49 # Stratigraphic Unit Base (mD) Distributi on Min (mD) Max (mD) 1 Petit Conglomerate 100 Uniform 10 1000 2 Nguba Undifferentiated 120 Uniform 12 1200 3 Mwashya Member 2.25 Uniform 1.3 8.06 4 Upper Roan Breccia 1.2 Uniform 0.12 12 5 Bancroft Dolostone 16.5 Uniform 1.65 165 6 Bancroft SWG 76 Uniform 26 126 7 Konkola Conglomerate 126 Uniform 12.6 1260 8 Chambishi Member 0.009 Uniform 0.0009 0.09 9 Nchanga Member 0.115 Uniform 0.0003 0.23 10 Rhokana Member 130 Uniform 1.8 1000 11 Copperbelt Orebody Member 12 Uniform 1.2 120 12 Mindola Clastics Formation 4 Uniform 0.02 35 Table 2 — Prior uncertainty distributions for regional aquifer recharge boundaries # Recharge Source Base (m³/d) Distributi on Min (m³/d) Max (m³/d) 1 Lubambe analogue (NW) 150,000 Uniform 100,000 200,000 2 Konkola analogue (SE) -300,000 Uniform -500,000 -100,000 3 Distributed (Elsewhere) 30,000 Uniform 10,000 80,000 3.3 Monte Carlo simulation and dewatering scenario An initial ensemble of one hundred Monte Carlo realisations has been generated by independently sampling each parameter from its prior distribution. For each realisation, a transient groundwater flow simulation was run over a five-year horizon representing the planned dewatering scenario. The dewatering layout consists of eight wells positioned on a 300 m radius around the planned shaft location, with operating conditions held identical across all realisations so that variability in predicted pressure response can be attributed entirely to parameter uncertainty rather than to operational variability. Predicted pore pressure has been extracted at multiple monitoring locations distributed across the deposit and at multiple time steps spanning the full simulation horizon. The resulting
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2