Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report for the Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant Project. Prepared for: Fortune Minerals Limited

Transcription

1 Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report for the Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant Project Prepared for: Fortune Minerals Limited Submitted by: M June 2010

2 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 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. M Page i

3 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Site Condition and Description Scope Field Investigations Laboratory Testing Report Methodology Field Investigations Geotechnical Boreholes Geotechnical Test Pits Standpipe Piezometer Installation and Shallow Groundwater Regime Laboratory Testing Geotechnical and Index Soil Properties Unconfined Compression Test Oedometer / Consolidation Test Direct Shear Test Undrained Shear Strength, s u California Bearing Ratio, CBR Chemical Laboratory Investigation Subsurface Condition Local Geology The Surficial Stratified Deposits (SSD) The Battleford Formation The Floral Formation Upper Floral Aquifer (Dalmeny Aquifer) Ground Resistivity Test Geotechnical Recommendations General General Site Grading, Clearing, and Site Preparation General Site Grading and Clearing Permanent Cut Slopes Fill Slopes Temporary Excavation and Dewatering Temporary Cut Slope for Excavation Utility Trench Excavation Foundation Excavations Soil and Material Stockpiling Near Excavation Temporary Dewatering Site Surface Drainage Subgrade Preparation General Proof Rolling Roadways Fill Placement and Compaction M Page ii

4 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June Fill Materials General/Common Fill Structural fill Road base Underground utilities bedding Utilities trench backfill Procedures to Mitigate Frost Action in Buried Utilities Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Frost Penetration Depth Foundations Shallow Foundations Grade Supported Floor Slabs Pile Foundations Frost Action and Foundations Seismic Design Ground Motions Seismic Considerations Site Soil Classification Site Spectral Acceleration Uniform Hazard Spectra Modulus of Vertical Subgrade Reaction, k s Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction, k h Foundation Concrete Paved Areas Pavement Subgrade Strength Construction Control and Monitoring Closure References 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 M Page iii

5 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 List of Tables Table 4.1 Borehole and test pit summary Table 4.2 Groundwater monitoring records Table 4.3 Summary of unconfined compression strength results Table 4.4 Summary of consolidation test results Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear test results Table 4.6 Average undrained shear strengths of soil at various depths Table 4.7 Summary of calculated CBRs results Table 4.8 Summary of soil porewater chemistry results Table 7.1 Base and sub-base gradation specifications Table 7.2 Lateral earth pressure coefficients and soil unit weights Table 7.3 Typical compaction equipment data for estimating compaction-induced loads Table 7.4 Calculated frost penetration depth under various surface covers Table 7.5 Ultimate and allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations Table 7.6 General design parameters for bored, cast-in-place pile foundations Table 7.7 Typical group efficiency for 3x3 and 9x9 pile groups (After NAVFAV 7.02) Table 7.8 Damped spectral acceleration for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years Table 7.9 Group reduction factor for modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction, k h List of Figures Figure 7.1 Horizontal pressure on walls induced by compaction effort Figure 7.2 Estimated settlement vs. applied presure for various sized square footing found at 10 ft below ground Figure 7.3 Uniform hazard spectrum for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years M Page iv

6 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 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 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. M Page 1

7 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June ) 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) Atterberg limits; 2) Unconfined compression tests; 3) Water soluble sulphate; 4) Water content; 5) Grain size analysis including hydrometer; 6) Specific gravity; 7) Group index; 8) Consolidation tests; and, 9) 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; M Page 2

8 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June ) 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; M Page 3

9 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June ) 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 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 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. M Page 4

10 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 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 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. M Page 5

11 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 4.1 Borehole and test pit summary. Borehole / Testpit Designation Borehole / Testpit Depth (m) (ft) Date Drilled / Excavated Installation Type Coordinates (NAD 83) Northing (m) Boreholes Easting (m) Ground Elevation (masl) Top of piezometer cap Piezometer tip Piezometer depth (meter below ground) M Feb-2010 Piezometer M Mar M Mar M Mar M Mar M Mar M Apr M Apr Test Pits M Apr M Apr M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May M May 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 M 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. M Page 6

12 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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. Piezometer Ground Piezometer Elevation Top of Casing (masl) (masl) Water Depth (m below ground) Groundwater Elevation (masl) 7-Apr Apr May May Apr Apr May May-2010 M Note: The underlined values are the highest measured groundwater level at the site. 4.2 Laboratory Testing 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 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. M Page 7

13 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 4.3 Summary of unconfined compression strength results. Borehole Sample Sample Depth Unconfined Compressive Strengths, q Stratigraphic Layer u Number Number (ft) (m) (kpa) M CTS-60 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-06 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-141 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-115 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-92 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-68 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-13 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-39 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-21 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-82 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-54 Oxidized Silt Till 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, p o. 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. Table 4.4 Summary of consolidation test results. Borehole Number Sample Number Stratigraphic Layer Sample Depth Initial Void Ratio, eo Preconsolidation Pressure, po Over Consolidation Ratio, OCR Compression Index, Cc Rebound Index, Cr Swelling Pressure (kpa) (ft) (m) M CTS-60 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-68 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-82 Oxidized Silt Till Direct Shear Test The Direct Shear testing (ASTM D ) 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. M Page 8

14 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Borehole Number Sample Number Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear test results. Stratigraphic Layer Sample Depth (ft) Sample Depth (m) Apparent Cohesion, c' (kpa) Residual Angle of Shear Resistance of Soil, ' (degree) Apparent Cohesion, c' (kpa) Angle of Shear Resistance of Soil, ' (degree) M CTS-60 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-92 Oxidized Silt Till M CTS-120 Oxidized Silt Till Peak 4.3 Undrained Shear Strength, s u 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) s u s u s u (ft) (m) (ft) (m) kpa kpa kpa Overall Average 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 M Page 9

15 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 M 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 Sample Depth Sample Number (ft) (m) Group Index CBR M CTS M CTS M CTS M CTS M CTS M CTS M CTS 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 (SO 4 ) content (CSA A ). 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. M Page 10

16 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 4.8 Summary of soil porewater chemistry results. M M M M M M Parameter Units L L L L L L CTS - 33 CTS - 02 CTS - 84 CTS - 59 CTS CTS ' 3' 3' 7' 14' 10' ' Chloride (Cl) mg/l Calcium (Ca) mg/l Potassium (K) mg/l Magnesium (Mg) mg/l Sodium (Na) mg/l SAR SAR Sulphate (SO 4 ) mg/l % Saturation % ph in Saturated Paste ph Conductivity Sat. Paste ds m Detailed Salinity (Corrected for Pore Water) Natural Moisture Content % Corrected Salinity values Chloride (Cl) mg/l Calcium (Ca) mg/l Potassium (K) mg/l Magnesium (Mg) mg/l Sodium (Na) mg/l Sulphate (SO 4 ) mg/l Class of Sulphate exposure S-2 S-3 S-3 S-3 S-1 S-3 (severe) (moderate) (moderate) (moderate) (very severe) (moderate) Notes: 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 )*(C sat.paste )] 3. Class of Sulphate exposure refer to Table 3 of CSA A , 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 M Page 11

17 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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) 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. M Page 12

18 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June Upper Floral Aquifer (Dalmeny Aquifer) Upper Floral Aquifer was encountered at depths between 15.2 m (50 ft) (M ) to 20.4 m (67 ft) (M ) 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 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 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 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 M Page 13

19 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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. M Page 14

20 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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 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. M Page 15

21 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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 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, M Page 16

22 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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). M Page 17

23 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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 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. M Page 18

24 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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. M Page 19

25 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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 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 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 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. M Page 20

26 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 7.1 Base and sub-base gradation specifications. Percent Passing by Weight Sieve Size Base Coarse Sub-Base Type 31 Type 33 Type 6 50 mm mm mm 22.4 mm 18 mm mm 12.5 mm mm 5 mm mm m m m m Plasticity Index Fractured Face % Min 50 Min 50 Lightweight pieces % Max 5 Max 5 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 (K o ) earth pressure conditions where the horizontal stress is: h = K o v = K o H 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. Total Unit Weight, Soil Type K o K a (kn/m 3 ) Compacted Granular Fill Compacted Cohesive Fill Native Silt Till 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 M Page 21

27 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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/m 3 ) 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. M Page 22

28 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Z Z c ' h d For Z c Z d, ' h For Z > d, = soil unit weight K = K o (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. Equipment Type Dead Weight of Roller (kn) Centrigugal Force (kn) Roller Width (mm) P (kn/m) Single-drum walk-behind Dual-drum walk-behind Dual-drum walk-behind Dual-drum walk-behind M Page 23

29 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 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 Frost Penetration Depth (years) (mbgs) (ftbgs) Foundations Shallow Foundations Boreholes M , M , M , M and M 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. M Page 24

30 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 7.5 Ultimate and allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations. Depth Below Ground (m) (ft) Ultimate Bearing Capacity Allowable Bearing Capacity (Estimated Settlement < 25 mm) (kpa) (kpa) 0 to to to to to to and below 15 and below 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 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 Mineral s 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 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. M Page 25

31 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June Estimated Settlement (mm) ft 10 ft 8 ft 6 ft Figure 7.2 Estimated settlement vs. applied presure for various sized square footing found at 10 ft below ground Grade Supported Floor Slabs Applied Pressure (kpa) 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). M Page 26

32 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 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. Depth Below Ground (m) (ft) Ultimate Shaft Resistance Allowable Shaft Resistance Ultimate End Bearing Capacity Allowable End Bearing Capacity (kpa) (FS=2.0) (kpa) (FS=3.0) 0 to 10 0 to to to to to and below 10.7 and below 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. M Page 27

33 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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. M Page 28

34 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Table 7.7 Typical group efficiency for 3x3 and 9x9 pile groups (After NAVFAV 7.02). Pile Group Centre-to Centre Pile Spacing (pile diameter) Pile Length (m) Pile Diameter (m) Group Efficiency 3x x x x x x x x 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/in 2 ) for steel surfaces and 70 kpa (10 lb/in 2 ) 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 Seismic Design Ground Motions 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 M Page 29

35 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 Site Soil Classification The site soil classification was determined from the energy-corrected average Standard Penetration resistance (N 60 ). 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 N 60 > 50) 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 N 60 > 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) 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. M Page 30

36 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Spectral Acceleration, 5% damped (g) Reference Ground Conditions (Site Class C) Reference Ground Conditions (Site Class C) Period (seconds) Figure 7.3 Uniform hazard spectrum for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 Years Modulus of Vertical Subgrade Reaction, k s The modulus of subgrade reaction, k s 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 k s by the following formula: where: k s = 40 x FOS x q a FOS = Factor of Safety = 3.0 q a = 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 Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction, k h The horizontal subgrade reaction, k s for fine grained soils from 0 m (0 ft) to 3.0 m (10 ft) below ground, k h = 6,700 kn/m 3 and the fine grained silt till from 3.0 m (10 ft) and below, k h = 15,000 kn/m 3. Please note that the above values of k h 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 M Page 31

37 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report 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 Reese s method of p-y curves. MDH is available to provide p-y curves if required by Fortune Minerals. The Group reduction factor for k h is summarized in Table 7.9. Table 7.9 Group reduction factor for modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction, k h. Centre-to-Centre Pile Spacing in Direction of Load 3d 4d 6d 8d (after Davisson, 1970) Group Reduction Factor for Modulus of Subgrade Reaction The recommended modulus of subgrade reaction are for both vertical pile and batter pile 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 (SO 4 ) 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 A 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 Paved Areas Pavement Subgrade Strength The characteristic material property of subgrade soils used for pavement design is the resilient modulus (M R ). The M R is defined as a measure of the elastic property of a soil M Page 32

38 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 recognizing selected non-linear characteristics. Using the Group Index of soil to determine the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and M R 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. M Page 33

39 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 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 M Page 34

40 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 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 M Page 34

41 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June References Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), 2006, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th Edition. 488 pp. CSA A , Concrete materials and methods of concrete construction, CSA, 2004 Earthquakes Canada website ( accessed January 8, NBCC, 2005, User s 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 Pavement Design Manual, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Edition 1, June 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 National Research Council Canada website, Canadian Building Digest, ( ( and ( CBD-128, CBD-182 and CBD-156, NRC-CNRC. Foundation and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02, 1986, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. M Page 35

42 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 TERMS, SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS M Appendices

43 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) Lithology/texture (size, proportion, and shape); 2) Colour and oxidation; 3) Consistency and plasticity (cohesive soils); 4) Condition (non-cohesive soils); 5) Moisture; and 6) 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 D ) Boulder 300mm plus Cobble mm Gravel mm Sand mm Fine: mm Medium: mm Coarse: mm 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% 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 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 2) 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.

44 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 Undrained Shear Strength - Su (kpa) (CFEM, 2 nd edition, 1985) Field Identification (ASTM D ) Very Soft <12 Thumb will penetrate soil more than 25mm Soft Thumb will penetrate soil about 25mm Firm Thumb will indent soil about 6 mm Stiff Thumb will indent but penetrate only with great effort (CFEM) Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail (CFEM) Hard >200 Thumb will not indent but readily indented with thumbnail Very Hard N/A Thumbnail will not indent soil Note: - Pocket penetrometer readings can be used to measure Su directly where Su is equal to approximately ½ 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 SPT N-Index (Blows / 300mm) Very Loose 0 4 Loose 4 10 Compact Dense Very Dense >50 5) Moisture Conditions (ASTM D ) Dry - No moisture, dusty, dry to touch Moist - Damp but contains no visible water Wet - Visible, free water, indicating soil is below water table 6) 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

45 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

46 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, Glauber s salts 4) Gravel (sbrnd-rnd) predominantly shield and carbonate lithos, sandy (f.-c.), well sorted, unoxidized, compact, wet, wood chips

47 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Appendix A Site Plans M Appendices

48 Path: P:\Fortune Minerals Ltd\M Geotechnical, Hydrogeological and Environmental Assessments For Saskatchewan metals Processing Plant\3. GIS\2. Drawings\M (Site Location x 11).mxd 370, , NO RTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER TP39-RG07-W3 13 LANGHAM TP39-RG06-W ³ TP39-RG05-W ,800, DALMENY ,800, TP38-RG07-W TP38-RG06-W TP38-RG05-W ,790, ,790,000 ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBA TP37-RG07-W TP37-RG06-W TP37-RG05-W ,780, Legend SCALE SUPERVISED BY DRAWN BY APPROVED BY LLODYMINSTER 01 DETAIL 06 SASKATOON DUNFERMLINE SWIFT CURRENT :150, HUMBOLDT 05 S. LONG, GIS Cert. 32 REGINA WEYBURN DATE ESTEVAN! MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA 370,000 PROVINCE SCALE: 1:6,000,000 SITE LOCATION MAJOR HIGHWAY RAILWAY! PRINCE ALBERT! NORTH BATTLEFORD!! MELFORT!!!!! MOOSE JAW! YORKTON! 04-OCT-10 M. STURBY, P.Eng. 04-OCT CLIENT PRODUCED BY TITLE PROJECT No. DRAWING No LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA M M SASKATOON ,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 FIG. No. 5,780, A1

49 369,000 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 369,500 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 370, , ,000 ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING LAND DESCRIPTION ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING LAND DESCRIPTION M A PIEZOMETER 371, ,802, SE W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, SE W3 M B PIEZOMETER 371, ,802, SE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, NW W3 M A PIEZOMETER 371, ,802, NE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, NE W3 M B PIEZOMETER 371, ,802, NE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,803, NE W3 M A PIEZOMETER 369, ,802, SE W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, NW W3 M B PIEZOMETER 369, ,802, SE W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, NW W3 M A PIEZOMETER 370, ,803, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,803, SE W3 M B PIEZOMETER 370, ,803, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,803, SE W3 M A PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, SE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NW W3 M TEST PRODUCTION WELL 370, ,802, NE W3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, SE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, SW W3!( M ³ Legend (W" PRODUCTION WELL!( MDH BOREHOLE!N& MDH PIEZOMETER!¹ ") MDH TEST PIT GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT RAILWAY 5,803,500 ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING LAND DESCRIPTION M TEST PIT 369, ,802, NW W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NW W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, SE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NE W3 SE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, SW W3 M TEST PIT 370, SW W3 5,802, SW W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, SW W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NE W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, NW W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NE W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, NW W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NW W3 M PIEZOMETER 370, ,802, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, SW W3!¹ M SE W3 5,803,500 APPROXIMATE SASKTEL LINE LOCATION PROPOSED PROCESS RESIDUE STORAGE FACILITY AREA PROPERTY BOUNDARY M BOREHOLE 370, ,802, NE W3 M TEST PIT 370, ,802, NW W3 M BOREHOLE 370, ,803, SW W3 N/A GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION 370, ,802, NW W3!( M M !¹ Note 1. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED. (July g001.dwg) AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC). 3. UTM COORDINATES ARE IN NAD 83 ZONE 13. 5,803,000!N& M A M B M A M B!N& M !N&!( M M !¹!N& M M A M B!N& 5,803,000 M !¹ 5,802,500 NE W3 CN RAILWAY NW W3 M !¹ M M !¹!¹ M !N& M !¹!(!( M M !(!¹!¹ M !¹!N&!N& M M M !( M M !¹ M !(!(!( M M M PROPOSED RAILWAY SPUR M ")Ñ( M !N&!¹ M A M B NE W3 M M !N& M !¹!¹ M ,802,500 TITLE PROJECT No. DRAWING No. CLIENT SASKATCHEWAN METALS PROCESSING PLANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN M M FIG. No. A2 M !¹!N& M A M B PRODUCED BY SCALE 1:7,500 DATE 369, , , , ,000 5,802,000 DESIGN BY DRAWN BY APPROVED BY S. LONG, GIS Cert. 04-OCT-10 M. STURBY, P.Eng. 04-OCT-10

50 FORTUNE MINERALS LIMITED. (July g001.dwg).5 NE W SITE GROUND ELEVATION CONTOUR PLAN TITLE PROJECT No. DRAWING No. CLIENT M FIG. No. A3 PRODUCED BY SCALE 1:4,000 DESIGN BY DRAWN BY 370,000 M UTM COORDINATES ARE IN NAD 83 ZONE SERVICES CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN (ISC) AIR PHOTO OBTAINED FROM INFORMATION 5,802, Note 1. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROVIDED BY ,802, MINOR CONTOUR MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT 0.25 METER GROUND ELEVATION CONTOUR (masl) NW W Legend ³ ,803, ,803, , , , , ,000 APPROVED BY DATE S. LONG, GIS Cert. M. STURBY, P.Eng. 04-OCT OCT-10

51 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Appendix B Borehole Logs and Test Pit Logs M Appendices

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Appendix C Ground Resistivity Test Results M Appendices

78 GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST DISTRIBUTION M2112 Fortune Mineral Ltd. 1. Test configuration TRAVERSE 3 a a a A TRAVERSE 1 C1 P1 P2 C2 A M N B N TRAVERSE 4 E 2. Coordinates Point E N A GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST M2214 Fortune Mineral Ltd. Test Traverse 1 Location Langham, Saskatchewan Date 07 May 2010 Time 2:48 PM Weather Sunny/Clear Brief Description of terrain: Generally flat Inter-pin Spacing a (m) C Pin Depth (cm) P Pin Depth (cm) Apparent Resistivity (Ω-m) Resistivity (Ω-m) Probe Spacing (m)

79 GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST M2214 Fortune Mineral Ltd. Test Traverse 2 Location Langham, Saskatchewan Date 07 May 2010 Time 3:18 PM Weather Sunny/Clear Brief Description of terrain: Generally flat Inter-pin Spacing a (m) C Pin Depth (cm) P Pin Depth (cm) Apparent Resistivity (Ωm) Resistivity (Ω-m) Probe Spacing (m) GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST M2214 Fortune Mineral Ltd. Test Traverse 3 Location Langham, Saskatchewan Date 07 May 2010 Time 3:40 PM Weather Sunny/Clear Brief Description of terrain: Generally flat Inter-pin Spacing a (m) C Pin Depth (cm) P Pin Depth (cm) Apparent Resistivity (Ωm) Resistivity (Ω-m) Probe Spacing (m)

80 GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST M2214 Fortune Mineral Ltd. Test Traverse 4 Location Langham, Saskatchewan Date 07 May 2010 Time 4:00 PM Weather Sunny/Clear Brief Description of terrain: Generally flat Inter-pin Spacing a (m) C Pin Depth (cm) P Pin Depth (cm) Apparent Resistivity (Ω-m) Resistivity (Ω-m) Probe Spacing (m) GROUND RESISTIVITY TEST M2214 Fortune Mineral Ltd. Test Traverse 5 Location Langham, Saskatchewan Date 07 May 2010 Time 4:14 PM Weather Sunny/Clear Brief Description of terrain: Generally flat Inter-pin Spacing a (m) C Pin Depth (cm) P Pin Depth (cm) Apparent Resistivity (Ω-m) Resistivity (Ω-m) Probe Spacing (m)

81 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Appendix D Laboratory Testing Results M Appendices

82 M Fortune Minerals Ltd. Saskatchewan Metals Processing Plant (SMPP) project Table D1 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Borehole No. Sample I.D. (ft) Depth (m) Dry Density (kg/m 3 ) Bulk Density (kg/m 3 ) Unit Weight (kn/m 3 ) Gravel (%) Grain Size San d (%) Silt Clay (%) (%) Unified Soil Classification USCS (ASTM D2487) Specific Gravity (fine Material) P.L. (%) L.L. (%) Atterberg Limits P.I. (%) Classification of Fine- Grained Soil/ Fined- Grained Fraction of Coarse-Grained Soil (by Plasticity Chart) Water Content (%) Unconfined Compression Strength, qu (kpa) Group Index CBR CTS CTS CL CL CTS CTS CL CL M CTS CL CL CTS CTS CL CL CTS CTS CL CH CTS CL CL CTS M CTS CTS CL CL CTS CL CL CTS CTS CL CH CTS CTS CL CL M CTS CTS CL CL CTS CL CL CTS CTS CTS CL CL CTS M CTS CL CL CTS CTS CTS SC/SM CTS CTS SC CH M CTS CL CL CTS CTS CL CL CTS CL CL CTS CL CL CTS CTS M CTS SC CL CTS CTS CL CL AL AL CL AL M AL CL AL AL AL AL CH AL M AL AL AL CTS CTS CH M CTS CTS

83 Borehole No. Sample I.D. (ft) Depth (m) Dry Density (kg/m 3 ) Bulk Density (kg/m 3 ) Unit Weight (kn/m 3 ) Gravel (%) Grain Size San d (%) Silt Clay (%) (%) Unified Soil Classification USCS (ASTM D2487) Specific Gravity (fine Material) P.L. (%) L.L. (%) Atterberg Limits P.I. (%) Classification of Fine- Grained Soil/ Fined- Grained Fraction of Coarse-Grained Soil (by Plasticity Chart) Water Content (%) Unconfined Compression Strength, qu (kpa) Group Index CBR CTS CTS M CTS CL CTS CL CTS CTS CTS M CTS CH CTS CTS CTS CTS CL M CTS CL CTS CTS CTS CL M CTS CL CTS CTS CL CTS M CTS CTS CL CTS CTS CH M CTS CTS CTS CTS CH M CTS CTS CTS CTS CL M CTS CTS CTS CTS CH M CTS CTS CTS CTS Non-Plastic Sand CTS M CTS CH CTS CTS CTS CTS CL M CTS CTS CTS M CTS CH CTS CTS M CTS CH CTS

84 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments: Date: 26-Apr-10 CTS-02 CTS-04 CTS ' 9' 15.5' 2A5 K3 5H CTS-12 CTS-18 CTS ' FF3 34' J21 4.5' O CTS-32 CTS-33 CTS-40 CTS-52 CTS ' 14' 28' 52' 7' CTS ' EFF 8A5 EE O2 M4 J CTS-74 CTS-79 CTS-84 CTS-86 CTS-94 CTS ' 49' 2' 7.5' 25' 34' 5H3 J17 O9 TT3 J44 K

85 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 26-Apr-10 Sample # CTS-107 CTS-111 CTS-113 CTS-117 CTS-130 CTS-137 Test Hole # Depth 59.5' 9' 13.5' 24' 54' 8" Tare # FF6 2X2 FF3 NCK EE 5X5 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-140 CTS-143 CTS-257 CTS-110 Test Hole # Depth 14' 19' 34' 5-6.5' Tare # K9 FFT M5 H2 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

86 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 18-May-10 Sample # ALO-101 ALO-102 ALO-103 ALO-104 ALO-105 ALO-106 Test Hole # Depth Tare # ZZ4 PP5 AA07 UFC AA18 CC21 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # ALO-201 ALO-202 ALO-203 ALO-204 ALO-205 ALO-206 Test Hole # Depth Tare # BB3 BB34 BB29 BB06 BB32 AA21 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

87 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 18-May-10 Sample # CTS-500 CTS-501 CTS-502 CTS-503 CTS-504 CTS-505 Test Hole # Depth Tare # AA11 BB02 AA15 BB01 BB16 ZZ7 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-506 CTS-507 CTS-508 CTS-509 CTS-510 CTS-511 Test Hole # Depth Tare # BB22 BB24 CC32 AA03 AA09 BB09 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-512 CTS-513 CTS-514 CTS-515 CTS-516 CTS-517 Test Hole # Depth Tare # PP34 AA06 BB11 BB07 AA02 PP4 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

88 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 18-May-10 Sample # CTS-518 CTS-519 CTS-520 CTS-521 CTS-522 CTS-523 Test Hole # Depth Tare # ZZ9 BB38 ZZ8 BB05 BB5 BB1 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-524 CTS-525 CTS-526 CTS-527 CTS-528 CTS-529 Test Hole # Depth Tare # BB37 BB26 BB41 ZZ5 BB23 BB36 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-530 CTS-531 CTS-532 CTS-533 CTS-534 CTS-535 Test Hole # Depth Tare # BB4 BB25 BB9 ZZ10 ZZ AA24 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

89 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 18-May-10 Sample # CTS-536 CTS-537 CTS-538 CTS-539 CTS-540 CTS-541 Test Hole # Depth Tare # BB14 CC10 BB08 PP9 BB10 AA13 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-542 CTS-543 CTS-544 CTS-545 CTS-546 CTS-547 Test Hole # Depth Tare # AA20 BB04 BB15 BB42 BB03 PP20 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # CTS-548 CTS-549 CTS-550 CTS-551 CTS-552 CTS-553 Test Hole # Depth Tare # ZZ? BB2 PP1 BB7 BB31 BB6 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

90 WATER CONTENTS Project: M2112 Location: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 18-May-10 Sample # CTS-554 CTS-555 CTS-556 CTS-557 Test Hole # Depth Tare # AA14 AA12 AA01 AA10 Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Sample # Test Hole # Depth Tare # Tare Mass (g) Wet sample + tare (g) Dry sample + tare (g) Wt. Dry sample (g) Water Content (%) Comments:

91 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: DG Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-04 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 2 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: M17 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.52 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.8 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.62 Comments:

92 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: DG Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-09 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 6 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: J71 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.19 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.9 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.63 Comments:

93 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-12 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 6 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: 7B5 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.61 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.1 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.70 Comments:

94 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-28 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 7 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: O9 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): 121 Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 1.68 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.5 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

95 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-32 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C1A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: O9 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.63 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.4 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.59 Comments:

96 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-40 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 6 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: 4A5 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.53 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 21.4 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.72 Comments:

97 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: TH Date: Jan 04/10 Sample: CTS-52 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C1A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: L25 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.75 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.8 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.59 Comments:

98 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-59 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 4 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: 5X5 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 2.23 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 18 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.71 Comments:

99 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-63 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 4 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: FF4 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.33 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.4 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.67 Comments:

100 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: DG Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-74 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 8 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: M3 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.70 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 17.7 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

101 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-79 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 7 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: O2 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.58 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.3 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

102 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-86 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 4 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: M3 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.33 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 18.9 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.59 Comments:

103 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-94 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C9A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: XXX Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.64 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.9 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

104 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-99 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 2 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: EE Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.29 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.5 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.67 Comments:

105 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-107 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C9A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: M17 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.26 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 23.1 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.63 Comments:

106 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-111 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C9A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: FF4 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 1.47 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.7 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.61 Comments:

107 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-113 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 4 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: 2X2 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.56 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.1 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.67 Comments:

108 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-117 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 8 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: M17 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.49 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 20.3 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.64 Comments:

109 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-130 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C1A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: FF3 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.50 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 21.6 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

110 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-137 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: C1A Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: J44 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.77 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22.3 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.64 Comments:

111 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 9/10 Sample: CTS-143 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 7 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: 5H3 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.86 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 17.8 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.68 Comments:

112 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: RM Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-145 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 2 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: XXO Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.63 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 22 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.71 Comments:

113 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (FINE MATERIAL) Project: M2112 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geotechnical Investigation Foundation Technician: DG Date: April 8/10 Sample: CTS-257 PYCNOMETER DATA: Pycnometer #: 8 Mass of pycnometer empty & dry (g): Mass of pycnometer with water (g): Temperature ( o C): PRE-TEST SAMPLE INFORMATION: Water Content (wet sample): Wet weight (g): Tare #: T1 Calc. Dry Weight (g): Tare Mass (g): Wet sample + tare (g): Dry sample + tare (g): Dry sample (g): Water Content (%): 0.76 POST-TEST INFORMATION: Mass of pycnometer, water, & sample (g): Temperature ( o C): 19.6 Mass of dry sample (g): Specific gravity: 2.66 Comments:

114 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-04 # DATE: 11-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 43 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 55 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

115 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-09 # DATE: 18-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 48 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 52 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

116 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-12 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 1 # % SAND 43 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 56 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

117 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-18 # DATE: 11-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 41 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 56 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

118 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-28 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 3 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 97 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

119 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-32 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 40 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 57 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

120 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-40 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 44 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 54 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

121 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-52 # DATE: 29-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 41 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 56 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

122 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-59 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 1 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 99 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

123 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-63 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 1 # % SAND 40 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 59 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

124 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-74 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 41 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 57 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

125 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-79 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 40 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 58 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

126 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-86 # DATE: 11-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 44 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 53 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

127 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-94 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 43 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 54 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

128 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-99 # DATE: 26-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 43 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 55 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

129 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-107 # DATE: 24-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 85 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 15 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

130 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-108 # DATE: 11-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 74 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 26 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

131 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-111 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL # % SAND 1 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 99 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

132 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-113 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 1 # % SAND 34 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 65 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

133 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS117 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 4 # % SAND 41 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 55 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

134 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-130 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 38 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 59 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

135 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-137 # DATE: 26-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 44 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 54 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

136 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-143 # DATE: 11-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 2 # % SAND 49 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 49 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

137 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-145 # DATE: 24-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 10 # % SAND 51 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 39 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

138 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 422) Sieve Analysis Diameter Sieve (mm) % Finer 3" " " CLIENT: Fortune Minerals 3/4" PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Foundations 3/8" MDH Job No: M # SAMPLE: CTS-257 # DATE: 22-Apr-10 # PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY # % GRAVEL 3 # % SAND 42 # % FINES (SILT, CLAY) 55 # Hydrometer Analysis Dispersing agent: COMMENTS: Sodium Hexametaphosphate Dosage of dispersing agent: g/l U.S. Standard Sieve #200 #100 #60 #40 #20 #10 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 6" 10" Percent Finer Than Grain Size (mm) FINES (SILT, CLAY) Fine SAND Medium Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS 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.

139 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-04 (air-dried) 9' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A DG 20/4/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 66A ADT Tare # 10A Z5 TLL Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.9% 13.1% 13.0% Water content 28.2% 24.7% 23.7% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.0% Liquid Limit: 25.7% Plasticity Index: 12.7% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

140 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-09 (air-dried) 15.5' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A DG 19/4/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # MVP 46A Tare # 1J T8A T5 Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.3% 13.5% 13.4% Water content 28.1% 26.0% 23.6% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.4% Liquid Limit: 26.5% Plasticity Index: 13.1% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

141 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-12 (air-dried) 23' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A RG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # PA L2 Tare # Z2 44A 1A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.6% 13.7% 13.7% Water content 29.2% 27.8% 26.1% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.7% Liquid Limit: 27.6% Plasticity Index: 13.9% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 30.0% 29.5% 29.0% 28.5% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 26.5% 26.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

142 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-18 (air-dried) 34' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A DG 4-Sep-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # B3 L2 Tare # 1A 40A 46A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.8% 13.8% 13.3% Water content 30.1% 27.9% 25.3% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.3% Liquid Limit: 27.8% Plasticity Index: 14.5% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

143 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-28 (air-dried) - Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations TH/DG 21/4/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 29A 23A Tare # B7 YAN MDH Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 28.7% 28.3% 28.5% Water content 82.8% 77.3% 75.2% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 28.5% Liquid Limit: 79.5% Plasticity Index: 51.0% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 83% 82% 81% 80% 79% 78% 77% 76% 75% 74% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

144 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-32 (air-dried) - Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) TH 7-Apr-2010 # of Blows Tare # ADT MDH Tare # T8A L2 PA Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.1% 12.3% 12.2% Water content 30.9% 29.3% 27.4% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.2% Liquid Limit: 29.4% Plasticity Index: 17.2% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 31.0% 30.5% 30.0% 29.5% 29.0% 28.5% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

145 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-40 (air-dried) 28' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations RG 24-Apr-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 2J T9B Tare # MCA TLL ADT Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.2% 12.3% 12.2% Water content 28.8% 26.7% 25.2% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.2% Liquid Limit: 26.9% Plasticity Index: 14.7% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 29.0% 28.5% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 26.5% 26.0% 25.5% 25.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

146 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-52 (air-dried) 52' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M2112 CH 25-Apr-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # MDH 6A Tare # B7 17A 48A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 11.5% 11.7% 11.6% Water content 29.9% 27.7% 25.6% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 11.6% Liquid Limit: 27.4% Plasticity Index: 15.8% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

147 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-59 (air-dried) 7' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 9-Apr-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 54A 1A Tare # B4 OBI 40A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 23.4% 23.0% 23.2% Water content 52.1% 51.0% 48.4% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 23.2% Liquid Limit: 50.9% Plasticity Index: 27.7% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

148 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-63 (air-dried) - Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 4-Sep-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # B4 OBI Tare # 1A 21A MCA Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.7% 12.3% 12.5% Water content 27.8% 24.4% 23.9% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.5% Liquid Limit: 26.0% Plasticity Index: 13.5% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

149 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-74 (air-dried) 38' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A DG 7-Apr-2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # YAN MCA Tare # 4A Z2 21A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.1% 13.3% 13.2% Water content 28.6% 27.4% 26.0% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.2% Liquid Limit: 27.6% Plasticity Index: 14.4% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 29.0% 28.5% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 26.5% 26.0% 25.5% 25.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

150 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-79 (air-dried) 49' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 2J 6A Tare # 9A TRAN 13A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 14.1% 13.5% 13.8% Water content 29.2% 25.3% 23.0% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.8% Liquid Limit: 25.3% Plasticity Index: 11.5% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

151 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-86 (air-dried) 7.5' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 20/4/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 40A L2 Tare # 54A PA 47A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 12.5% 12.4% 12.4% Water content 25.8% 24.7% 23.1% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.4% Liquid Limit: 24.6% Plasticity Index: 12.2% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 26.0% 25.5% 25.0% 24.5% 24.0% 23.5% 23.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

152 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-94 (air-dried) 25' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # YAN L2 Tare # ADT 29A T8A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 11.7% 11.2% 11.5% Water content 26.5% 25.9% 24.8% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 11.5% Liquid Limit: 25.4% Plasticity Index: 14.0% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 27.0% 26.5% 26.0% 25.5% 25.0% 24.5% 24.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

153 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-111 (air-dried) 9' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # Z2 PA Tare # 23A TELL B7 Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 22.9% 22.1% 22.5% Water content 54.2% 50.9% 47.2% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 22.5% Liquid Limit: 50.8% Plasticity Index: 28.4% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48% 47% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

154 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-113 (air-dried) 14 Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A RG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # T7M 66A Tare # S2A T9B 4J Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 14.4% 13.7% 14.1% Water content 32.4% 31.1% 29.5% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 14.1% Liquid Limit: 31.1% Plasticity Index: 17.0% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 33.0% 32.5% 32.0% 31.5% 31.0% 30.5% 30.0% 29.5% 29.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

155 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-117 (air-dried) 24' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # Z2 66A Tare # TAK Z5 44A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.1% 12.6% 12.8% Water content 24.6% 23.8% 21.2% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.8% Liquid Limit: 23.6% Plasticity Index: 10.8% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 25.0% 24.5% 24.0% 23.5% 23.0% 22.5% 22.0% 21.5% 21.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

156 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-130 (air-dried) 54' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A CG 26/3/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 40A 54A Tare # 4A MDH PPE Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.0% 12.9% 12.9% Water content 26.3% 24.9% 23.9% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.9% Liquid Limit: 25.4% Plasticity Index: 12.4% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 27.0% 26.5% 26.0% 25.5% 25.0% 24.5% 24.0% 23.5% 23.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

157 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-137 (air-dried) 8' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) CL 7-Apr-2010 # of Blows Tare # 66A 47A Tare # OBI B2 R2 Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% Water content 28.6% 26.7% 24.5% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.4% Liquid Limit: 26.6% Plasticity Index: 13.2% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

158 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-143 (air-dried) 19' Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations M A Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) CL 7-Apr-2010 # of Blows Tare # MDH 20A Tare # 65A 48A 3J Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.4% 13.5% 13.5% Water content 24.5% 22.7% 20.8% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.5% Liquid Limit: 22.6% Plasticity Index: 9.1% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 25.0% 24.5% 24.0% 23.5% 23.0% 22.5% 22.0% 21.5% 21.0% 20.5% 20.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

159 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-257 (air-dried) - Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Foundations DG 20/4/2010 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # 23A 29A Tare # PE 4A 46A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.1% 12.5% 12.8% Water content 30.7% 30.4% 29.7% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 12.8% Liquid Limit: 30.5% Plasticity Index: 17.7% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 31.0% 30.5% 30.0% 29.5% 29.0% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

160 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-501 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: CCB 21-May-2010 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) NA # of Blows Tare # 52A 55A Tare # 46A 64A 16A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 21.1% 21.3% 21.2% Water content 93.5% 85.4% 79.0% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 21.2% Liquid Limit: 84.2% Plasticity Index: 63.0% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

161 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: JI Date: 18-May-2010 Sample: CTS-506 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # A18 A37 Tare # A24 6A 37A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 20.7% 20.5% 20.6% Water content 39.2% 37.8% 43.3% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 20.6% Liquid Limit: 40.2% Plasticity Index: 19.6% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% 39% 38% 37% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

162 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-507 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: CCB 21-May-2010 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) NA # of Blows Tare # 21A 70A Tare # T8A 1A 69A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 9.4% 9.0% 9.2% Water content 31.1% 28.1% 25.2% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 9.2% Liquid Limit: 27.9% Plasticity Index: 18.7% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

163 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-511 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) JI 18-May-2010 NA # of Blows Tare # 17A 1A Tare # B7 48A 21A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 26.7% 25.7% 26.2% Water content 64.0% 60.1% 55.4% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 26.2% Liquid Limit: 60.8% Plasticity Index: 34.6% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 65% 63% 61% 59% 57% 55% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

164 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-515 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) BP 18-May-2010 NA # of Blows Tare # 2J 27A Tare # 44A 69A 70A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 11.6% 11.1% 11.3% Water content 29.9% 27.5% 25.6% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 11.3% Liquid Limit: 27.9% Plasticity Index: 16.6% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

165 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-516 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: CCB 21-May-2010 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) NA # of Blows Tare # 28A A18 Tare # 44A 37A TRN Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 9.8% 9.4% 9.6% Water content 29.6% 27.1% 24.6% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 9.6% Liquid Limit: 27.0% Plasticity Index: 17.4% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

166 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project Geological Investigation Storage Facilities MDH Job No: M Technician: JI Date: 21-May-2010 Sample: CTS-520 (air-dried) Task 1 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # T9B B7 Tare # A47 54A PPE Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 10.5% 10.2% 10.3% Water content 28.8% 26.3% 25.1% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 10.3% Liquid Limit: 26.2% Plasticity Index: 15.9% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

167 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project Geological Investigation Storage Facilities MDH Job No: M Technician: JI Date: 21-May-2010 Sample: CTS-525 (air-dried) Task 1 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: NA Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # MSS 68A Tare # MCA 65A T100 Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% Water content 31.0% 28.6% 25.4% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 13.3% Liquid Limit: 27.5% Plasticity Index: 14.2% Classification: CL Natural Water Content: n/a Water Content (%) 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25 blows 10 # of Blows % Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

168 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project Fortune Minerals Ltd. Test Pits MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-539 (air-dried) Task 6 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) JI 25-May-2010 NA # of Blows Tare # A21 OBI Tare # 1A TAK 68A Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 26.2% 25.4% 25.8% Water content 56.5% 53.4% 50.8% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 25.8% Liquid Limit: 52.9% Plasticity Index: 27.1% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

169 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-543 (air-dried) Task 2 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) # of Blows Tare # Tare # Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Dry + Tare, g Tare Wt, g Wet + tare, g Dry + tare, g M% Water content Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Storage Facilities JI 18-May-2010 NA SUMMARY Plastic Limit: Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Classification: Non-Plastic Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% 39% 38% 37% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: Could not roll Plastic Limit - too Sandy 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.

170 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-545 (air-dried) Task 2 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Storage Facilities DK 21-May-2010 NA # of Blows Tare # 13A 38A Tare # 52A 55A 1J Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 32.8% 33.7% 33.2% Water content 86.9% 85.4% 80.1% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 33.2% Liquid Limit: 83.7% Plasticity Index: 50.5% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 80% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

171 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT (Test Reference: ASTM D 4318) Client: Project MDH Job No: M Technician: Date: Sample: CTS-556 (air-dried) Task 2 Percentage of sample retained on 425-um (No. 40) sieve: Plastic Limit Liquid Limit (method A) Fortune Minerals Ltd. Geological Investigation Storage Facilities DK 26-May-2010 NA # of Blows Tare # TAK T7M Tare # 13A 58A T100 Tare Wt, g Tare Wt, g Wet + Tare, g Wet + tare, g Dry + Tare, g average Dry + tare, g M% 28.1% 28.0% 28.1% Water content 72.1% 62.4% 58.6% SUMMARY Plastic Limit: 28.1% Liquid Limit: 64.7% Plasticity Index: 36.7% Classification: CH Natural Water Content: 70% n/a Water Content (%) 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 58% 25 blows 10 # of Blows 100 Plasticity Index, PI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL U-line A-line CH or OH MH or OH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Liquid Limit Comments: - 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.

172 Group Index Results Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project # M2112 Task 6 Date May 21/10 Hole Number Depth 3.5' 5' 4' 2' 3.5' Sample Name CTS-501 CTS-506 CTS-511 CTS-515 CTS-539 Non-Plastic (y/n) n n n n n Plastic Limit Liquid Limit PI % Passing # # # T (LL) U (-71) I (PI) M (-71) Hole # Depth 3.5' 5' 4' 2' 3.5' Sample Name CTS-501 CTS-506 CTS-511 CTS-515 CTS-539 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Plastic Index Group Index Unified Class CH CL CH CL CH

173 Group Index Results Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project # M2112 Task 2 Date May 21/10 Hole Number Depth 2' 3.5' Sample Name CTS-543 CTS-556 Non-Plastic (y/n) y n Plastic Limit 28.1 Liquid Limit 64.7 PI % Passing # # # T (LL) U (-71) I (PI) M (-71) ' 3.5' Hole # Depth 2' 3.5' Sample Name CTS-543 CTS-556 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Plastic Index NP 36.6 Group Index Unified Class NP-sand CH

174 Group Index Results Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project # M2112 HOLE NUMBER DEPTH 3' 3' 4' 1.5' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' SAMPLE # ALO 102 ALO 202 CTS 519 CTS 522 CTS 527 CTS 531 CTS 535 CTS 549 CTS 553 PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT AVG PLASTIC INDEX GROUP INDEX UNIFIED CLASS CL CH CL CL CH CH CL CL CH 2mm mm mm

175 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH 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, % B71 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2259 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2020 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 11.8% Degree of Saturation = 0.95 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.26 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 2.00 Medium strain rate = 0.88 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 282 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

176 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-013 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % 1TI Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2201 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2002 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 10.0% Degree of Saturation = 0.77 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 6.88 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 2.24 Medium strain rate = 0.83 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 321 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

177 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-21 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % J71 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2301 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2058 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 11.8% Degree of Saturation = 1.00 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.23 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.90 Medium strain rate = 0.93 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 730 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

178 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-39 25'-26.5' Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % TFF Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2272 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2071 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 9.7% Degree of Saturation = 0.86 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.25 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.92 Medium strain rate = 0.91 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 407 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

179 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 29-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-054 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % M5 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2311 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2133 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 8.4% Degree of Saturation = 0.85 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 6.95 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 2.09 Medium strain rate = 0.88 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 421 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % pre-test compressive stress, kpa % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% axial strain, % post-test 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.

180 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 29-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-060 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % 3X3 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 1953 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 1592 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 22.7% Degree of Saturation = 0.88 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.22 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 2.02 Medium strain rate = 0.87 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 123 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

181 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS '-24' Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % K14 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2300 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2103 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 9.4% Degree of Saturation = 0.89 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.23 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.96 Medium strain rate = 0.90 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 518 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

182 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 16-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-82 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % H9 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2253 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2067 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 9.0% Degree of Saturation = 0.80 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.27 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.93 Medium strain rate = 0.91 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 513 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 2% 4% 6% 8% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

183 Sample: CTS-092 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 29-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample too fragile to attempt to trim closer to a 2:1 ratio NCK Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2236 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2063 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 8.4% Degree of Saturation = 0.73 = 6.41 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.79 Medium strain rate = 1.11 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 680 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % pre-test compressive stress, kpa % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% axial strain, % post-test 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.

184 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 29-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample too fragile to attempt to trim closer to a 2:1 Sample: CTS-115 ratio Specimen Data Tare No: J17 Mass of test specimen, g = Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2274 Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2081 Weight of Tare, g = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) Water content, % = 9.2% Degree of Saturation = 0.84 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.27 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.82 Medium strain rate = 0.96 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 664 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % compressive stress, kpa % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% axial strain, % pre-test post-test 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.

185 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Report (Reference Standards: ASTM D2166) Client: Fortune Minerals Ltd. Project: M Geotechnical Investigation Foundations Date: 29-Apr-10 Tested by: RG Checked by: DH Sample: CTS-141 Specimen Data Tare No: Weight of Specimen Wet + Tare, g Weight of Specimen Dry + Tare, g Weight of Tare, g Water content, % 4A5 Mass of test specimen, g = = Wet density, kg/m 3 = 2287 = Dry density, kg/m 3 = 2056 = Specific Gravity = 2.70 (assumed) = 11.2% Degree of Saturation = 0.97 Initial Diameter, D o, cm Initial Area, A o, cm 2 Initial Height, L o, cm Initial Volume, V o, cm 3 = 7.30 Stress = load/(corr. area) Consistency q u, kpa = corr. Area = A o /(1 - unit strain) Very soft 0-24 = unit strain = L/L o Soft = L o /D o = 1.93 Medium strain rate = 0.90 %/min Stiff Very stiff Unconfined Compressive Strength, q u = 286 kpa Hard >383 Elapsed Load-cell Total Time Dial Axial Strain Strain, Corrected Stress, (min) Reading Load, kg Dial mm Unit Strain Area, cm 2 kpa % % % % % % % % % pre-test compressive stress, kpa % 1% 2% 3% 4% axial strain, % post-test 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.

186 Fortune Minerals Ltd. M '-31.5' 250 Shear Strength, kpa τ= 25 + σ n tan 30 τ= 2 + σ n tan 29 Peak Residual Linear (Best fit residual) Linear (Best fit peak) Normal Stress, kpa

187 Fortune Minerals Ltd. M '-9' 100 Shear Strength, kpa τ= 14 + σ n tan 30 τ= 5 + σ n tan 28 Peak Residual Linear (Best fit residual) Linear (Best fit peak) Normal Stress, kpa

188 Fortune Minerals Ltd. M Shear Strength, kpa τ= 13 + σ n tan 32 τ= 5 + σ n tan 29 Peak Residual Linear (Best fit residual) Linear (Best fit peak) Normal Stress, kpa

189 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M2112 Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 30-Mar-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-60 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated Input: Calculations: Diameter of ring: mm Cross-sectional area: cm 2 3.2E-03 m 2 Height of sample: mm Volume of solids: cc 4.1E-05 m 3 Specific gravity: 2.70 (actual) Total volume: cc (prior to loading) Initial wet sample mass: g Volume of voids: cc (prior to loading) Initial water content: 12.5 % Initial void ratio: 0.49 (prior to loading) Initial LVDT reading: mm Dry mass of solids: g Final dry mass of sample: g Initial wet density: 2033 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Mechanical Advantage: Initial dry density: 1814 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Deviation intervals mm Initial LVDT reading: mm At End of Primary Consolidation Coefficient of Consolidation Loading Increment Pressure (kpa) R 100 (mm) Uncorrected Sample Height (mm) Equipment Compressibility (mm) Corrected Sample Height (mm) Volume of Sample (cc) Volume of Voids (cc) Void Ratio Average Void Ratio R 50 (mm) Corrected Sample Height at R 50 (mm) H D50 (mm) time50 (sec) Coefficient of Consolidation c v (cm 2 /s) coefficient of compressibility a v (per kpa) swelling E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

190 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M2112 Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 30-Mar-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-60 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated 0.70 p o = ~ 100 kpa Void Ratio Effective Stress (kpa) E-05 1E-04 1E-03 1E-02 Coefficient of Consolidation (cm 2 /sec)

191 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M A Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 12-Apr-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-68 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated Input: Calculations: Diameter of ring: mm Cross-sectional area: cm 2 3.2E-03 m 2 Height of sample: mm Volume of solids: cc 4.4E-05 m 3 Specific gravity: 2.70 (assumed) Total volume: cc (prior to loading) Initial wet sample mass: g Volume of voids: cc (prior to loading) Initial water content: 9.1 % Initial void ratio: 0.32 (prior to loading) Initial LVDT reading: mm Dry mass of solids: g Final dry mass of sample: g Initial wet density: 2229 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Mechanical Advantage: Initial dry density: 2042 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Deviation intervals mm Initial LVDT reading: 7.67 mm At End of Primary Consolidation Coefficient of Consolidation Loading Increment Pressure (kpa) R 100 (mm) Uncorrected Sample Height (mm) Equipment Compressibility (mm) Corrected Sample Height (mm) Volume of Sample (cc) Volume of Voids (cc) Void Ratio Average Void Ratio R 50 (mm) Corrected Sample Height at R 50 (mm) H D50 (mm) time50 (sec) Coefficient of Consolidation c v (cm 2 /s) coefficient of compressibility a v (per kpa) swelling E E E E E E E E E E E E E

192 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M A Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 12-Apr-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-68 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated 0.40 p o = ~ 275 kpa Void Ratio Effective Stress (kpa) E-05 1E-04 1E-03 1E-02 Coefficient of Consolidation (cm 2 /sec)

193 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M A Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 12-Apr-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-82 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated Input: Calculations: Diameter of ring: mm Cross-sectional area: cm 2 3.2E-03 m 2 Height of sample: mm Volume of solids: cc 4.4E-05 m 3 Specific gravity: 2.67 (actual) Total volume: cc (prior to loading) Initial wet sample mass: g Volume of voids: cc (prior to loading) Initial water content: 9.0 % Initial void ratio: 0.34 (prior to loading) Initial LVDT reading: mm Dry mass of solids: g Final dry mass of sample: g Initial wet density: 2177 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Mechanical Advantage: Initial dry density: 1995 kg/m 3 (prior to loading) Deviation intervals mm Initial LVDT reading: 7.22 mm At End of Primary Consolidation Coefficient of Consolidation Loading Increment Pressure (kpa) R 100 (mm) Uncorrected Sample Height (mm) Equipment Compressibility (mm) Corrected Sample Height (mm) Volume of Sample (cc) Volume of Voids (cc) Void Ratio Average Void Ratio R 50 (mm) Corrected Sample Height at R 50 (mm) H D50 (mm) time50 (sec) Coefficient of Consolidation c v (cm 2 /s) coefficient of compressibility a v (per kpa) swelling E E E E E E E E E E E E E

194 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test - ASTM D 2435 Project No: M A Project Name Fortune Minerals Ltd. Date: 12-Apr-10 Tech: TH Sample No: CTS-82 Checked by: JG Test Procedure: Trimmed from shelby specimen Method of testing: Method B Condition of test: inundated 0.40 p o = ~ 200 kpa Void Ratio Effective Stress (kpa) E-05 1E-04 1E-03 1E-02 Coefficient of Consolidation (cm 2 /sec)

195 MDH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CORP. ATTN: MICHELLE STURBY RESEARCH DRIVE Certificate of Analysis Report Date: Version: 30-MAR-10 16:10 (MT) FINAL SASKATOON SK S7N 3R2 Lab Work Order #: L Date Received: 25-MAR-10 Project P.O. #: Job Reference: Legal Site Desc: CofC Numbers: NOT SUBMITTED M2112 C 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: Fax: A Campbell Brothers Limited Company

196 M2112 ALS LABORATORY GROUP ANALYTICAL REPORT L CONTD... PAGE 2 of 5 Sample Details/Parameters Result Qualifier* D.L. Units Extracted Analyzed Batch L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS - 33 NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS - 02 NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS - 84 NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R * Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

197 M2112 ALS LABORATORY GROUP ANALYTICAL REPORT L CONTD... PAGE 3 of 5 Sample Details/Parameters Result Qualifier* D.L. Units Extracted Analyzed Batch L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS - 59 NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R L Sampled By: Matrix: CTS NOT PROVIDED on 23-MAR-10 SOIL Detailed Salinity Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) Chloride (Cl) SAR, Cations and SO4 in saturated soil Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) SAR Sulfur (as SO4) Saturated Paste ph and EC % Saturation ph in Saturated Paste Conductivity Sat. Paste mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l SAR mg/l % ph ds m-1 30-MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR MAR-10 R R R R R R R R R R * Refer to Referenced Information for Qualifiers (if any) and Methodology.

198 M2112 Reference Information L CONTD... PAGE 4 of 5 QC Samples with Qualifiers & Comments: QC Type Description Parameter Duplicate Calcium (Ca) Duplicate Magnesium (Mg) Duplicate Potassium (K) Duplicate Sodium (Na) Duplicate Sulfur (as SO4) Internal Reference Material Calcium (Ca) Internal Reference Material Magnesium (Mg) Internal Reference Material Potassium (K) Internal Reference Material Sodium (Na) Internal Reference Material Sulfur (as SO4) Sample Parameter Qualifier Key: Qualifier Description Qualifier DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA DLA Applies to Sample Number(s) L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 L , -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 DLA Detection Limit Adjusted For required dilution Test Method References: ALS Test Code Matrix Test Description Method Reference** CL-SAR-SK Soil Chloride (Cl) (Saturated Paste) 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 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. 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 SAT/PH/EC-SK Soil Saturated Paste ph and EC CSSS(1978)3.14, 3.21 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. 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 ph Reference: References: McKeague, J.A 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 ** 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 SK Laboratory Location ALS LABORATORY GROUP - SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA

199 M2112 Reference Information L CONTD... PAGE 5 of 5 Test Method References: ALS Test Code Matrix Test Description Method Reference** Chain of Custody Numbers: C 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.

200 Fortune Minerals Ltd. SMPP Project - Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Report June 2010 Appendix E Occupation Health and Safety - Excavation M Appendices

201 131 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 O-1.1 REG 1 Interpretation 257 In this Part: PART XVII Excavations, Trenches, Tunnels and Excavated Shafts (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) can be excavated only by mechanical equipment; (vi) 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) has no signs of water seepage; (vi) does not include previously excavated soils;

202 132 O-1.1 REG 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 (g) (h) 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; 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.

203 133 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 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;

204 134 O-1.1 REG 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 (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.

205 135 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 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 engineer s 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.

206 136 O-1.1 REG 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 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. (2) 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 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. (3) An employer or contractor shall ensure that a temporary protective structure 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.

207 137 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 O-1.1 REG 1 Excavated shafts and tunnels 264(1) An employer or contractor shall ensure that: (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 265(1) An employer or contractor shall ensure that: (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.

208 252 O-1.1 REG 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, 1996 TABLE 17 [Sections 262 and 263] Excavation and Trench Shoring Trench or Soil Braces Excavation Type Depth Uprights Width of Excavation or Trench at Brace Wales Location Brace Spacing 1.8 m to 3.6 m Up to 1.8 m Vertical Horizontal 3.0 m or less 1 50 mm x 200 mm at 1.2 m o/c 200 mm x 200 mm 150 mm x 150 mm 1.2 m *2.4 m *200 mm x 200 mm 2 50 mm x 200 mm at 1.2 m o/c 200 mm x 200 mm 150 mm x 150 mm 1.2 m *2.4 m *200 mm x 200 mm 3 50 mm x 200 mm at 10 mm gap 200 mm x 200 mm 200 mm x 200 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 250 mm x 250 mm 4 75 mm x 200 mm at 10 mm gap 250 mm x 250 mm 200 mm x 200 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 300 mm x 300 mm Over 1 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 200 mm x 200 mm 150 mm x 150 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 200 mm x 200 mm 3.0 m to 4.5 m 2 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 200 mm x 200 mm 200 mm x 200 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 250 mm x 250 mm 3 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 250 mm x 250 mm 250 mm x 250 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 250 mm x 250 mm Over 3.0 m to 4.0 m 4 75 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 300 mm x 300 mm 300 mm x 300 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 300 mm x 300 mm Over 1 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 200 mm x 200 mm 200 mm x 200 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 200 mm x 200 mm 4.5 m to 6.0 m 2 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 250 mm x 250 mm 250 mm x 250 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 250 mm x 250 mm 3 50 mm x 200 mm with 10 mm gap 300 mm x 300 mm 300 mm x 300 mm 1.2 m 2.4 m 300 mm x 300 mm * 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.