colorimetrically at 660 nm by complexation with mercury (II) thiocynate. In the colorimetric method, chloride (Cl-)
displaces thiocyanate which, in the presence of ferric iron, forms a highly colored ferric thiocyanate complex.
Reference
Greenberg, Arnold E., Cleseri, Lenore S., Eaton, Andrew D., Standard Methods For The Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition, 1992,
Method 4500Cl-E.
SAR-CALC-SO4-SK
Soil
SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated APHA 3120B

soil
After equilibration, an extract is obtained by vacuum filtration. Individual cations in the extract are determined by ICP-OES. Reported results for sulfate
may be slightly elevated on highly organic samples.
Reference:
Carter, Martin R., Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, Can Soc. Soil Sci. p.162-164.
SAT/PH/EC-SK
Soil
CSSS(1978)3.14, 3.21
pH of the soil paste is then measured using a pH meter.
After equilibration, an extract is obtained by vacuum filtration. Conductivity of the extract is measured by a conductivity meter.
Conductivity Reference:
Carter, Martin R., Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, Can Soc. Soil Sci. method 18.3.1
pH Reference:
References: McKeague, J.A. 1978. pH of a Saturated Soil Paste method 3.14 In: Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Can. Soc. Soil Sci. p. 68
Conductivity Reference:
Carter, Martin R., Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, Can Soc. Soil Sci. method 18.3.1
** ALS test methods may incorporate modifications from specified reference methods to improve performance.
The last two letters of the above test code(s) indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below:
Laboratory Definition Code
Laboratory Location
SK
ALS LABORATORY GROUP - SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA
M2112
L872023 CONTD....
Reference Information
PAGE
5 of 5
Test Method References:

ALS Test Code
Matrix
Test Description
Method Reference**
Chain of Custody Numbers:

C061280
GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS
Surrogates are compounds that are similar in behaviour to target analyte(s), but that do not normally occur in environmental samples. For
applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. In reports that display the D.L. column, laboratory
objectives for surrogates are listed there.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram based on dry weight of sample
mk/kg wwt - milligrams per kilogram based on wet weight of sample
mg/kg lwt - milligrams per kilogram based on lipid-adjusted weight
mg/L - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per million.
< - Less than.
D.L. - The reporting limit.
N/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation.
Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory.
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
Analytical results in unsigned test reports with the DRAFT watermark are subject to change, pending final QC review.
June 2010
Appendix E
Occupation Health and Safety - Excavation
M2112-2840010
Appendices
131
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996
O-1.1 REG 1
PART XVII
Excavations, Trenches, Tunnels and Excavated Shafts
Interpretation
257
In this Part:
(a) sheeting means the members of a shoring system that retain the
earth in position and, in turn, are supported by other members of the shoring
system, and includes uprights placed so that individual members are closely
spaced, in contact with or interconnected to each other;
(b) shoring means an assembly of structural members designed to
prevent earth or material from falling or sliding into an excavation;
(c) spoil pile means material excavated from an excavation, trench,
tunnel or excavated shaft;
(d) temporary protective structure means a structure or device in an
excavation, trench, tunnel or excavated shaft that is designed to provide
protection from cave-ins, collapse, sliding or rolling materials, and includes
shoring, boxes, trench shields and similar structures;
(e) type 1 soil means soil that most closely exhibits the following
characteristics:
(i) is hard in consistency, very dense in compactive condition and, if a
standard penetration test is performed, has a standard penetration
resistance of greater than 50 blows per 300 millimetres;
(ii) can be penetrated only with difficulty by a small, sharp object;
(iii) has a dry appearance;
(iv) has no signs of water seepage;
(v)
(vi)
can be excavated only by mechanical equipment;

does not include previously excavated soils;
(f) type 2 soil means soil that most closely exhibits the following
characteristics:
(i) is very stiff in consistency, dense in compactive condition and, if a
standard penetration test is performed, has a standard penetration
resistance of 30 to 50 blows per 300 millimetres;
(ii) can be penetrated with moderate difficulty by a small, sharp object;
(iii)
is difficult to excavate with hand tools;
(iv) has a low to medium natural moisture content and a damp

appearance after it is excavated;
(v)
(vi)
has no signs of water seepage;

does not include previously excavated soils;
132
O-1.1 REG 1
(g)
type 3 soil means soil that:

(i) most closely exhibits the following characteristics:
(A) is stiff in consistency, compact in compactive condition and, if
a standard penetration test is performed, has a standard penetration
resistance of 10 to 29 blows per 300 millimetres;
(B) can be penetrated with moderate ease by a small, sharp
object;
(C)
is moderately difficult to excavate with hand tools;
(D)
exhibits signs of surface cracking;
(E) exhibits signs of localized water seepage; or

(ii) is previously excavated soil that does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of type 4 soil;
(h) type 4 soil means soil that:
(i)
exhibits any of the following characteristics:

(A) is firm to very soft in consistency, loose to very loose in
compactive condition and, if a standard penetration test is
performed, has a standard penetration resistance of less than 10
blows per 300 millimetres;
(B)
is easy to excavate with hand tools;
(C) is cohesive soil that is sensitive and, on disturbance, is

slightly reduced in internal strength;
(D) is dry and runs easily into a well-defined conical pile;
(E)
has a wet appearance and runs easily or flows;
(F) is granular soil below the water table, unless the soil has been
dewatered;
(G) exerts substantial hydraulic pressure when a support system
is used; or
(ii) is previously excavated soil that exhibits any of the characteristics
set out in paragraphs (i)(A) to (G);
(i) upright means a vertical member of a shoring system that is placed in
contact with the earth and usually positioned so that the vertical member
does not contact any other vertical member;
(j) wale means a horizontal member of a shoring system that is placed
parallel to the excavation face and whose sides bear against the vertical
members of the shoring system or the earth.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s257.
133
O-1.1 REG 1
Application of Part
258 This Part applies to excavations, trenches, tunnels and excavated shafts
other than excavations, trenches, tunnels and excavated shafts that are governed
by The Mines Regulations.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s258.
Locating underground pipelines, etc.
259(1) An employer or contractor shall accurately establish the location of all

underground pipelines, cables and conduits in an area where work is to be done and
shall ensure that those locations are conspicuously marked:
(a) before commencing work using power tools or powered mobile equipment
on an excavation, trench, tunnel, excavated shaft or borehole; or
(b) before breaking ground surface with any equipment to a depth that may
contact underground utilities.
(2) Where an operation is to be undertaken involving the disturbance of soil
within 600 millimetres of an existing pipeline, cable or conduit, an employer or
contractor shall ensure that the pipeline, cable or conduit is exposed by hand
digging or other approved method before mechanical excavating is allowed to begin
within that area.
(3) Where an operation mentioned in subsection (2) exposes a pipeline, cable or
conduit, an employer or contractor shall ensure that the pipeline, cable or conduit is
supported to prevent any damage during backfilling and any subsequent settlement
of the ground.
(4) Where there is contact with or damage to an underground pipeline, cable or
conduit, an employer or contractor shall immediately:
(a) notify the owner of the pipeline, cable or conduit that contact or damage
has occurred; and
(b) take steps to protect the health and safety of any worker who may be at
risk until any unsafe condition resulting from the contact or damage is
repaired or corrected.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s259.
Excavating and trenching
260(1) An employer or contractor shall ensure that:

(a) before excavating or trenching begins, where the stability of a structure
may be affected by an excavation or trench, the structure is supported by a
temporary protective structure designed by a professional engineer and
constructed, installed, used, maintained and dismantled in accordance with
that design;
(b) all loose material is scaled or trimmed from the side of an excavation or
trench where a worker is required or permitted to be present;
(c) equipment, spoil piles, rocks and construction materials are kept at least
one metre from the edge of an excavation or trench;
134
O-1.1 REG 1
(d) an excavation or trench that a worker may be required or permitted to

enter is kept free from any accumulation of water; and
(e) the slope of a spoil pile adjacent to an excavation or trench has a slope at
an angle not steeper than one horizontal to one vertical, or 45 measured from
the horizontal.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), where a wall of an excavation or trench is cut
back, an employer or contractor shall ensure that:
(a) in the case of type 1 or type 2 soil, the walls are sloped to within 1.2
metres of the bottom of the excavation or trench, with a slope at an angle not
steeper than one horizontal to one vertical, or 45 measured from the
horizontal;
(b) in the case of type 3 soil, the walls are sloped from the bottom of the
excavation or trench, with a slope at an angle not steeper than one horizontal
to one vertical, or 45 measured from the horizontal; and
(c) in the case of type 4 soil, the walls are sloped from the bottom of the
excavation or trench, with a slope at an angle not steeper than three
horizontal to one vertical, or 19 measured from the horizontal.
(3) Where an excavation or trench contains more than one type of soil, the soil
must be classified as the soil type with the highest number.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to an excavation or trench that is cut in sound
and stable rock.
(5) Where an excavation or trench is to be made in the vicinity of an overhead
power line, an employer or contractor shall ensure that the work is carried out in a
manner that will not reduce the original support provided for any overhead power
line pole, unless permission has previously been obtained from the utility company
responsible for the overhead power line.
(6) An employer or contractor shall ensure that no powered mobile equipment or
vehicle is operated, and that no powered mobile equipment, vehicle or heavy load is
located, near an excavation or trench so as to affect the stability of the walls of the
excavation or trench.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s260; 31 Jan 97 SR 6/97
s11.
Temporary protective structures
261(1) An employer or contractor shall ensure that a temporary protective

structure to be used pursuant to this Part:
(a) is designed, constructed, installed, used, maintained and dismantled to
provide adequate protection to a worker who is in an excavation, trench,
tunnel, excavated shaft or borehole and to a worker who installs, uses,
maintains or dismantles the temporary protective structure; and
(b) extends at least 300 millimetres above the wall of the excavation, trench,
tunnel, excavated shaft or borehole to prevent material from falling in.
135
O-1.1 REG 1
(2) An employer or contractor shall ensure that:

(a) all drawings and instructions necessary to safely construct, install, use,
maintain and dismantle a temporary protective structure required pursuant
to this Part are kept at the site of the excavation, trench, tunnel, excavated
shaft or borehole; and
(b) where required by this Part, a professional engineer certifies that the
temporary protective structure, if constructed and installed as drawn and
used, maintained and dismantled as instructed, will provide adequate
protection to a worker who constructs, installs, uses, maintains or dismantles
the temporary protective structure.
(3) Freezing the ground by artificial means is acceptable as an alternative or
partial alternative to installing a temporary protective structure in an excavation,
trench, tunnel, excavated shaft or borehole if the freezing is:
(a) designed by a professional engineer to control the ground condition so as
to ensure the safety of workers; and
(b) performed in accordance with the professional engineers specifications
and instructions.
(4) Natural freezing of the ground is not acceptable as an alternative or partial
alternative to the installation of temporary protective structures.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s261.
Protection against cave-in of excavations
262(1) Where a worker is present in an excavation that is more than 1.2 metres
deep and is required to be closer to the wall or bank than the distance equal to the
depth of the excavation, an employer or contractor shall ensure that the worker is
protected from cave-ins or sliding material by:
(a) cutting back the upper portion of the walls of the excavation in
accordance with subsection 260(2);
(b) installing a temporary protective structure; or
(c) a combination of cutting back the walls to the slope specified in
subsection 260(2) and installing a temporary protective structure that
extends at least 300 millimetres above the base of the cut-back.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employer or contractor shall ensure that a
temporary protective structure required by clause (1)(b) or (c) is:
(a) designed and installed using shoring made of number 1 structural grade
spruce lumber having the dimensions set out in Table 17 of the Appendix for
the type of soil and the depth of the excavation or made of material of
equivalent or greater strength; or
(b) designed by a professional engineer and constructed, installed, used,
maintained and dismantled in accordance with that design.
(3) An employer or contractor shall ensure that a temporary protective structure
in an excavation more than three metres deep is designed and certified as safe by a
professional engineer and installed, used, maintained and dismantled in accordance
with that design.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s262.
136
O-1.1 REG 1
Protection against cave-in of trenches
263(1) Where a worker is present in a trench that is more than 1.2 metres deep,
an employer or contractor shall ensure that the worker is protected from cave-ins or
sliding material by:
(a) cutting back the upper portion of the walls of the trench in accordance
with subsection 260(2);
(b) installing a temporary protective structure; or
(c) a combination of cutting back the walls to the slope specified in
subsection 260(2) and installing a temporary protective structure that
extends at least 300 millimetres above the base of the cut-back.
required by clause (1)(b) or (c) is:
(a) designed and installed using shoring made of number 1 structural grade
spruce lumber having the dimensions set out in Table 17 of the Appendix for
the type of soil and the depth of the trench or made of material of equivalent
or greater strength; or
(b) designed by a professional engineer and constructed, installed, used,
maintained and dismantled in accordance with that design.
in a trench more than six metres deep in type 1, type 2 or type 3 soil or in a trench
more than four metres deep in type 4 soil is designed and certified as safe by a
professional engineer and installed, used, maintained and dismantled in accordance
with that design.
(4) An employer or contractor shall ensure that:
(a) shoring is installed and removed in a manner that protects workers from
cave-ins and structural collapses and from being struck by shoring components;
(b) shoring components are securely connected together to prevent sliding,
falling, kickouts or other possible failure; and
(c) individual components of shoring are not subjected to loads that exceed
the loads the components were designed to bear.
(5) Where a worker is in a trench that is more than 1.2 metres deep, an employer
or contractor shall ensure that a competent worker is stationed on the surface to
alert the worker in the trench about the development of any potentially unsafe
conditions and to provide assistance in an emergency.
(6) Where a worker is required to enter a trench, an employer or contractor shall:
(a) install ladders, stairways or ramps to provide a safe means of entrance to
and exit from the trench; and
(b) ensure that the ladder, stairway or ramp is located not more than eight
metres from a worker working in the trench.
(7) An employer or contractor shall ensure that workers are instructed in and
comply with the requirements of this section.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s263.
137
O-1.1 REG 1
Excavated shafts and tunnels

(a) during excavating, the walls of an excavated shaft or tunnel are retained
by temporary protective structures that are adequate:
(i)
for the type of soil; and
(ii) to prevent collapse or cave-in of the walls of the excavated shaft or

tunnel;
(b) during the excavating of an excavated shaft that is three metres or more
deep or of a tunnel, the walls of the shaft or tunnel are retained by temporary
protective structures designed and certified by a professional engineer to be
adequate for the protection of workers in the shaft or tunnel and constructed,
installed, used, maintained and dismantled in accordance with that design;
(c) a solid or wire mesh fence at least one metre high, or other equally
effective means of preventing material from falling into an excavated shaft or
the surface opening of a tunnel, is provided around that shaft or opening; and
(d) substantial gates that are not less than one metre high are installed in
every opening in a fence provided pursuant to clause (c) and the gates are
kept closed except when being used.
(2) A worker who opens a gate mentioned in clause (1)(d) shall close the gate after
the worker no longer has a need to keep the gate open.
(3) An employer or contractor shall provide suitable equipment to keep a tunnel or
excavated shaft free from any accumulation of water.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s264.
Boreholes, belled areas of excavated shafts

(a) a worker who is required or permitted to enter a borehole is protected by
the installation of a casing that is designed by a professional engineer and
constructed, installed, used, maintained and dismantled in accordance with
that design; and
(b) the casing mentioned in clause (a) extends and remains at least 300
millimetres above the surface of the ground to prevent material from falling
into the casing.
(2)
An employer or contractor shall not require or permit a worker:

(a) to enter the belled area of an excavated shaft unless the worker is
protected by a temporary protective structure that is designed by a professional
engineer and constructed, installed, used, maintained and dismantled in
accordance with that design; or
(b) to remain in a belled area of an excavated shaft where the worker may be
exposed to falling materials.
(3) An employer or contractor shall ensure that the worker precedes or accompanies
each load of excavated material to the surface.
4 Oct 96 cO-1.1 Reg 1 s265.
1
2
3
50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap


50 mm x 200 mm at 1.2 m o/c

50 mm x 200 mm at 1.2 m o/c
50 mm x 200 mm at 10 mm gap
75 mm x 200 mm at 10 mm gap
Uprights
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
1.8 m to 3.6 m
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
150 mm x 150 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
150 mm x 150 mm
150 mm x 150 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
Up to 1.8 m
Width of Excavation or Trench at Brace

Location
Braces
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
1.2 m
Vertical
2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
*2.4 m
*2.4 m
2.4 m
2.4 m
Horizontal
Brace Spacing
* Note: for excavations and trenches to 3 m deep in soil types 1 and 2, the wales can be omitted if the braces are used at 1.2 m horizontal spacings.
Over
4.5 m to 6.0 m
1
2
3
Over
3.0 m to 4.5 m
Over
3.0 m to 4.0 m
1
2
3
4
3.0 m or less
Soil
Type
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
*200 mm x 200 mm
*200 mm x 200 mm
250 mm x 250 mm
300 mm x 300 mm
Wales
O-1.1 REG 1
Trench or
Excavation
Depth
Excavation and Trench Shoring
252
TABLE 17
[Sections 262 and 263]

GT Investigaiton Report For Metal Power Plant PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GT Investigaiton Report For Metal Power Plant PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

for the Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant Project

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

7.6.1 Fill Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

2.0 Site Condition and Description

3.1 Field Investigations

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

27) Recommendations for temporary shoring of excavations, including design

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Geotechnical Test Pits

Two (2) of them within the plant site footprint;

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Table 4.1 Borehole and test pit summary.

Coordinates (NAD 83)

Standpipe Piezometer Installation and Shallow Groundwater Regime

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

4.2 Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical and Index Soil Properties

Unconfined Compression Test

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Table 4.3 Summary of unconfined compression strength results.

Unconfined Compressive Strengths, qu

Oedometer / Consolidation Test

Oedometer Testing was performed to determine one-dimensional consolidation or swelling

Table 4.4 Summary of consolidation test results.

CTS-60 Oxidized Silt Till

CTS-68 Oxidized Silt Till 22.5 - 24.0

CTS-82 Oxidized Silt Till 55.0 - 56.5 16.8 - 17.2

Direct Shear Test

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear test results.

Oxidized Silt Till

Oxidized Silt Till

4.3 Undrained Shear Strength, su

Average Undrained Average Undrained Average Undrained

4.4 California Bearing Ratio, CBR

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

4.5 Chemical Laboratory Investigation

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Table 4.8 Summary of soil porewater chemistry results.

Natural Moisture Content

5.0 Subsurface Condition

0.1 m (0.3 ft) to 0.5 m (1.5 ft) of topsoil, overlying;

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

The Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD)

The Battleford Formation

The Floral Formation

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Upper Floral Aquifer (Dalmeny Aquifer)

6.0 Ground Resistivity Test

7.0 Geotechnical Recommendations

7.2 General Site Grading, Clearing, and Site Preparation

General Site Grading and Clearing

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report

Permanent Cut Slopes

Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report