M E M O R A N D U M 3 Figure 2: Water Risk Zones for levels 1600, 1325 and 1175. 2. Part 2: The water zones at EHM 2. 1. Boundary structures for the Water Zones The eight water zones are located between the following four structures: The Footwall Shear Zone (FWSZ), Fault 2 foot wall (F2), Fault 6 foot wall (F6) and Angry Man hanging wall (AM) as shown in Figure 3 for 1325 level. The AM hanging wall has been newly introduced for the creation of the 8 water zones the other inter zone boundaries are the commonly known original structures. Several significant water intersections have occurred to the SE of the present Angry Man interpretation. These are: • Water in “Colins Fault” on 1325 and in the pump station • Development on 1375 East FAR Acc and East End of the North Stope Access • Development on 1425 East FAR Acc and East End of FW Drive • 1650 East Access, East Slot Drive, OD43, OD45 and OD47 (could also be due to F1) • Water in EH831 drilled from 1288: significant water with grout, which was attributed to the significant amount of lost grout injected into Angry Man on 1325. A confident reinterpretation of the Angry Man based on the RQD data could not be achieved with the present information. To include the areas of water intersects an Angry Man Hanging Wall (AMHW) has been created with an offset of 25m to the SE of the present Angry Man interpretation. Until further mapping of the Angry Man Fault has been carried out this Hanging Wall version will be used in the definition of the water risk zones. Two additional structures were used to define upper boundaries for the zones: Fault 1 (F1) and theMarshal Shear Zone (MSZ). These structures do not show up on the level plans as they do not affect the zone interpretation in terms of the water risk matrix. They were purely use to define data cut-offs for data interpretation during the zone definition process. The MSZ is not part of the current structure definitions at EHM. It was however part of the 2005 and 2009 structure definitions by Solid Geology, which were mainly based on pit mapping and could largely not be confirmed underground. As hydrograph analysis showed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3