Technical Memorandum

Internal use only

October 9, 2023

To Rikito Gresswell
Copy to Brendan Duffy, Ben HJansen (technical reviewer).
From Laura Gomez Project No. 12521481
Project Name EAY-M Yallourn Mine Rehabilitation Hydrogeological Modelling
Subject Latrobe Valley West HydroGgeological Model

1. Introduction
GHD has beenwas engaged by EnergyAustralia Yallourn (EAY) to build a 3D groundwater model of the
Yallourn Mine and surrounds in order to assess inform the hydrogeological impacts of the future rehabilitation
plans for the mine. A conceptual hydrogeological model was initially developed based on the data compiled
until 2023 to provide the basis for the subsequent numerical modelling that will be used to quantify the
hydrogeological effects of rehabilitation scenarios (GHD, 2023).
Based on this conceptual representation, a 3D geological model was firstly assembled to create a
stratigraphic framework that described the nature and extent of the main hydrostratigraphic units and their
contact relationships across the Latrobe Valley, integrating the interpretation of existing models into a larger
regional model. The model was developed using the available historical data provided to GHD by
EnergyAustralia Yallourn (EAY) for Yallourn mine and Engie for Hazelwood mine area, and their interpretation
was integrated with the existing public data across the region.

1.1 Purpose of this Memorandum

This technical memorandum details the data that was used to build the model, its main components, the
workflow followed and the data gaps that were identified in the process. The purpose of this 3D geological
model is to act as a stratigraphic skeleton for the numerical groundwater model. Some simplifications were
necessary to merge datasets from different sources and with different resolutions. Thus, it should not be
intended to be used for any other analysis or design purpose.

1.2 Scope and limitations Commented [LG1]: Attach document GHD 3D

Geological Model Limitations-
This technical memorandum has been prepared by GHD for internal use only since it covers datasets provided by two LVW5_North_Yallourn.docx
different clients. It is not prepared as, and is not represented to be, a deliverable suitable for reliance by any person for
any purpose. It is not intended for circulation or incorporation into other documents. The matters discussed in this
memorandum are limited to those specifically detailed in the memorandum and are subject to any limitations or
assumptions specially set out.
The geological model limitations are discussed in more detail in the corresponding document, GHD 3D Geological Model
Limitations- LVW5_North_Yallourn.docx

The Power of Commitment

12521481 1
2. Geology

2.1 Regional geology

The abundance of resources in the Latrobe Valley has captivated researchers' attention since the 1950s,
leading to numerous detailed studies that extensively described the geology of the area (Birch, 2003;
Holdgate, 1983; Holdgate, 2003; Holdgate, et.al., 2015; Holdgate and Sluiter, 2021). The Yallourn
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model Report (GHD, 2023) summarizes some of these findings, emphasizing
the main stratigraphic units and geological features in the area. Map in Figure 2 illustrates the main structural
lineaments and the surface geology.
While a comprehensive discussion of the region's geology exceeds the scope of this memo, it's important to
acknowledge that the stratigraphic framework developed by Holdgate et. al. (2021) has been adopted for the
integration of diverse sets of geological information within the study area (Figure 1). This will be discussed in
more detail in section 3.2.

Figure 1 Stratigraphy within the various structural depressions in the onshore Gippsland Basin (Holdgate, et. al., 2021)

2.2 Pre-existing geological models

The Digital Geological Model of the Latrobe Valley Coal Resource (Jansen et al, 2003) was one of the first
attempts to create a three-dimensional regional model that represented the distribution of brown coal layers
across the Latrobe Valley. This model comprised the roofs and floors of 18 coal seams between the base of

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 2
the Haunted Hills Formation (HHF) and the Top of the Strzelecki Group. Both surfaces were also included in
the 200 m resolution model using the data from 8,000 bores across the valley, with a regular spacing of 400
meters. The associated interseams were not included in this model, nor were the main structural features of
the region, since the main focus was the coal seam strata for resources evaluation. Further studies in 2008
and 2011 extended the domain to include the Moe Swamp Basin to the northwest, and the southeastern area
of the Gippsland Basin, adding other geological units such as the Thorpdale and Carrajung Volcanics.
However, the deeper stratigraphic layers were rarely drilled, and their distribution was poorly constrained.
Detailed geological models also exist for the individual mines, which are developed and maintained by each
of the three Latrobe Valley coal operators. The geological model of the Yallourn Mine was developed in
Minescape platform, similarly, focussed on coal seam layers. Aquifer layers were later included, with current
model comprising 21 layers based on 3,955 bores and a grid resolution of 50 m (GHD, 2012). One of the
limitations of this model is the localised data in Maryvale Field with poor information of aquifer layers outside
the mining area.
The first geological model of the Hazelwood (Morwell) Mine was developed in Minescape but in about 2011
this was ported to a Vulcan platform with a higher resolution grid of 25 m. Data from 4,800 boreholes was
used to build 50 stratigraphic layers comprising from the HHF Floor to the base of the M2 Traralgon Formation
Aquifer System. Additional aquifer layers were included in the Vulcan build.
The extension of the 3 geological models across the study area is shown in Figure 2, while Table 1 compares
the main characteristics of these 3 models:
Table 1 Existing geological models at mine scale

Hazelwood Yallourn Regional

Model Vulcan Minescape Victorian Regional Geological Coal Model
Minescape
Year 1980s -– 2015 -– regular 1980s -– 2012 -– regular 2002 (updates in 2008 & 2011)
updates updates
Coord SECV Local Grid SECV Local Grid SECV Local Grid
System
Status Updated by mine geologists maintained on site by EAY- 2011 update to include Moe Swamp Basin
GHD
Resolution 25 x 25 m 50 x 50 m 200 x 200 m / 400 m interpolation
Hz Extent Hazelwood mine Yallourn mine Moe Swamp Basin to Gippsland SE coast
(67 km2) (72 km2) (2750 km2)
Vert Top: Base of Haunted Hills Fm Top: Base of Haunted Hills Fm Top: Base of Haunted Hills Fm
Extent Base: M2C Sand Roof Base: M2B Floor -– Basement Base: Top Basement
Input 4,800 boreholes -– 50 layers 3,955 bores -– 21 layers 8000 boreholes -– 18 coal seams + 2 layers

3. 3D Geological Model

3.1 General
A new The ‘Latrobe Valley West’ 3D geological model has been developed using the software program
Leapfrog Works (Version 2022.1.1). Leapfrog is a 3D subsurface modelling program, which (similar to
Minescape and Vulcan) uses implicit modelling to combine scattered data from ground investigations as well
as geological interpretations to build a dynamic 3D model. The software is based on the FastRBF™ algorithm
which allows updates with new data or additional interpretations.
The 3D model focused on the Western region of the Latrobe Valley, covering a total area of 1125 km², with
Yallourn and Hazelwood both mines strategically positioned near the central point of the model domain
(Figure 2). The large domain is designed to minimise boundary-induced effects in the numerical model and
to include the principal hydrological features. The domain extends into the Moe Swamp Basin, west of the
Yallourn Mine, to assess the potential hydraulic connection across the Haunted Hills Fault/Yallourn
Monocline. To the west of the Hazelwood Mine, it encompasses the Narracan Block, where the Thorpdale
Volcanics outcrop and could represent an aquifer depressurisation pathway (GHD, 2023).

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 3
The coordinate system adopted for the model was GDA94 - MGA Zone 55 as defined by the groundwater
numerical model. Some of the original datasets obtained from the existing mine models were referenced to
the local grid SECV Latrobe Valley. These have been reprojected to GDA94 - MGA55 using the GIS
coordinate projection tool.
The model's resolution was adaptive, featuring a general cell size of 200 x 200 m that decreased to 50 x 50
m in the mine areas with available higher-resolution data (Table 1).
One of the main differences between this model and previous studies lies in its comprehensive evaluation to
meet the specific demands of the numerical modelling, covering all the main geological units from the surface Commented [BJ2]: The number of geological units is
terrain elevation down to the basement. The objective was to secure a detailed representation of all the subject to interpretation. Perhaps the word "all" is to
aquifers and aquitards in the area, irrespective of considerations such as coal resources or the availability of definitive in this case and should be replaced by "major"
drilling data. or "selected".

Figure 2 Geological Map showing the location of LVW Model and pre-existing models

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 4
3.2 Geological model units
Geological model units were defined based on the layers of the Latrobe Group previously depicted in the pre-
existing geological models and the main aquifer systems, previously described in the Hydrogeological
Conceptual Model (GHD, 2023):
 Shallow Aquifer System (SAS): Haunted Hills and Hazelwood Formations, Yallourn Interseam
 Morwell Formation Aquifer System (MFAS): M1, M1A, M1B, M2A, M2B and M2C Aquifers
 M2/Traralgon Aquifer System (M2/TFAS)
The hydrostratigraphy of the area is characterised by an alternating sequence of aquifers and aquitards,
which are described by hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) of similar hydrogeological properties. The extent and
thickness of these regional units is defined by the Victorian Aquifer Framework (VAF) surfaces. Although,
due to their regional classification, these may encompass more than one geological formation and should be
considered with care.
Furthermore, the complex tectonic history of the basin has led to the encounter of distinct geological units
within the different structural depressions. Thus, the stratigraphic framework developed by Holdgate et. al.
(2021) was adopted to establish the stratigraphic relationship between the different modelled units and the
VAF surfaces, which is presented in Figure 3.
LVW: THIS MODEL REGIONAL YALLOURN HAZELWOOD VAF
LVRGM Latrobe Valley Coal Regional Coal Model Layer Yallourn Minescape Geological Coal Hazelwood Vulcan Geological Coal Aquifer
Layer Latrobe Valley West Unit Layer Surface
Layer Sequence (represented by base of unit) Model (Layer representing base of unit) Model (Layer representing base of unit) System

1 Haunted Hill & Hazelwood Fm 1 Haunted Hill & Hazelwood Fms Y Roof Y Roof Y Roof 102 UTQA_2B
2 Yallourn Coal 2 Yallourn Coal Y Floor Y Floor Y Floor SAS 106
3 Yallourn Interseam 3 Yallourn Interseam M1A Roof M1A Roof M1 Roof 106

4 M1A Coal 4 M1A Coal M1A Floor M1A Floor M1B Roof 107

5 M1A Interseam 5 M1A Interseam M1B Roof M1B Roof M1B Roof 107
6 M1B Coal 6 M1B Coal M1B Floor M1B Floor M1B Floor 107

7 M1B Interseam 7 M1B Interseam M2 / M2A Roof M2A Roof M2 Roof 107

8 M2A Coal 8 M2A Coal M2A Floor M2A Floor Representative thickness MFAS 107

9 M2A Interseam 9 M2A Interseam M2B Roof M2B Roof Representative thickness 107
10 M2B Coal 10 M2B Coal M2/M2B Floor M2B Floor M2 Clay floor 107

11 M2B Interseam 11 M2B Interseam Top of Basalt 107

12 M2C Coal M2C sand roof 107

13 M2C Aquifer T1/TRU Roof 109

14 T1 Coal T1/TRL Floor M2C, M2D, M2E, M2F, M2G Aquifers 111 LTA_1T
12 Trarralgon Formation M2/
15 T1 Aquifer Sequence T2/T2A Roof M2C, M2D, M2E, M2F, M2G Aquifers 111
TFAS
16 T2 Coal T2 Floor M2C, M2D, M2E, M2F, M2G Aquifers 111
17 T2 Aquifer Carrajung Volcanics 111
LTBA_1T,
13
Thorpdale Volcanics
18
Thorpdale Volcanics 112
LTBA_2B
14 Basement 19 Basement Basement Roof Basement 114 BSE_1T

Figure 3 Stratigraphic correlation between the existing geological models and the VAF surfaces

The layers that were not used in this model are shown in light grey trying to preserve the correlation framework
for any future work. Even though some of these surfaces were not precisely time equivalent, they were
assumed to represent the boundaries of analogous geological units, serving the main purpose of creating a
stratigraphic skeleton for the groundwater model. The spatial correlation between them was validated with
multiple cross sections to ensure there were no significant elevation differences that might create artifacts in
the 3D model.

3.3 Main data sources

3.3.1 Topography
The groundwater model simulates the evolving interactions between surface water and groundwater systems
through the different mining stages, which demands an integrated approach to capture topographical
changes over time. There is limited digital information of the surface elevation before the excavation of the
two pits. The geological model integrated the ground surface elevation derived from different data sources to

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 5
represent the relief at pre-mining stage as the general top of the model. A regional topography merged mesh
was created (Figure 4) compiling:
 Digital Terrain Model 100 (DTM-100): pit areas were erased from the DTM to be replaced by older
data, a limited buffer zone was also considered to smooth the transition between datasets
 Digitized contours extracted from Yallourn historical maps: Narracan Map 121b, Maryvale Map 104b
(Topographic survey, 1927) (Figure 4)
 Hazelwood surface elevation 1 m interval contours
 Old bore collars for QA/QC
As a result of the varied data sources combined to create the final topography surface and inherent errors
resulting from digitizing hand drawn plans, there are associated errors in the ground surface model. The
limited technology at the time was also prone to inaccuracies, however the resulting pre-mining topography Commented [BJ3]: Perhaps rephrase this to "limit of
was considered suitable for the current purpose of the model. accuracy"

Figure 4 Digitized pre-mining elevation contours from Yallourn historical maps and final merged topography

3.3.2 Geological Units

The model top was defined by the topography of the region, using pre-mining surface elevation contours at
the mine areas or the Digital Terrain Model 100 (DTM-100) in the regional surroundings. While the model
base was depicted at a constant elevation of 735 mAHD to ensure enough thickness below the deepest Commented [BJ4]: This sentence a little confusing. A
points in the basin at the eastern zone. model base of 735 mAHD? Most of the Latrobe Valley
sits at 100 m AHD.
The model utilized multiple datasets to develop the different stratigraphic units defined in Figure 3, trying to
align them with relevant geological maps and regional cross-sections from the literature. This approach
enhanced the accuracy and correlation of the model with the existing geological information, although it
required some additional data manipulation.
Data coming from previous coal models was incorporated as line contours to avoid a new interpolation at the
mine zone and honour the previous interpretation. Priority was given to the datasets coming from Yallourn
and Hazelwood mines (when available) due to their better accuracy, with interpolation based on multiple
bores, as well as a higher resolution shown in their 2 m interval contours. The regional coal model surfaces
(5 m interval contours) were given a secondary priority, thus the data points in the mine areas were erased
to avoid any conflicting issues, leaving a buffer zone to accelerate computations.

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 6
VAF surfaces have a much poorer resolution of 100 m, so they were only utilized as the last resource where
no other data source was available and were only included if there was a good correlation with the local
model surfaces. The Haunted Hills Formation Floor and the Basement both proved to have a good regional
coverage compared to local surfaces and showed a good correlation with the interpreted surface at mine
scale. However, the local interpretation was used in the areas where it was available.
Even though most of these geological bodies are characterized by an erosive nature with frequent pinch outs,
model units were mostly defined as deposits, delimited by their top and bottom surface contacts. More details
about the modelling methodologies and assumptions are discussed in section 3.4. The datasets available for
each contact and their spatial extension are shown in Figure 3Table 1.

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 7
Figure 5 Data availableExtent of coverage for each surface contact modelled

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 8
3.4 Modelling methods & assumptions

3.4.1 Outcrops
Outcrops of the Thorpdale Volcanics and the StrezeleckiStrzelecki Group were delineated from the geological
map (Figure 2) to constrain the model extrapolation of these surfacingall other units and enforce the a pinch
out of adjacent these layers. In order to reduce processing times, the outline of these outcrops was simplified,
and the elevation was adjusted to be equivalent to the merged topography to ensure consistency between
the layers and avoid any minimal residual differences.
Different modelling techniques were tested to properly represent the basement outcrops, but due to the
multiple erosive nature of the other layers, a refined model was envisaged as the best method to restrict the
erosion processes to the basin fill and preserve the outcrops. Thus, a first model was built considering only
two layers as presented in Figure 6Figure 6Figure 5:
 Basin fill: top delimited by merged topography
 Basement: merged mesh including mine surfaces, BSE VAF grid, outcrops
For modelling purposes and to preserve the surfacing volcanics, the outcrops of the Thorpdale Volcanics and
the Strezelecki Group were also included in the basement layer of the model following the same definition as
the BSE VAF surface. The Thorpdale Volcanics will be latter incorporated in the model as described in section
003.4.3.
The transition zone between subsurface layers and surfacing outcrops was kept to a minimum due to the
lack of information. Some inherent errors might result from this abrupt change in elevation which could show
as sharp contacts surrounding the outcrops (Figure 6Figure 6Figure 5).

Figure 6 Correlation between the different basement data sources

3.4.2 Pinch outs

One of the main challenges in modelling these geological units was ensuring the accurate representation of
pinch-outs in certain layers. The erosive characteristics of the formations couldn't be uniformly applied to all
erosive contacts since no spatial constraints could be imposed, which would result in the erosion of all
underlying surfaces. Therefore, a refined model was adopted as the best method to represent this, as
previously discussed in section 3.4.1.
The basin fill of the first 2 layer model was then refined incorporating all the coal layers and interseams
defined in Figure 3. Even though most of these geological bodies are characterized by an erosive nature with
frequent pinch outs (Figure 7), model units were mostly defined as deposits, delimited by their top and bottom
surface contacts.

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 9
Additional control points representing offset surfaces were strategically incorporated to guarantee the
presence of these units only in the locations where thickness maps indicated their existence. Consequently,
only 2 contacts were established as erosive:
• Floor of Haunted Hills Formation/ Roof of Yallourn Coal
• M1B Interseam Floor / M2A Coal Roof Commented [BJ5]: I think this is just required for
modelling in Leapfrog? In theory the first major
Thickness maps were constructed to control (QC) the model unit’s coverage and compare them with previous erosional unconformity within the Cenozoic is the top of
models or information from the literature (Figure 8). Dynamic cross sections were also used to assess the the Traralgon Formation. However this surface is not
contact relationship of these units (Figure 7). fully represented in Latrobe Valley West. Above the top
of the Traralgon Formation all interseams at the top of
coal seams represent a degree of erosion prior to
riverine or lacustrine sedimentation before returning
again to the peat swamps. So any of the interseam
bases, e.g. the one picked here, is in fact valid.

Figure 7 3D geological model showing the layering and outcrops distribution, SN cross section across Hazelwood
Commented [BJ6]: In my opinion this would look better
and Yallourn showing the modelled layers
on an A4 landscape page, or even better still, A3
landscape.

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated
with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 10
Figure 8 Thickness map of each modelled layer

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with . It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the project and should not be relied upon in any way.

12521481 11
3.4.3 Volcanics
The Thorpdale Volcanics information is very limited, this geological unit was not included as an individual Commented [BJ7]: I have deliberately kept another
layer in the detailed mine models and was only mapped for the Regional Coal Model in a small area. The local model (The Driffield model) out of the frame at this
dataset with broader coverage for both roof and floor were the Lower Tertiary Basalt grids from VAF (112), stage. The Driffield model, adjoining the west limits of
which extended across the Moe Swamp sub-basin and west of Hazelwood surrounding the outcrops the Hazelwood model, does include 3 or 4 Thorpdale
volcanic flows, as well as finer splits in the M2A coal
delineated by the geological map. The top grid also developed some surfacing at the south of the study area seams. For future refinement
showing a good correlation with the geological map (Figure 9Figure 9Figure 8).
Commented [LG8R7]: We decided to use the VAF
A merged meshed was created for each roof and floor using VAF elevation grids and outcrops information surface because it had the major coverage and
as was previously done for the Basement. The volcanics were then incorporated into the refined model as a correlated well with the volcanics mapped in the
vein, to ensure that it would intrude and replace pre-existing lithologies. In order to properly represent the regional model, but it would be interesting to see the
correlation with Driffield model
outcrops the vein intruded the modelled basement, replacing the previous “2 layer model” where the
Thorpdale Volcanics occurred. Due to the lack of information the thickness of this outcropping layer above
the basement was simplified, and an average thickness of 50 m was considered for the Balook High area.
The refined basin fill was also intruded by the volcanic vein following the data from the VAF Lower Tertiary
Basalt roof and floor grids. Figure 9Figure 9Figure 8 shows the area with the thickest volcanic deposits is in
the Moe Swamp basin, which extends further south reaching the western border of Hazelwood. However its
thickness in this region is more limited.

Figure 9 Thorpdale Volcanics modelled vein outlined by VAF Lower Tertiary Basalt grids

Figure 10 WE section showing the extent of the Thorpdale volcanics

Commented [BJ9]: Again, perhaps isolate Figures 9
and 10 onto an A3 landscape page. The images are
just great and deserve presentation at a larger scale.
4. Summary
 A new hydrogeological model model using Leapfrog software was developed for the Western area
of the Latrobe Valley integrating the pre-existing geological coal surface interpretations for Yallourn
and Hazelwood mines, and at the same time incorporating pre-existing regional coal model data to
extend the new model beyond the mine areas.
 Adopting a stratigraphic framework and discussions with the interpreters of the areas was vital to
understand the correlation of the different units present in each zone.
 The different data types and resolution of the datasets used to map these units required additional
data manipulation and processing that had to be done using GIS Tools.
 The overlapping of datasets significantly increased the modelling times, demanding duplicated
regions erased to enhance priority data and the creation of buffer zones to accelerate interpolation
 The geological map was vital to outline define the extent of outcrops of the Basement and the
Thorpdale Volcanicsand and consider them utilise them to limit in the delineation of the main Commented [BJ10]: Not quite sure if I am reading this
hydrostratigraphic units such as the Basement and the Thorpdale Volcanics. right thus my suggested rewording might not be correct.

 Regional surfaces like Basement, HHF Floor, Thorpdale Volcanics from the Victorian Aquifer Commented [BJ11]: Not quite sure if I am reading this
Framework were also key to map some of these units beyond the extent of the mines. right thus my suggested rewording might not be correct.
Commented [LG12R11]: corrected
 Honouring the pre-existing interpretation in the mines restricted data manipulation within those
zones.
 Modelling pinch outs was the main challenge of this geological model. A refined model approach
ensured that outcrops and basement were not affected by erosion, and pinch outs were restricted to
the basin fill.
 Control points representing offset surfaces were added to the different layers to ensure the pinch
outs occurred as defined by thickness maps of previous models. These clearly necessarily increased
processing times but allowed the construction on of a layered basismodel.