PT

T BAR
RAMEGA CIPTA MULIIA PERSAD
DA

GE
EOTEC
CHNIC
CAL AN
ND HY
YDROG
GEOLO
OGY
TUDY  
ST
 

Subm
mitted to:
PT. Baramega
B C
Citra Mulia
a Persada
Gedung Equity To ower Lt. 47 SCBD
S
Jl. Jend. Sudirman kav. 52-533 Lot.9 Jakartta 12190 - In
ndonesia

Prepaared by:
Septrri Welly
Senio
or Geotechnical Engineerr

Octob
ber 2011
 GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGY
STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Report Number: 311011_Final Report_Geotech Hydro_BCMP

REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION AUTHOR CHECKED

00 31 October, 2011 Submit to SWL IRG
Client
CONTENT PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 2 

2 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2 

3 FIELD WORK 2 
3.1 Geotechnical Investigation 3 
3.2 Hydrogeology Investigation 3 

4 LABORATORY TESTING 3 

5 SITE CONDITIONS 4 
5.1 Geology 4 
5.2 Topography and Hydrogeology 4 
5.3 Subsurface Condition 4 
5.4 Rock Type 6 
5.5 Rock Strength 7 
5.6 Geology Strength Index (GSI) 8 
5.7 Fracturing 8 
5.8 Bedding Shear 9 
5.9 Faulting 9 
5.10 Groundwater 9 
5.11 Hydrology 10 

6 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 10 

6.1 Excavatability 10 
6.2 High Wall Stability 11 
6.3 Pit Floor (Low Wall) Stability 11 
6.4 Pit Wall Design and Risk Control 12 
6.5 Waste Dump (General Comments) 13 

7 DISCLAIMER 13 

SIGNATURE PAGE 14 

COLOPHON 14 

APPENDIX

1. Appendix A : Geotechnical Log

2. Appendix B : Core Photography
3. Appendix C : Ground Water Level Measurement
4. Appendix D : Stream Flow Measurement
5. Appendix E : Aquifer Test Construction
6. Appendix F : Aquifer Test Analysis
7. Appendix G : Laboratory Testing Result
8. Appendix H : Slope Stability Analysis

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 1

October 2011
1 INTRODUCTION

PT. Baramega Citra Mulia Persada (BCMP) was assigned PT. MLD/DHV Indonesia (MLD/DHVI)
to conduct geotechnical and hydrogeology study at BCMP Mine site project as a group of
PT. Jhonlin Baratama which is administratively located in Tanah Bambu, South Kalimantan
Province. This work was authorized based on DHV proposal no MLD/MPM-IGU/BU-
Min/proj.Opp/11/03.018. The site location is presented on Figure.1.

This final report outlines the result of geotechnical and hydrologeology study in purpose to provide
input for mine design criteria and parameter.

2 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

The following terms and abbreviations are using through this report as follow:
BCMP PT. Baramega Citra Mulia Persada
MLD/DHVI PT. Mitra Lingkungan Dutaconsult / DHV Indonesia
HQ Diameter of tube diamond coring
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
GSI Geology Strength Index
OB Over Burden
FoS Factor of Safety
Mbgl meter below ground level
mASL meter above sea level
GPS Global positioning system

Weathering and strength of Abbreviations are using:

EW Extremely Weathering
SW Slightly Weathering
MW Moderately Weathering
HW Highly Weathering
RS Residual Soil
EL Extremely Low strength
VL Very Low Strength
L Low Strength
M Medium Strength
H Hard Strength
VH Very Hard Strength

3 FIELD WORK

The geotechnical and the hydrogeology investigation field work would be carried out as integrated
program which was performed from 30 March 2011 to 14 April 2011. All the coordinate of the site
investigation has been picked up by using hand held GPS. We propose to pick up all coordinates of
test location after field work completion.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 2

October 2011
3.1 Geotechnical Investigation

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer was supervised six geotechnical drilling holes (GT-BCMP-
01 until GT-BCMP-06 The site location of field work and lay out of investigation is presented on
Figure.1

BCMP were engaged PT.DJPM as drilling contractor. Boreholes were advance by combination
between rotary continuous coring and open holes method using drilling rigs Jacro.

The summary of geotechnical investigation is presented on Table.1.

Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Drilling
Elevation Actual
Bore Holes Easting Northing Start Finish
(m) Depth (m)
GT-BCMP-01 389566 9642265 - 113 4 April 2011 10 April 2011
GT-BCMP-02 389554 9643279 - 113 30 March 2011 3 April 2011
GT-BCMP-03 390472 9643279 - 73.9 8 April 2011 12 April 2011
GT-BCMP-04 389556 9644253 - 112.9 30 March 2011 6 April 2011
GT-BCMP-05 389567 9646642 - 112.9 31 March 2011 4 April 2011
GT-BCMP-06 390218 9647717 - 112.9 8 April 2011 11 April 2011

The borehole logs are presented on Appendix A.

3.2 Hydrogeology Investigation

Hydrogeology investigation comprises of six (6) standpipes piezometer installation with following
permeability test (falling head test) in six (6) geotechnical holes, groundwater measurement in six
geotechnical holes, stream flow measurement and stream profile estimation in one river location
that located in vicinity of concession area.

Groundwater level monitoring at all borehole, are presented in Appendix C. Stream flow
measurement are presented in Appendix D. Detailed design construction of monitoring well is
presented in Appendix E. Aquifer test (slug test) at all boreholes is presented on Appendix F.

4 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was carried out on selected samples recovered from drilling. Rock mechanic
laboratory of Institute technology of Bandung (ITB) was selected by MLD/DHVI to conduct the
laboratory testing. The lab test comprises:
 UCS testing
UCS testing is a part of laboratory testing in order to measure the rock strength.
 Direct shear testing
Direct shear testing is obtaining effective stress parameter for intact samples of rock.
 Physical Properties testing
Physical Properties testing is obtaining physical properties for intact samples of rock

The summary of Laboratory result is presented on Appendix G.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 3

October 2011
5 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Geology

In general, all the formation comprises of Claystone, Siltstone and Sandstone material. The
geology structures are within syncline and anticline was found at southwest and northwest. The site
investigation indicates bedding dip angles at BCMP site mine area are approximately 10 – 14
degrees although the surrounding area has steeper dipping strata (between 30 – 45 degrees).

5.2 Topography and Hydrogeology

The site investigations are placed on the flat area in south to east block side and hilly terrain in
west to north of the concession area. The topography is rounded but with locally steep slopes
adjacent to the smaller streams where these have become incised. Some of this area have many
ex-pit that covered by water. The concession is bounded by palm oil plantation on the west and
east side.

The BCMP mine site area has no major rivers in close vicinity area. The small river runs through
south to north direction.

Figure 1. Project Location

5.3 Subsurface Condition

Reports of boreholes are provided in Appendix A. Summaries of the subsurface condition for each
area are provided in Table 2.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 4

October 2011
Table 2. Subsurface Condition
Bore Holes Material Type Depth (m) Remarks
GT-BCMP-01 Dumping Material 0.00 – 3.50 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, low strength 3.50 – 6.50 Full coring
CLAYSTONE , medium strength 6.50 – 9.20 Full coring
COAL, medium strength 9.20 – 10.20 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, low strength 10.20 – 18.90 Full coring
COAL, with claystone in between 21.00 -22.00 m depth, 18.90 – 23.00 Full coring
medium strength,
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and carbonaceous low to 23.00 – 51.70 Full coring
medium strength
COAL, medium strength 51.70 – 67.30 Full coring
CLAYSTONE & SILTSTONE medium strength 67.30 – 92.90 Full coring
COAL, with some clastone in between 96.00 – 96.50 m 92.90 – 100.70 Full coring
depth, medium strength
CLAYSTONE & SILTSTONE medium strength 100.70 – 113.00 Full coring
GT-BCMP-02 Residual soil 0.00 – 2.95 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, very low to low strength and with coal in 2.95 – 20.60 Full coring
between 7.13 – 8.45 m depth
COAL, medium strength 20.60 – 22.60 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and coal in between 27.60 – 22.60 – 38.50 Full coring
75.90 m depth, low to medium strength
COAL, medium strength 38.50 – 51.30 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and coal in between 75.50 – 51.30 – 78.35 Full coring
28.68 m depth, low to medium strength
COAL, medium strength 78.35 – 89.00 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and coal in between 111.10 89.00 – 113.00 Full coring
– 112.00 m depth, low to medium strength
GT-BCMP-03 Dumping Material 0.00 – 13.15 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and carbonaceous low to 13.15 – 31.05 Full coring
medium strength
Coal, medium strength 31.05 – 33.60 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and carbonaceous low to 33.60 – 39.50 Full coring
medium strength
Coal, medium strength 39.50 – 40.60 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and carbonaceous low to 40.60 – 47.95 Full coring
medium strength
Coal, medium strength 47.95 – 50.40 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and carbonaceous low to 50.40 – 73.90 Full coring
medium strength
GT-BCMP-04 Dumping material 0.00 – 22.90 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILSTONE and SANDSTONE, low to 22.90 – 44.80 Full coring
medium strength, with some coal in between 38.50 –
39.33 m depth
COAL, medium strength 44.80 – 48.80 Full coring

CLAYSTONE, SILSTONE and SANDSTONE, low to 48.80 – 67.20 Full coring

medium strength
COAL, medium strength 67.20 – 73.40 Full coring
CLAYSTONE, SILSTONE and SANDSTONE, low to 73.40 – 112.90 Full coring

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 5

October 2011
 medium strength, with some coal in between 86.20 –
87.20 m depth and 108.50 – 109.70 0 m depth
GT-BCMP-05
5 Residuall soil 0.0
00 – 0.80 Full coring
CLAYST TONE, very low w strength 0.8
80 – 5.40 Full coring
COAL, medium
m streng
gth 5.4
40 – 9.40 Full coring
CLAYST TONE and SIL LTSTONE, low w strength 9.4
40 – 18.40 Full coring
COAL, medium
m streng
gth 18.40 – 24.40 Full coring
CLAYST TONE, SILSTO ONE and SA ANDSTONE, very
v low 24.40 – 112.90 Full coring
to low strrength
GT-BCMP-06
6 Residuall soil 0.0
00 – 0.80 Full coring
CLAYST TONE, very low w strength 0.8
80 – 13.25 Full coring
COAL, medium
m streng
gth 13.25 – 14.32 Full coring
CLAYST TONE, low stre ength 14.32 – 21.40 Full coring
COAL, medium
m streng
gth 21.40 – 24.40 Full coring
CLAYST TONE and SIL LSTONE, low w to medium strength,
s 24.40 – 57.10 Full coring
with som
me coal in betwween 37.90 – 38.55
3 m depth
h
COAL, bedded
b claysttone in betwe
een 59.98 – 60.15
6 m 57.10 – 61.05 Full coring
depth, lo
ow to medium strength
CLAYST TONE and SILTSTONEE E, low to medium 61.05 – 99.00 Full coring
strength,, with some coal
c in betwe
een 67.69 – 68.58
6 m
depth
COAL, bedded
b claysto
one in betweeen 99.93 – 10
00.60 m 99.00 – 102.68 Full coring
depth, lo
ow to medium strength
CLAYST TONE, SILST TONE and SANDSTONE, low to 102
2.68 – 112.90
0 Full coring
medium strength, with h some coal in between 106.80 –
107.60 m depth

5.4 Rock Type

In general, ro
ock layer wa
as found in mine
m area comprise
c of Claystone, S
Siltstone and
d Coal. The
e
sm
maller propoortion of San
ndstone andd Carbonace
eous Mudsto one is also founded in subsurfacee
co
ondition of mine area.

he proportion
Th ns of the diffe
erent rock types are illusttrated in Cha
art 1.

Charrt 1: Rock Type Distribu

ution from Each
E Boreho
ole

Geeotechnical and Hydrogeology

H Studdy, BCMP Projecct – Final Report Page 6
Occtober 2011
 he lithology distribution
Th d o overall rockk type is shown on Chartt 2.
of

Chart 2: Overall
O Rock
k Type Distrribution

5.5 Rock Streng

gth

Interpretation of logging data from all geotechnica al boreholes designates that the rockk strength iss
assified low strength and
cla d medium strrength. The very
v low strength and hig
gh strength were
w found in
n
sm
mall proportio
on. The overrall rock stren
ngth is shown on Chart. 3

Charrt 3: Overall Rock Strength

Geeotechnical and Hydrogeology

H Studdy, BCMP Projecct – Final Report Page 7
Occtober 2011
 Based on chart 3, the very low strength of the sandstone material in RL80 to 90 is indicating that
high permeability potential in this layer. The monitoring of groundwater pressure in this layer is
required to the mine staged.

It should be noted that the material strengths discussed above are usually measured across the
rock layering (ie, bedding dip) direction of the rock material. However, these materials (and the rock
mass itself) demonstrate an extremely high level of strength anisotropy – and this must be taken
into consideration during stability analyses (and to a degree, excavation, assessment).

5.6 Geology Strength Index (GSI)

Geology strength index (GSI) interpreted based on core observation for every geotechnical drilling
hole. Core observation comprises of roughness, number of set, weathering and fracture frequency.
In general, geology strength index is approximate 40 – 70 and 10 – 20 in shear zone. The core
sample condition from drilling hole is very influence to the interpretation of GSI. In this case, some
sample was core loss. We determine GSI based on engineering judgment.

The summary of laboratory test results indicate that generally the UCS strength measured in the
laboratory are consistent relatively with visually estimated strengths; however sometimes the
laboratory strength were less than the field observed strengths. This is most likely related to stress
relief which occurs as the sample is taken from depth and the confining pressures reduced to zero.
Also, some samples failed along slickensided joints, thus giving a low value of strength which does
not necessarily occur insitu.
These strength issues were take into account when assigning parameters for stability analyses by
applying un uplift factor to some laboratory measured strengths.
The most prominent rock types (claystone, siltstone and sandstone) have a similar strength range;
low to medium.
Table 4 shows the strength range for each material type – as measured in the laboratory test
considered to be valid.

Table 4: Overall Statistics – Material Type

Laboratory
Material Type
UCS (MPa)
Sandstone 3.03 – 3.54
Claystone 0.3 – 1.55
Siltstone 0.66 – 2.63
Coal 2.78 – 4.10

The rock mass strength (which controls stability) is not only dependant on rock material
strength and type, but also on the frequency and nature of fracturing within the rock mass.

5.7 Fracturing

Fracturing within the rock mass appears to be low; in the order of 1 to 4 fractures per meter. The
fractures mainly comprise partings parallel to the rock layering (bedding partings) but are also
associated with two main joint sets that are orthogonal to bedding. There is some evidence to
suggest that the joint sets are parallel with the cleating in the coal. The overall average fracture is
shown on chart. 5. These higher fractured zones have not been included in the Chart 5.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 8

October 2011
 Chart 5: Ov
verall Averag
ge Fracture per Meter

5.8 Bedding She

ear

Beedding shea ar material (crushed coa al and mudsstone) often n exist at th

he interface of coal and d
mudstone with hin folden Ka alimantan Co oal measures
s. The beddinng shear ma aterial is often
n of very low
w
strength (like form
f clay), iss often contin
nous, and ca
an range in th
hickness fromm a few millimmetres up too
haalf metre or more.
m
Thhe significannce of these e bedding sh hears is that they can provide
p relea
ase mechan nisms for pitt
failure; particu
ularly if bedding is underccut.
Noo distinct be edding shea ar material was
w encoun
ntered duringg surface m mapping activity at site;;
hoowever the logs freque ently show core loss and/or
a refer to “claystone and mudstone with h
ca
arbonaceouss matter” at the t interface of coal seam floor and underlaying claystone and a siltstone..
Thhis has been inferred to o indicate bedding shea ar material, must be co onsidered in the stabilityy
annalyses.

5.9 Fa
aulting

In addition to failure
f g due to rockk mass strength, faulting can lead to failure mech
being hanisms thatt
ovver-ride the mass
m strength parameteers altogether and these mechanismss need to be e considered
d
se
eparately. Ho owever, no faults are re eported from
m geology model. This a aspect must be carefullyy
monitored during mining by constant fa ace mappingg, and regular reviews.

5.10 Groundwate
er

Sttandpipe pie
ezometers installed in bo orehole indic
cated ground
dwater levelss are ranging from nearr
su
urface (less than
t 1m deptth) to 18.35 m depth grou
und surface.
Th
he ground wa ater measure
ement is provided on App pendix C. 

Geeotechnical and Hydrogeology

H Studdy, BCMP Projecct – Final Report Page 9
Occtober 2011
5.11 Hydrology

Volume of water entering the pit area planned depends on catchment areas that related directly to
the pit as well as rate of rainfall. Based on field observation and analysis of existing topographic
maps, general surface water that comes into the pit will be quite large compared to the input of
groundwater.

We recommend to manage the surface water with appropriate drainage and pumped out from the
wall.

6 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

6.1 Excavatability

Excavation conditions are controlled by the strength of rock mass; which is the function of the
strength of the intact rock and the amount and condition of fracturing.

Using the empirical relationship proposed by Franklin et al (1971) and the results of UCS testing
and combined with the fracturing apparent from the geotechnical drilling, a substantial part of the
rock mass is classified as rippable; as shown on Chart 6.

Claystone, Siltstone, Sandstone

COAL

Chart 6: Excavatability

Excavation characteristics more sensitive to material strength where fracture frequency is low.
Hence somewhat higher materials strength evident with depth may lead to some problem ripping
area where fracture frequency is low.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 10

October 2011
 Although the majority of the materials can be excavated by ripping, most large coal mining rely on
blasting to increase efficiency of digging equipment. The blasting energy required to break up a
rock mass is quite sensitive to rock materials strength and the strength along discontinuities.

Given the propose scale of mining, it is likely to consider blasting for utilised. A Powder Factor
(ANFO) of between 0.15 Kg/m3 and 0.2 Kg/m3 is typical of most coal mines and this is probably an
appropriate value to assume for the feasibility level study.

6.2 High Wall Stability

Stability analyses have been carried out using the results of the field and laboratory testing to
provide a basis for high wall slope design.

Groundwater pressure distribution was represented as a surface located to intersect the toe of the
slope and a point 20% of the high wall height below the crest. It will be necessary to check this
assumption during mining using piezometers installed behind the low wall or high wall; and
then revise the analyses if necessary, or carry out depressurization works.

We would strongly recommend that groundwater pressures are measured in future high
wall and low wall in order to check analyses assumptions.

Based on the seismic zonation of this area, forces due to seismic events have not been considered
in our high wall analyses.

The analyses were carried out in order to solve for a factor of safety of 1.3, which is considered to
be an appropriate value for selection at the FS stage.

The analyses are provided in Appendix H. The results indicate an acceptably high factor of safety
against high wall instability for 46 degree of overall slope up to 70 meter height.

6.3 Pit Floor (Low Wall) Stability

It is beyond the scope of this report to determine the likelihood of instability to a more precise level,
although general comments are provided below:

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 11

October 2011
 The mechanism of low wall instability is analogous to a retaining wall without drain holes; pore
water pressures often cannot relieve as quickly as the overburden is stripped, – and an imbalance
occurs. This imbalance is often triggered at depths of around 40 m to 50 m in mines with low wall
slopes in the order of 30 degrees where carbonaceous mudstone underlay the low wall, and where
the mining rate is relatively fast.

The coal seams are also occasionally underlain by relatively impermeable carbonaceous
claystone. Based on these conditions, we believe that the probability of low wall instability occurring
as mining proceeds down-dip is high.

However, we have provided a preliminary mitigation plan for risks associated with low wall
instability:

However, we have provided a preliminary mitigation plan for risks associated with low wall
instability:
1. Based on the analysis results indicate an acceptably high factor of safety against low wall
instability for 25 degree of overall slope up to 70 meter height.
2. Mining should never undercut the bedding.
3. During mining, the water pressures within the low wall should be monitored using piezometers.
4. The water pressures should be compared against the remaining overburden pressures in order
to ensure that lift-off cannot occur.
5. If water pressures are too high, then dewatering drilling or pumping must be carried out to a
level where stability can be ensured

6.4 Pit Wall Design and Risk Control

The analyses described above are for mechanisms of instability that occur through the rock mass.
It must be noted that faulting and other large structure (while not determined to date from geology
model) can lead to mechanisms of instability that are not represented by the analyses described
above. Therefore, as mining proceeds, it will be important that regular geotechnical face mapping is
carried out as part of the mining operation in order that faults are identified and then assessed in
terms of whether they pose a threat to stability.

Risks associated with wall instability can be further reduced by:

1. Backfilling progressively onto the high wall as the mining advances along strike.
2. Regular walkover inspections along crest lines. Particular attention should be given to soils
exposed in the base of the tributary valleys, as these will likely comprise local thickenings of
alluvial soils, which can represent isolated instability hazards.
3. The design of the high wall should be a ‘work in progress’ during mining. Once mining begins,
a wealth of geotechnical information becomes available. If this information is collected in the
right way, it can be used as a basis to either reduce mining costs – and / or reduce risks due to
wall instability.

The all slope stability analysis for low wall and high wall are analyzed by using hand held GPS data
due to no topography data available. It is recommended to complete all the topography data for the
next mining stage.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 12

October 2011
6.5 Waste Dump (General Comments)

There has not been any investigation carried out for waste dumps; however the following
comments are a general on indication of common issues based on practical experience.

Waste dumps can become unstable when over-steepened, when built too high, or when built over
low strength foundation materials. The stability depends on current and future waste material
strength, as well as the strength of foundation materials.

Commonly achieved overall slope angles are of the order 10° to 15° for similar waste dumps in coal
mines – provided care is taken to prevent surface water ponding at any time during dump
construction. This requires careful planning to ensure that during each day of active dumping, the
surface is graded to prevent ponding.

Berm to berm slopes will form at the natural angle of repose of the dump material (generally about
26°, but may need to be flatter to comply with mine closure requirements), and berm widths will
need to be fixed to suit the overall target slope for whatever berm to berm height is adopted. A
maximum berm to berm vertical height of 10m is suggested.

Using the above approach, the achievable dump height will depend on the strength of the
foundation materials.

7 DISCLAIMER

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations
prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and standards.

This report is only based on our current understanding of the site condition. The nature of
subsurface conditions may vary between tested locations and from the assumptions discussed.
Variations between the tested locations may not become evident until mining staged commenced.

The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic
expectations of this report, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimize the risks
associated with the project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility
accepted by MLD/DHV Indonesia, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report
are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

MLD/DHVI is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based
on these data.

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 13

October 2011
SIGNATURE PAGE

Septri Welly Irfan Gumilang

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Project Manager

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 14

October 2011
COLOPHON

Client : Baramega Citra Mulia Persada

Project : Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP – Final Report
File : C:\Project\BCMP\Final Report.doc
Length of Proposal : 15 pages
Author : SWL
Internal Check : Yes
Project Manager : IRG
Project Director : IRF
Date : 31 October 2011

Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Study, BCMP Project – Final Report Page 15

October 2011