5 6149828113384603656

ioGlobal Applied Geochemistry Workshop
Bali – May 2013
QAQC from Exploration to Production

Quality Assurance
ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 1
“All analytical measurements are wrong: it’s just a question of

how large the errors are, and whether they are acceptable.”
Thompson (1989)
“You get what you pay for”

“Let the buyer beware”
Shaw (1997)
"Only a fool learns from his mistakes - I prefer to learn from the
mistakes of others"
Bismarck
Outline
Quality Assurance Quality Assurance

● Introduction ● Evaluation and Monitoring QC
Data
● Reporting Requirements
● Sizing
● Fit for Purpose ● Contamination
● Sampling Strategies ● Accuracy
● Round Robins – control limits
● Sampling errors
● Precision – I, II, III, IV
● Sampling broken drill materials ● Relative Error Model Test
● Other sub-samplig strategies ● The Big Picture – How good
● Comparing sampling does my data need to be?
procedures at Equity Silver ● Bias
Mine ● Quality Expectations
Some Definitions: Dispersion

● One measure of dispersion around the mean is termed the
sample arithmetic variance.
● The square root of the variance is termed the standard
deviation. This is the easiest measure of dispersion to
understand as it is in the same units of measurement as the
arithmetic mean.
● Note, variances, not standard deviations, can be added when
dealing with a series of processes.
∑ (X − x )
i =1, N
i
2
S = 2
N −1
Variance Units of sd – standard normal curve
Relative Error - Definition
● Standard Deviation/Mean in %
Also Know As
● Relative Standard Deviate
● Coefficient of Variation
● 1 Standard Deviation Precision
ioGlobal 2012 Insert Project ioGlobal | the evolution of data 5

Name Here
Coefficient of Variation (%)
Mean = 10, sd = 1 Mean = 100, sd = 10
In both cases the coefficient of variation is 10%

Paired Data With Known Relative Error
26
100
24
90
22
80 20
18
70
16
60
No of obs
14
No of obs
50 12
10
40
8
30
6
20 4
2
10
0
75.9401 90.4440
0
All15 0ppm 100ppm
83.1920 97.6960
0ppm 100ppm All95
Standard Deviation = Standard Deviation =

0.8ppm at 15ppm 4.5ppm @ 90ppm
CV% = 5.2% CV% = 5.1%
Standard Deviation
● 1sd precision
= coefficient of variation
= relative error
= relative standard deviation

QAQC - Definitions
● QAQC – Quality Assurance
and Quality Control.
● QA – establishment of
systems and standards to
ensure quality.
● FUTURE
● QC – use of statistical tools
and checks to ensure the
systems are in statistical
control.
● PAST
QAQC
● If no QC procedures are in place, no one can tell how large
the errors are at the time of measurement, which could
result in spending money on a drilling program where there
is no ore to be found.
● A QC program enables the recipient to evaluate if the

uncertainty in the results is suitable for the intended use of
the data - FIT FOR PURPOSE.
ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data10

Issues Concerning Assay Results Quality
● Poor sampling (not representative).
● Cross contamination.
● In-correct assay technique for the commodity and mode of
occurrence
● Background analytical error resulting in delineation of waste as ore.
● Assay bias induced by mineralogy and presence of coarse grained
ore.
● Incorrect calibrations.
● Sole reliance on the laboratory’s internal quality control procedures,
with no independent validation.
● Systematic resubmission of samples, resulting in many samples with
low grades that are irrelevant from an economic standpoint,
comprising a significant proportion of the data set available for
quality control purposes.
● Resubmission of samples to the same laboratory using the same
sample numbers.

● Confusion between the comparison of duplicate (resplit) and
repeat assays, so that it is unclear which errors relate to the
assaying and sample preparation, and which may be
attributed to initial sample splitting.
● Resubmission of duplicates and repeats at the end of, rather
that throughout the resource evaluation program.
● Failure to act on problems apparent in duplicate, repeat and
standard assay results as they occur.
● These issues reinforce the need for a QAQC program to:
● Provide precision and accuracy
● Provide early warning signs of assay problems
● Demonstrate that sampling and analytical variance are
small, relative to geological variance
● Minimise risks associated with resource development
● Comply with requirements for mining codes [JORC, NI-43-101,
SAMREC]
● If the issues are not addressed:
● (ERROR ON LOW SIDE)
● True anomalies are not followed up.
● Low grade anomalies mistakenly sold or joint ventured-too cheaply.
● Undervaluing a resource/reserve.
● Misclassification of ore/waste.
● Loss of confidence.
● (ERROR ON HIGH SIDE)
● Money wasted following up false anomalies.
● Overvaluing prospect/resource, wasted effort and money that would
be better directed elsewhere.
● Allocation of waste to ore.
THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

What is at Risk?
● Credibility
● Integrity
● Investment decisions
Historical Context
● 1556 - ―De Re Metallica‖ Georgius Agricola
● A careful owner, before buying shares, should visit the mine

and carefully examine the nature of the vein, as it is very
important that he be on his guard, to avoid being the victim of
dishonest sellers of shares seeking to defraud him”
From G Fahey (2011) Ozmine 2011 Revised Joint Ore reserves Committee (JORC) Code Public reporting Standard
http://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/1418/OZMINE-2011-Conf-Day-2-JORC-Presentation.pdf.aspx (accessed 2/2/2012)

Historical Context
● 1909 - Herbert Hoover‟s classification system
● 1943 - USBM classification system
● 1953 - AusIMM committee on classification
● 1956 - SEG classification system
● Late 1960‟s - nickel boom, Australia, with some unacceptable
reporting practices “The Poseidon Boom & Bust”
From G Fahey (2011) Ozmine 2011 Revised Joint Ore reserves Committee (JORC) Code Public reporting Standard
http://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/1418/OZMINE-2011-Conf-Day-2-JORC-Presentation.pdf.aspx (accessed 2/2/2012)
Where it Began
“On October 1, 1969, Poseidon directors issued a historic
report to the Adelaide Stock Exchange before the start of
trading. The statement began: ‘Further to the report of the
recovery of nickel and copper sulphides on September 29,
the directors of Poseidon NL announce that the assays
received to date of the first completed drill hole PH2 at
Windarra, WA, are as follows ……………
Trevor Sykes - The Money Miners.
Ref: P Stoker (2009) The JORC Code and Coal. http://www.jorc.org/pdf./jorc_code_coal_Hunter_AusIMM.pdf accessed
2/12/2012.

Poseidon – 1969 report
From - to Length Ni % Cu % Type of Ore
in feet in feet
0 - 25 25 0.4 0.1 Leached Ore
25 -115 90 1.53 0.25 Oxide
115 -145 30 1.6 0.4 Disseminated Sulphides
145 -185 40 3.56 0.55 Massive Sulphides
“The Consulting geologists, Burrill and Associates

Pty Ltd, quote that the mineralised zone has an
indicated length of 1000 ft and a minimum width of
65 ft.”
The Share price had moved from a few cents to around a dollar and then
rocketed to $280 before crashing.
Ref: P Stoker (2009) The JORC Code and Coal. http://www.jorc.org/pdf./jorc_code_coal_Hunter_AusIMM.pdf accessed 2/12/2012.
Poseidon – Share Price

The Aftermath
“One disturbing feature of the boom-time geological
statements is their misleading air of precision. Poseidon’s
statement of 3.56 percent nickel looked like a fine
calculation to one-hundredth of one percent.
In fact, Poseidon had no basis on which to make such a
calculation at the time and the actual assay of the core
turned out to be substantially lower, although still of ore
grade.”
Trevor Sykes - The Money Miners.
The Aftermath
● The Melbourne Stock Exchange and Australian Government (Rae Commission)
requested AMIC (now the Minerals Council of Australia) to develop a mechanism
to resolve the reporting issues.
● This resulted in the formation of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee and
publication of the first JORC Code in 1989 upon which most other codes have
been based.
Figure from: http://www.crirsco.com/isr_mineral_resources_reserves0908.pdf

Case Histories – Fatal Flaws
Aug 27, 2007
The Boka project in south-west China could contain "significantly less" gold
than previously reported, Southwestern Resources Corp. warned on Monday,
as it announced it is suing its former chief executive for fraud and insider
trading… But unlike the Bre-X salting scandal, Southwestern said the samples
sent for assay did not appear to have been tampered with. Rather there were
"manual and deliberate changes" made to the project's data.
The stock, which was worth more than C$20 at the peak of the frenzy over the
Boka discovery in early 2004, has lost about 70 percent of its value since last
month.
Epilogue: Jim Patterson was jailed in 2010
Without QC Programs
The Globe and Mail, June 27, 1997
Reward Mining (REW-VE) 52 cents off $1.38

George Resources (GGP-VSE) 29 cents down 54 cents
● We wish to inform you that our independent lab has

discovered that it overstated our preliminary drilling results...
by a factor of five...
● “…the latest in a long line of junior mining companies to
announce results that were far short of what investors had
previously been led to believe.”

Bear Lake Gold
November 03, 2009
Provides Update on Larder Lake Property
● Report confirms that there were inconsistencies regarding the Company's
exploration data that compromise certain of the Company's prior reporting
of certain exploration results in respect of the Bear Lake area of the
Company's Larder Lake Property.
● The Company has determined that Mr. Bernard Boily, the Company's then
Vice President Exploration and the "qualified person” who prepared and
supervised the preparation of all relevant data and technical
disclosure, altered certain assay certificates by
manually changing the assay results prior
to entering such results in the Company's
exploration database.
28
Venus Metals (VMC-ASX)

November 3, 2011
“However, given the previous errors reported to the Company by Spectrolab the
Company has sought further assays of the same samples from another independent
NATA accredited laboratory, SGS Australia Pty Ltd (SGS).
SGS have informed the Company on Wednesday 2 November 2011 that negligible
gold was detected in one metre sampling of drill hole YGRC 156. The Company is
awaiting details of the further assay results for drill holes YGRC 137, 140, 141
November 8, 2011
Spectrolab director Nigel Dunn told MNN: "We made mistakes, that is basically what
it comes down to".
"We didn't plan for something in the matrix that we should have and the standards
we used were not matrix matched correctly which is how the error occurred," he
said.
An accredited iron ore assay laboratory, he said this was the first time Spectrolab
had assayed for gold, a move it would not be replicating in the future.

Applicable Reporting Codes and

Regulations
● Australia: JORC Code 2012 and ASX Listing Rules.
● Canada: CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves – Definitions

and Guidelines and NI 43-101- Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects.
● South Africa: SAMREC Code 2009 and JSE listing requirements Section 12.
● Philippines: Philippine Mineral Reporting Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2007).
● There is an active push to harmonise international reporting codes
through CRIRSCO (the Committee for Mineral Reserves International
Reporting Standards).

General Principals
● Most reporting codes have adopted the principals of:
● Transparency requires that the reader of a Public Report is provided
with sufficient information, the presentation of which is clear and
unambiguous, to understand the report and is not misled.
● clear and unambiguous presentation of information
● Materiality requires that a Public Report contains all the relevant

information which investors and their professional advisers would
reasonably require, and reasonably expect to find in the report, for the
purpose of making a reasoned and balanced judgement regarding the
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves being reported.
● all the information reasonably required and expected
● Competence requires that the Public Report be based on work that is the
responsibility of suitably qualified and experienced persons who are
subject to an enforceable professional code of ethics.
● public reports based on work undertaken by Competent (Qualified) Persons
Extract from Table 1: Check List of Assessment and

Reporting Criteria (2012 JORC Code)
● Note that these
sampling guidelines
apply to and underpin
all succeeding groups in
the table:
● Reporting of Exploration
Results
● Estimation and Reporting
of Mineral Resources
● Estimation and Reporting
of Ore Reserves.

JORC - Sampling Techniques and Data*
Category Examples of Data
Sampling techniques Sample taken and measures taken
to ensure representivity
Drilling techniques Drill type, drill details
Logging Logging categories, photos
Drill sample recovery Quantitative recovery results
Sub-sampling techniques & sample prep Core prep, splitting, sample sizes,
all aspects of sample prep
Quality of assay data and lab tests Lab details, Full QC procedures
Verification of sampling & assaying Twin holes
Location of data points Projections, DH survey
Data density & distribution Compositing
Audits & Reviews Results
*applies from exploration to reserves reporting
ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “General Requirements for the

Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories”
● Technical requirements
● the use of appropriate test methods validated to demonstrate the data are
fit-for-purpose
● traceability to international measurement units and measurement
uncertainty
● quality control using duplicates and reference sample insertion
● estimation of measurement uncertainty
● proficiency testing participation
● Management Systems
● policies and procedures
● document control
● complaint resolution
● and other protocols that any organization certified to ISO/IEC 9000 would
recognize

Conclusion
● Reporting guidelines or regulations exist in most financial
jurisdictions.
● Published best practices provide general guidelines but none
specify rates of insertion, required precision, use of
accredited laboratories, etc.
● Regulations are generally prescriptive and only state that
quality control, assay methods, etc. are disclosed.
● Ultimately it comes down to the Competent Person who is
required to document and justify sampling, assaying and
quality control methods.
“FIT FOR PURPOSE”
Managing Risk

QAQC – ‘Fit for Purpose’
● We contend that real world geochemistry is about obtaining
adequate and cost-effective results, and these need not
necessarily be perfect results.
● All that we require is data that have sufficient precision and
accuracy to enable the confident interpretation of results for
the task at hand. (eg. The discrimination of anomalies from
background, or the definition of resource grade) through
determination of element concentrations to a stated degree
of confidence.
● At the same time, we cannot and must not pay extra for data
quality of unnecessarily high quality.’
Leigh Bettenay and Cliff Stanley, Explore number 111

QAQC - Fit for Purpose - Example

● Quality requirements (in particular accuracy) of analytical
data become more demanding during resource estimations
and mining, where the consequence of a bias could
jeopardise the entire operation/economics.
● Such projects require tighter quality control i.e. ‘Fit for
Purpose’.
● It is neither sensible nor useful to provide accreditation
methods without first defining what is or is not acceptable in
terms of both precision and accuracy of the application.
● The risk associated with sample mix-ups is significantly when
individual samples represent large areas or major decisions
are made based on a single sample (i.e recce stream seds)

Fit for Purpose - Misclassification at the cut-off grade
● Quality requirements of
analytical data become
far more demanding
during resource
estimations and mining,
Predicted Grade
where the
consequences of a bias
or poor precision,
especially at the cut-off
A grade, can jeopardise an
operation.
● See areas A and B on

B diagram.
Pitard, F F, 2001. A Strategy to Minimise Ore Grade Reconciliation
Problems Between the Mine and the Mill, in Mineral Resource and
Actual Grade Ore Reserve Estimation – The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice (Ed:
A C Edwards), pp557–566 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Fit for Purpose - Misclassification at the cut-off grade
Cost of
misclassification =
156mill USD / year
Improved sampling
practices reduce this
to 22millUSD/year

ROI - QAQC
Benefit Example ROI
Avoidance of costly A bias in analytical data at cut-off grade resulting in 5% misclassification rate unidentified for 6
mistakes months could cost an operation US$4 M.
A 2% bias in Ni concentrate sales over a 12 month period would result in an under (or over)
valuation of US$3.5 million.
It has been demonstrated that a low bias in a tail discharge grade at a copper operation of just
0.05%Cu is worth US$80 million per year3
Identify largest High nugget effect induced in the process of blast hole sampling resulted in misclassification that
source of error in the costs up to US$20 million per year from ore sent to waste and waste diluting mill feed2.
sampling chain.
At a gold mine in Namibia, each mining unit contains 900g of gold which at a price of US$30/g
Spend money fixing equates to a value of US$27,00 per block. Each block mistakenly sent to waste due to high
that first
sampling variance costs US$27,0004.
High sampling error in stream sediments in an exploration program in Canada resulted in
13 anomalous sites out of a total of 95 sites not being identified initially.
Rapidly identify bias At a mine in Northern Chile a change in analytical method and sample matrix resulted in an
issues undetected low bias of 0.06% Cu. The economic bias over the operations life of 20 years was
estimated to be US$292 million (Cu @ $1/pound)2.
A laboratory in North America had a calibration error in an acid dispenser which resulted in
a 10% low bias in Au data reported across the entire concentration range.
Test work during a tungsten assaying program indicated pulverising issues were inducing a 20%
low bias.
The laboratory provides the base data on which all decisions are made. At this level if the data are
not ‘right’ there is no hope of making informed decisions further up the chain.
SAMPLING
Sampling: “is a procedure by which information of measurable reliability

is obtained from only a part of the total population” (Deming 1948)

Quote...
Samples are like potato chips:
● You're never satisfied with just one
● Every one you take makes you want more.
● You're never sure you've had enough until you've had too
many.

Sample Collection
● “No matter how sophisticated and precise the analytical instrumentation

and treatment, statistical studies and modelling, or the financial analysis of
mine potential, they will have little or no significance or profitable
outcome, if the samples concerned are non-representative of the material
of population being sampled.”
Nichol, I., Closs, L. G. and Lavin, O. P., 1989. Sample representativity
with reference to gold exploration. in Garland, G. D. (Ed.).
Proceedings of Exploration 87. Ontario Geol. Surv. Spec. V. 3:609-
624.
● Sampling is a serious task requiring supervision by highly trained and

experienced people - the antithesis of the norm !
● Each protocol has to be designed to match its geological situation and the
degree of accuracy deemed necessary. This is potentially the greatest
source of errors in the whole process (after geology being read as simple
when it is not).
….(Colin Brooks)
Sampling Theory - Ideals to strive for...

● Representivity – the sample taken should be representative
of the lot or the volume being sampled.
● Consistency – successive samples taken at the same site, or
in the same manner, should be collected in a robust and
repeatable manner by a variety of personnel.
● Homogeneity - the sample of broken material to be taken (or
the core or collection of rock chips, etc.) should contain the
particles of the mineral or metal of interest evenly and
consistently distributed throughout the material to be
sampled.

Sampling Protocol
● A protocol is recommended at all
times – helps to prevent
confusion – a picture says a
thousand words!
● The protocol must be easy to
read and everyone involved in
the process must be aware of it.
● Changes must be updated ASAP.
● This is why…….
What Volume Actually Represents the Deposit?

• In an example from Minnit (2007), 27 boreholes are estimated to represent
an area of 24km2 of reef mineralisation.
• If the reef is 1m thick, at a bulk density of 2.78 t/m3, the total amount of
reef buried at a depth is around 67 Mt
• Assume further that the core is standard NQ type with a diameter of 46mm
• Each 1m intersection would weigh about 4.62 kg
•We recover about 125kg of reef from the in situ mass of 67 Mt
• This represents 1.86 x 10-7% of the mass
• By way of analogy, a 500-seat auditorium has an estimated volume of
about 9,000 cubic m, which is about 9 billion cubic cm
• A cube with a side of 12 cm provides an idea of just how much
material has been extracted to represent the volume of the room
• Only 30-50g of material from each intersection is used for fire assay
• Putting that in context means that we are trying to represent the 9 billion
cm3 in this auditorium using a volume about the size of a pinhead.

Illustrated 1m RC/RAB
cuttings
Sampling 30kg @ 20mm
Protocol
Sample 1234 Riffle split

3.75kg 3 pass
crush
3.75kg @ 10mm
crush
3.75kg @ 2mm
split
1kg @ 2mm
pulv.
1kg @ 75u
split
150g @ 75u
split
30g assay
ioGlobal1234
2012
original sample
ioGlobal | the evolution of data72
SAMPLING ERRORS
Sampling: “is a procedure by which information of measurable reliability

is obtained from only a part of the total population” (Deming 1948)

Measurement Errors – Composed of:
● Sampling errors
● introduced during initial collection of sample in field.
● Preparation errors
● introduced during grain and sample size reduction.
● Analytical errors
● Introduced during weighing and analysis.
● Errors are cumulative (see later).
● For now we want to determine how to measure and monitor these
errors.
Gy Error Types
1. Properties of the Sample
2. How you get the sample
3. What you do with the sample
From:, Gerlach, R.W., Nocerino, J.M., 2003. Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from
Particulate Laboratory Samples EPA/600/R-03/027

Measurement Errors – Properties Of
the Sample
Grouping and Segregation Error
From:, Gerlach, R.W., Nocerino, J.M., 2003. Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from Particulate
Laboratory Samples EPA/600/R-03/027
Sample Quality
● Segregation – the clustering of different components of a sample into
spatially distinct regions.
● variety of geometric arrangements of segregation
● (partially random/partially ordered or ordered), can be caused by
geological or sample collection, transport or preparation processes
Courtesy of Cliff Stanley: Acadia University
random distribution partial order ordered distribution

Measurement Errors – Properties of the Sample –
Grouping and Segregation Error
Properties Of the Sample – Reduction of DH

● Illustration of rapidly decreasing GSE as a consequence of progressive mixing
(left to right). Note identical material composition in all panels
● CH=constant, while DH (manifesting the local stratification/segregation)

decreases significantly. A single sample of constant mass/volume, selected
from the rightmost state will of course be immensely more representative for
the whole lot than any taken from either of the less mixed material states
Slide adapted from: ‘Representative sampling for reliable data analysis: Theory of Sampling’, Lars Petersena, Pentti
Minkkinenb, Kim H. Esbensena. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 77 (2005) 261– 277

Random Segregation [True = 10%, Av = 3.1%, sd = 5.2%]

Systematic Segregation [True = 10%, Av = 6.2%, sd = 7.9%]

No Segregation [True = 10%, Av = 11.4%, sd = 4.7%]

Measurement Errors – Properties Of the

Sample – Fundamental Error

Sampling Errors
The fewer the number of analyte particles, the higher will be the relative variance of
the short-range heterogeneity error expected from sampling. High analyte
concentration levels associated with those particles also cause an increase in variance
–
The smaller diameter samples gave smaller means, greater skewness, and higher variances
Sample Quality: Particle Size and Sample Size

Small Samples [True = 2.3%, Av = 25.0%, sd = 46.3%]
100 % ore
grain sample
0 % ore grain
sample

Courtesy of Cliff Stanley:
Fit for Purpose QC1Acadia University
Intermediate Samples [True = 2.3%, Av = 6.25%, sd = 11.6%]
25 % ore grain
sample
0 % ore grain
sample


Large Samples [True = 2.3%, Av = 2.78%, sd = 5.14%]
11 % ore grain
sample
0 % ore grain
sample

Particular Case of Gold Grains
250um diameter 63um diameter
● Consider spherical gold grains with the above diameters.

● These are the largest grains that would pass through a
250um (60#) and 63um (240#) sieve.
● What would be the gold concentrations of 30g and 2000g
samples, with 1,2,3,4 and 5 grains of Au using both of these
Au grain sizes?
● Assume pure Au.
Number of Au Grains (Spheres) – concentration with mesh size

Shape Num Nuggets Mesh Size (um) Nugget Size (radius) Total Nugget weight (g) Sample size (g) Conc (ppm) Conc (ppb)
sphere 1 250 125 1.58E-04 30 5.26 5,263.26
sphere 2 250 125 3.16E-04 30 10.53 10,526.52
sphere 3 250 125 4.74E-04 30 15.79 15,789.78
sphere 4 250 125 6.32E-04 30 21.05 21,053.03
sphere 5 250 125 7.89E-04 30 26.32 26,316.29
sphere 1 250 125 1.58E-04 2000 0.08 78.95
sphere 2 250 125 3.16E-04 2000 0.16 157.90
sphere 3 250 125 4.74E-04 2000 0.24 236.85
sphere 4 250 125 6.32E-04 2000 0.32 315.80
sphere 5 250 125 7.89E-04 2000 0.39 394.74
sphere 1 63 31.5 2.53E-06 30 0.08 84.23
sphere 2 63 31.5 5.05E-06 30 0.17 168.46
sphere 3 63 31.5 7.58E-06 30 0.25 252.68
sphere 4 63 31.5 1.01E-05 30 0.34 336.91
sphere 5 63 31.5 1.26E-05 30 0.42 421.14
sphere 1 63 31.5 2.53E-06 2000 0.00 1.26
sphere 2 63 31.5 5.05E-06 2000 0.00 2.53
sphere 3 63 31.5 7.58E-06 2000 0.00 3.79
sphere 4 63 31.5 1.01E-05 2000 0.01 5.05
sphere 5 63 31.5 1.26E-05 2000 0.01 6.32

Gy Error Types
1. Properties of the Sample
2. How you get the sample
3. What you do with the sample
From:, Gerlach, R.W., Nocerino, J.M., 2003. Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from
Particulate Laboratory Samples EPA/600/R-03/027
How You Get the Sample – A Properly

Taken Sample
Slide adapted from: ‘Representative sampling for reliable data analysis: Theory of Sampling’, Lars Petersena, Pentti Minkkinenb, Kim H.
Esbensena. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 77 (2005) 261– 277

Sample Collection
● “....emphasis is almost exclusively placed on obtaining a small
sample as quickly possible by the least laborious, least
expensive and most direct procedure...”
● = ‘Grab Sample”
Quote adapted from: ‘Representative sampling for reliable data analysis: Theory of Sampling’, Lars Petersena, Pentti Minkkinenb, Kim H.
How You Get the Sample – A Poorly

Taken Sample
“Grab sampling. Only the top and most easily accessible material has a chance of
ending up in the final sample. This is by all accounts the most often used sampling
procedure of all—and it is at the same time the worst of all sampling procedures.

Grab Sample Comments
● Nevertheless, used in face sampling, track and pad sampling,
traverse sampling.
● Very real possibility of inducing a selection bias...

● Over representing the soft/fractured component, not the correct
volume.
● Selecting the ‘good bits’.
● Unable to access all the sample (stockpile).
● Etc etc.
ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data

100
Better
• Sample through the

whole of pile in 2
directions.
• “Crossed Spear
Sampling”

101
SAMPLING BROKEN DRILL
MATERIALS

102
Conventional Air Drilling

● Air flows down the centre of the
drill string and returns along with
the sample cuttings between the
hole wall and drill string.
● Potential for sample
contamination from the wall of the
hole.
● Poor water control.

103
Reverse Circulation (RC and AC) Drilling
● Drill string has an inner and outer
rod. Air flows into the hole
between the inner and outer rods.
● Air and sample cuttings are
returned to surface through the
inner rod.
Air
inflow ● Aircore drilling is also an RC
technique but uses a tungsten
carbide blade bit with an open
centre to cut the hole rather than
an pneumatic hammer.
● Method gives superior sample
quality as there is no
contamination of the sample by
Air &
sample the hole wall.
return
● Better water control,

104
RC and AC Drilling QAQC

● Want only the interval drilled to end up in the bag
● Sample loss (into country rock, to outside return, fines from cyclone).
● Incorrect sampling start and end.
● Contamination due to wall collapse and erosion, material
entrainment, coating in sample delivery system.
● If there is any relationship between grainsize and grade, and

there is a selective loss of a grain size (usually fines) and bias
will be introduced.

105
RC and AC Drilling QAQC
● Wet Samples Lead to
● Smearing
● Downhole contamination,
● Caking in cyclone
● Biases (washing out of fines)
● MUST RECORD IN THE DATABASE, THIS IS SECOND AFTER

SAMPLE WEIGHT AS AN INDICATOR OF SAMPLE QUALITY

106
RC and AC Drilling – QAQC

● The only real measure of recovery is sample weight.
● Based on the recovered mass of sample from a standard length of hole,

typically 1 or 2 metres.
● The expected mass is determined as the hole volume multiplied by
the density of the rock.
● Use a regularly calibrated and appropriate capacity scale/balance to
check recovered sample mass, particularly in production or resource
estimation roles
● Alternatively, visually recovery could be logged (but much inferior).
● The splitting system introduces challenges for recording sample weight.
● Remember:
● Create broken material from which we must take a smaller
representative sample.

107
108
Splitters - composite sampling
In compositing sampling (the green squares) a number of small samples gives

a much more representative sample than extracting only one large sample of
the same mass/volume – Think number of riffles in a riffle splitter

109
Splitting – Jones Riffler
● Low sample variance is possible using a Jones riffler if the splitting is
carried out to a high standard and the sample is correctly homogenised
prior to selection of the final sample to be sent for assay.
● However use of a conventional Jones riffler needs to conform to the
following standard to be effective:
● Chute width is appropriately sized for the volume of material to be
split: the chute width is not smaller than 3 times the maximum
particle size or <10mm, whichever condition is met first.
● there should be an even number of chutes there, and at least 12
chutes.
Incorrect use of a
chute splitter
Picture from:, Gerlach, R.W., Nocerino, J.M., 2003.
Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory
Analytical Subsamples from Particulate Laboratory Samples
EPA/600/R-03/027

110
Riffle Splitters (….more)

● Bins very often are in unacceptable condition,
● Avoid using the receiving bucket (which is invariably longer than the
inner length of the splitter) to feed the splitter.
● Avoid feeding the riffle splitter from the small side of the bucket.
● The material is not feed into the splitter directly from the sample bag
used to catch the material at the cyclone, but is first transferred to an
appropriately sized pan.
● The material in the pan has been flattened in the pan and is not
emptied back and forth across the splitter, but is tipped along the full
length of the splitter.
● The material is fed along the centerline of the splitter from a pan with
equal inner dimensions to the splitter.
● The material is fed in slowly.
Picture from:, Gerlach, R.W., Nocerino, J.M., 2003.

Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory
Analytical Subsamples from Particulate Laboratory Samples
EPA/600/R-03/027

111

112
Scale for weighing sample
Keep splitter
& trays
clean & in
good repair
Work area
can be
cleaner

113
Install
2nd
Sample
Chute
Here

114
Stationary Cone Splitter

● Sample accepted into a box
and funnel.
● Flows through funnel and is
distributed over the top of
the cone.
● Material is distributed to
the base of the cone,
sample (and duplicate) is
collected into wedge
samples aperture, the reject
flows through and out.
Figure from: Catto B and Church P, 2003, Obtaining a Representative RC Sample – The Cone Splitter versus the Tiered Riffle Splitter.
5th International Mining Geology Conference, Bendigo, 2003

117
Stationary Cone Splitter
● Sample accepted into a
box and funnel.
● Flows through funnel and
is distributed over the top
of the cone.
● Material is distributed to
the base of the cone,
sample (and duplicate) is
collected into wedge
samples aperture, the
reject flows through and
out.

118
Comments – Cone ~ Riffle

● Each particle must have an equal probability of being
sampled.
● Cone vs Multi-tier Riffle
● Cone best particle size distribution (no size bias).
● Duplicate samples more comparable sample mass.
● Duplicate samples less grade variability.
● Better sample hygiene (easier to clean equipment).
● Cone splitter must be vertical.
Adapted from: Catto B and Church P, 2003, Obtaining a Representative RC Sample – The Cone Splitter versus the Tiered Riffle Splitter.

119
Comments – Cone ~ Riffle
● Other Practical Advantages:
● Few moving parts to clog and block.
● One aperture for the sample to pass through (rather than many
riffles.
● Trapdoors for cleaning.
● Improved sample integrity.
● Ability to adjust sample weight (% of lot) easily.
● Correct duplicate (DCL).
Adapted from: Catto B and Church P, 2003, Obtaining a Representative RC Sample – The Cone Splitter versus the Tiered Riffle Splitter.

120
Cone Splits Scatterplot (cone vs riffle 9v*14c)

Cone_Dup = 0.3254+0.6649*x
Function = x
● RSD(%)
10
● 16%
8
● Data <0.1
ppm
6
excluded
Cone_Dup
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cone_Orig
Data from: Catto B and Church P, 2003, Obtaining a Representative RC Sample – The Cone Splitter versus the Tiered Riffle Splitter.

121
Riffle Splits Scatterplot (cone vs riffle 9v*14c)
Riffle_Dup = 1.5196+0.4635*x
Function = x
● RSD(%)
10
● 41%
8
● Data <0.1
ppm
6
excluded
Riffle_Dup
0 2 4 6 8 10
Riffle_Orig
Data From: Catto B and Church P, 2003, Obtaining a Representative RC Sample – The Cone Splitter versus the Tiered Riffle Splitter.

122
Rotary Cone Splitter

● “..by rotating the cutting
ports below the sampling
cone, sample representivity
is dramatically improved,
particularly when material
flow bias is present, caused
when, for example: the drill
rig and/or sampling system
is not or cannot be leveled
correctly, or a continual
fines bias or a random
natural flow bias is present
(inherent to wet sampling).”

123
Rotary Cone Splitter
Measurement Errors
what you do with the sample
Lose it

Diamond Drillhole Sampling
● Accurate to/from.
● Samples should be consistently taken from the same side of
the core after the core has been laid out with bedding planes
facing up the hole, interlocked and a core reference line
drawn on the crest of the bedding planes, to produce two
equal halves once cut. This ensures ‘random’ sample
selection (no human bias).
● Recovery should be recorded.
● Sampling broken core can be difficult (remember
representative).
● Carful with transportation, dropped trays, etc.

127
How you get the sample: Core

Bad Example…..

128
Good Example…..

129

Bad Example…..

130
Relative
rankings of
sub-
sampling
methods
Gerlach and Nocerino, 2003

137
Errors
● Once you have taken the sample – there is no fixing the
sample after that point.
● A biased sample remains biased.
● Loss of fines or coarse is not repairable.
● A protocol that promotes biased sampling is usually invisible to QC.
● Re-sampling bulks will not fix it.
● Sampling bias is critical and difficult to detect.

144
Perfect precision……..hidden bias
This problem is transparent to subsequent QC analysis
Primary Sample Duplicate

145
Be Warned....
● It is not possible to determine if a particular sample is
representative from any kind of inspection or
characterisation of the sample itself.
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2005, 77, 261-277.

146
Protection From Sampling Errors
● Use SOPs and Protocols.
● Essential component of a complete quality management
system.

147
Use SOPs and Protocols

Data Collection and Data Management
Sample Numbering Rules and Conventions
● SAMPLE NUMBERS MUST BE UNIQUE
● No Suffixes or Prefixes to the samples number except where
expressly indicated.
● Samples should not be renumbered from the original number
except for check assaying (facility must be available in
database).
● Same samples can be sent to multiple laboratories with the
same number.
● If two samples are taken at one site, two sample numbers
must be allocated, if 3 samples, then 3 sample numbers etc.

148
Data Collection and Data Management
● Some important data fields to collect at each site:
● Sample Number.
● Sample Type (e.g. Rock, Soil, Stream Sediment, Lag).
● Location ([country], region, prospect, coordinates etc).
● Size Fraction (grab, chip, sieve mesh).
● Location context (e.g. contamination, slope, mining activity,
geomorphology, outcrop, mineralogy, stream depth, flow, vegetation
etc).
● General Comments (other observations by geologist at site).
● Data collection can be on cards which are later transferred to
digital records or directly stored into handheld units with
remote connection capability to centralised storage.
● Data collection needs to be part of a data management
system - enables consistent collection and analysis of
samples with appropriate QAQC, data accessibility, and
reliable long term storage.
149
Example Sample Ticket

150
Data Management

Fit for Purpose QC1 151
Stream Sediment Sampling –

Generalised SOP
● Sample Site Selection:
● Aim for gravel-cobble and/or sandy-gravel ripple beds (shallow portion of
the stream), in the centre and straightest portion of the stream. Try to stay
well above the influence of the flood plain of the adjacent stream (e.g. at
least 50-100 metres).
● Sample Collection and Preparation at the Sample Site:
● Clean equipment between samples.
● Collect material from multiple sites with the sample material representative
of the stream bed surface to 30 cm below the stream bed surface.
● Sample over a total area of more than 50 sq. m.
● If the site is dry, sieve to achieve 5 to 6 kg of material passing a 1.00 mm
screen and then screen to required passing size (e.g. -250um base metals, -
63 micron fine fraction Au).
● If the site is wet, wet sieve to achieve 7-8 kg using of material passing a 1.00
mm screen OR wet sieve to achieve 2 kg using of material passing –250um.
Wet samples require further processing.

152
QAQC Protocols During Different Phases of a Program –
Example Requirements
Major QAQC test QAQC Reconn. Early RC/DD Resource Drilling Grade Control
- OC RC/ UG DD
Field Sampling Field Duplicates Essential Essential Essential If Possible
Accuracy Standards-Pulps Essential Essential Essential Essential
Lab Precision Lab Internal Essential Essential Essential Essential

Repeats
Umpire Lab
If a problem If Possible Essential If a problem
Pulps
Sample Prep Blanks Essential Essential Essential Essential

Quartz Washes No High Grade High Grade High Grade
Sizings Essential Essential Essential Essential

155
Why do we Care?
Exploration Don't miss a target, assess
targets properly.
Resources Data suitable for publicly

reported estimates. Geomet
implications. Reduce risk.
Grade Control Minimal misclassification.
Geomet – scheduling
optimisation.
Plant/Tails/Product Reconciliation.

156

5 6149828113384603656

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 6149828113384603656

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ioGlobal Applied Geochemistry Workshop

Bali – May 2013

QAQC from Exploration to Production

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 1

“All analytical measurements are wrong: it’s just a question of

“You get what you pay for”

Quality Assurance Quality Assurance

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 3

Some Definitions: Dispersion

● Relative Standard Deviate

● 1 Standard Deviation Precision

ioGlobal 2012 Insert Project ioGlobal | the evolution of data 5

Coefficient of Variation (%)

Mean = 10, sd = 1 Mean = 100, sd = 10

In both cases the coefficient of variation is 10%

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 6

0ppm 100ppm All95

Standard Deviation = Standard Deviation =

CV% = 5.2% CV% = 5.1%

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 7

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 8

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data 9

● A QC program enables the recipient to evaluate if the

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data10

Issues Concerning Assay Results Quality

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data13

THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data14

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data15

● 1556 - ―De Re Metallica‖ Georgius Agricola

● A careful owner, before buying shares, should visit the mine

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data16

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data19

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data20

“The Consulting geologists, Burrill and Associates

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data21

Poseidon – Share Price

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data22

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data23

Figure from: http://www.crirsco.com/isr_mineral_resources_reserves0908.pdf

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data24

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data25

Reward Mining (REW-VE) 52 cents off $1.38

● We wish to inform you that our independent lab has

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data26

Venus Metals (VMC-ASX)

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data30

Applicable Reporting Codes and

● Canada: CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves – Definitions

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data36

● Materiality requires that a Public Report contains all the relevant

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data37

Extract from Table 1: Check List of Assessment and

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data38

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data39

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “General Requirements for the

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data56

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data57

“FIT FOR PURPOSE”

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data58

Leigh Bettenay and Cliff Stanley, Explore number 111

QAQC - Fit for Purpose - Example

ioGlobal 2012 ioGlobal | the evolution of data60