VALIDATION OF SAMPLING AND ASSAYING QUALITY

FOR BANKABLE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

William J. Shaw
Principal Consultant
Golder Associates
Level 3 Kirin Centre, 15 Ogilvie Rd
MT PLEASANT WA 6153
Phone +619 3162710 Fax +619 3161791 Email wshaw@golder.com.au

(published 1997 in The Resource Database Towards 2000,

Wollongong, 16 May, AusIMM, Melbourne, 41-49.)

ABSTRACT providers of debt finance in assessing the technical risk

Capital investment to develop mining projects has always
involved significant risk. To reduce that risk, the quality of
bankable feasibility studies has been steadily improving.
An awareness of the impact of the data on an ore reserve
statement is explicit in the Joint Ore Reserves Committee
Code which requires qualitative assessment of the data
used. The standards by which data are being assessed must
continue to improve, necessitating the development of
quantitative measures for comparison of data quality that
are valid between different sampling regimes and across
different deposits and projects.
After a brief review of the relevant parts of sampling
theory, the practices involved in sampling, subsampling,
sample comminution, and various assaying methods are
discussed. The impact of these on both precision and
accuracy of data are examined and the strengths and
weaknesses of quality assurance schemes in addressing this
impact are noted. Practical methods to assess and compare
the precision of assay data sets are presented and their
implementation is outlined using a case study. The use of
sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of data quality
on bankable feasibility studies is examined.
Caution is advised in using sampling data on a statistical
basis without cognisance of the spatial relationships. Data
should be derived from consistent geological domains,
with orientation studies carried out on the material that is
likely to tbe the most difficult to sample.
INTRODUCTION
Capital investment to develop mining projects has always
involved significant risk. The process of managing this risk
is becoming standardised within and between mining
companies, partly by the uniformity brought about by joint
ventures between the various participants. The major
influence however has been the involvement of the
before any final commitment to mining.
Assessment of a deposit moves through a number of
stages:
• exploration
• discovery of mineralisation
• conceptual study
• development drilling for resource definition
• pre-feasibility study
• bankable feasibility study
• construction and preparation for mining
• grade control
• mining production
The three studies highlighted in this list become more
rigorous as the level of capital exposure increases.
Conceptual studies may be “back of the envelope”
calculations or more formal studies, but the paucity of
available data limits the validity of the results. In many
cases the estimation of tonnes and grade is done using
simplistic methods, which may be subject to significant
error. Accordingly these conceptual studies are only a
guide to further work; they may be used to define limits for
development drilling and to guide preliminary mining and
metallurgical investigations.
Pre-feasibility studies are a test of the project viability for
management. Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimations are carried out to define the likely limits of
mineable ore and the impact of various styles (and scales)
of mining and processing. These studies should highlight
areas of concern, including deficiencies in the amount and
quality of the input data. On completion of the pre-
feasibility study, management should have a clear picture
of the work that is still required to establish the viability of
the project. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Pre-
feasibility studies tend to focus on the likely benefits of
developing the project, rather than on the deficiencies in
information, which if addressed would reduce the risk. So
pre-feasibility studies are often seen as a practice run at the
feasibility study, without much of the rigour. The
difficulties in this approach are immediately apparent:
omissions in the pre-feasibility study will not be recognised
if that study is not adequately reviewed. Moving to the
feasibility study without addressing these deficiencies
means that there is often little improvement in the amount
and quality of the underlying data on which the final
decision to proceed depends.
Bankable feasibility studies are reviewed by the providers
of funding. They are formal documents that:
• demonstrate that the project is economically viable,
• provide a detailed plan of the proposed mining and
processing, with costs, and
• define the quality and limitations of the data and
assumptions used.
Invariably the bankable feasibility study is reviewed by
independent consultants on behalf of the lenders. The
extent of this review may vary, but for large projects a
detailed audit should be expected. To reduce the exposure
of the lenders and the overall project risk, the quality of
bankable feasibility studies has been steadily improving.
An awareness of the impact of the data on an ore reserve
statement is explicit in the Joint Ore Reserves Committee
Code which requires qualitative assessment of the data
used. The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) requires that
public reporting by mining companies of all Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves must be in accordance with
the current Joint Ore Reserves Committee Code (JORC,
1996). It is likely that the framework of this code will be
adopted internationally. It is also likely that reporting
requirements will become more stringent rather than being
relaxed. A sound understanding of the requirements of an
ore reserve statement under the JORC (1996) Code is
necessary (but of course not sufficient) to avoid the pitfalls
that face many development projects.
Bankable feasibility studies are becoming increasingly
rigorous as the technical awareness of the lenders grows.
Banks employ not only financial analysts, but also
technical experts in geology, mining and metallurgy. As
awareness of the impact of technical problems grows
through experience at various operations, the bankers
naturally seek to ensure that such problems do not arise
again.
The sampling and assay data for an orebody are the
foundation on which the rest of the feasibility study is
built. Mathematical sophistry cannot replace good quality
data. The standards by which data are being assessed must
continue to improve, necessitating the development of
quantitative measures for comparison of data quality that
are valid between different sampling regimes and across
different deposits and projects. This paper examines
specific techniques used in recent bankable feasibility
studies to define the quality and limitations of the sampling
and assaying data in a quantitative and objective manner.
These methods may be used to augment the subjective
descriptive assessments of data quality required by the
JORC Code, which are not examined further in this paper.
The issue of representative sampling, geological setting
and spatial relationships is frequently ignored in sampling
studies. The assumption that all samples are equally
representative of the orebody may not be valid. Statistical
analysis of geological data is notorious for ignoring the
spatial component. Thus any sampling study data being
examined should be derived from consistent geological
domains and care should be taken in applying the results to
other domains. The preferred approach is to carry out an
orientation study to determine which material is likely to
be the most difficult to sample. More detailed work on this
material will provide a suitable sampling protocol that can
be safely used for the whole deposit.
SAMPLING
Accuracy And Precision
The difference between the estimated value and the true
value for any determination (or prediction) is termed the
error. We are interested in two aspects of this error.
Consistent components of this error are termed bias and
reflect the accuracy of the determination method. Random
components of this error are termed precision and reflect
the repeatability of the method. The classic analogy
proposed to understand the difference between these two
components of error is the game of archery. If the arrows
are tightly clustered then they show high precision. If the
arrows fall equally around the bull’s-eye they may on
average show high accuracy. But the objective is to have
both high accuracy and high precision. It is not appropriate
to discuss the average accuracy without qualifying it by
discussing the repeatability of the individual results.
The differences between bias and precision are reflected in
the way these aspects of the total error are presented and
used. Bias is frequently discussed in terms of the
differences in the central tendencies (e.g. mean, median,
etc.) of two sets of data, or between a set of data and the
true value.
Precision is frequently discussed in terms of the variability
of sets of data by comparing the distribution of the
differences. Common measures for this are the second
order moments such as the standard deviation and variance
or their standardised equivalents, the coefficient of
variation and the relative variance1.
Sampling Theory
The principles of sampling theory developed by Gy (1979),
as expounded by Pitard (1993), are accepted by many
practitioners in the mining industry. Explanations of
practical applications of the theory are available in Radford
(1987), Cooper (1988), Keogh and Hunt (1990), Taylor
(1993) and Shaw (1993), amongst others. Recently a number
of improvements on the basic theory have been provided by
François-Bongarçon (1995) bringing theoretical and
experimental results much closer together.
The Fundamental Sampling Error (FE) of Gy is a formal
description of the observed relationship between the
particle size of a component of interest (e.g. gold) within a
sample and the nominal particle size2 of that sample. The
FE is measured as a relative variance. In sampling theory
the relative variances of the various stages of a sampling
protocol are considered to be additive (e.g. Pitard, 1993,
p.31). For example, the total experimental error may be
regarded as the sum of the sampling error, plus sample
preparation error, plus assaying error, if all these errors are
determined as relative variances. Thus at any stage of the
sampling and assaying process, the differential relative
variance due solely to that part of the process can be
determined using suitably designed experiments.
In summary and in its simplest form, the Fundamental
Sampling Error is represented by the following equation:
kd α
s2FE =
mass
This relationship may also be frequently seen as:
1 1
s2FE = ( − ) kd α
MS M L
Where:
S2FE is the Fundamental Sampling Error expressed as a
relative variance
k is a sampling constant
d is the nominal particle size (95% passing) in cm
MS is the mass of the sample in grams
1 The relative variance is the square of the coefficient of
variation and is similarly dimensionless.
2 The nominal particle size is defined by convention as the
95% passing sieve size and is a summary statistic taken to
characterise the distribution of particle sizes.
ML is the mass of the lot in grams
α is an exponent characterising the deposit of interest
A parametric approach to defining the sampling constant k
requires definition of further factors:
k = c f g d 3L−α
Where:
c is the composition factor
f is the shape factor of particles or fragments
g is the size distribution (grouping) factor
dL is a function of the sample particle size and the
liberation size
Solving for the parameters α and k enables a sampling
nomogram to be defined for the deposit of interest. The
nomogram enables prediction of the total sampling error
that would be obtained using alternative sampling
protocols. (Examples of sampling nomograms are
discussed as part of a case study presented later in this
paper).
The use of the parametric approach as originally proposed
by Gy led to a wide divergence between predicted results
and experience, causing significant harm to the acceptance
of sampling theory by the gold mining industry. By
contrast, the use of empirical data to define the critical
parameters α and k proposed by François-Bongarçon
provides a quantitative basis for the comparison of
different deposits. (Nevertheless it must be noted that there
are still practical limitations imposed on experimental work
by the laboratory precision of the final assaying stage.)
Sampling theory also refers to non-quantifiable errors that
arise due to mistakes in sampling, sampling preparation
and assaying. Problems in data recording and management
and in grade interpolation cause additional errors. All these
errors are best minimised by maintaining good quality
control practices (through vigilance and audits) to reduce
their potential impact on profitability.
Monitoring Of Sampling And Assaying Quality
The quality of assays can be monitored by submitting
standards, blanks, duplicates and repeats of drill samples
and previously prepared pulps.
Standard samples of known (usually certified) grade are
submitted to monitor the accuracy of a laboratory, i.e. the
ability of the laboratory to get the correct or known result.
A laboratory showing a systematic difference from the
expected result is said to exhibit a bias. Standard samples
ensure that the laboratory quality control procedures are
effective and that significant bias is not evident within or
between assay batches.
Blank or barren samples with an expected very low grade
are submitted to ensure that there is no contamination
between samples during the sample preparation or
assaying. If the blank samples following high grade
samples have elevated grades, then there have been
problems.
Pairs of duplicate samples prepared and assayed in an
identical manner provide a measure of the total error of
sampling. When this error is derived in relative terms, the
total error is the sum of the errors due to splitting the initial
duplicate, preparing the sample and assaying the sample.
Field duplicate samples or resplits are generally collected
for sample preparation and assay by splitting the reverse
circulation (RC) drill chips, or by submitting the second
half of diamond drill core.
Crushing and pulverising reduces the particle size of drill
core and RC chips to a nominal size (e.g. 90% passing 75
µm) and then a small subsample (say 200 g) of this pulp is
retained for assay in a pulp packet. Residue samples may
be collected at all stages of the sampling protocol.
Repeat samples are pulps that have been previously
prepared and assayed and that then have been re-submitted
for another identical analysis. Comparison of the results
provides a measure of the precision of a laboratory, i.e. the
ability of the laboratory to get the same assay result under
the same conditions.
Pairs of samples assayed at different laboratories may help
to define the inter-laboratory precision and may also
identify a bias between the two laboratories.
Experimental Definition Of Sampling Repeatability
In describing any form of sampling, from diamond drilling,
reverse circulation drilling, trenching or any other source,
it is important to conform to the following conventional
terminology of Gy (after Pitard, 1993):
Lot - the total collection of material for which it is
required to estimate some component.
Component - the property that we require to estimate
using the sample, e.g. grade, density, thickness, etc.
Sample - part of a lot on which a determination of a
component will be carried out, where each part of the
lot had an equal probability of being selected into the
sample.
Specimen - part of a lot on which a determination of a
component will be carried out, but for which the rule of
equal probability of selection has not been respected.
Increment - part or whole of a sample, selected from
the lot with a single cut of the sampling device. A
number of increments may be combined to form one
sample.
The objective of representative sampling is to obtain
samples rather than specimens. Determination of the grade
within a drilled interval is an example of the use of
sampling “to estimate the component of the lot”. It is a
difficult enough process to ensure that the sampling is
correctly carried out when the lot is regarded as all of the
material from within a single drilled interval. Once this
problem is appreciated, the greater difficulty in obtaining
representative samples of the deposit becomes clear.
The process of sampling a drilled interval can be defined
by developing and testing a sampling protocol. Such a
protocol can be characterised by description of the nominal
particle size and mass at each stage of subsampling. The
following example not only illustrates the minimum
information required but can also be regarded as a
minimum safe initial sampling protocol, until experimental
work is carried out as an early part of resource definition
sampling:
“Each 5 kg sample was dried and reduced to less than
6 mm in a jaw crusher. The whole sample was then
cone crushed to 2 mm. The crushed sample was riffle
split in half, to approximately 2.5 kg, then pulverised to
90% passing 75 microns in a Labtechnics LM5 mill
using a single large puck. The entire pulp was roll-
mixed on a plastic sheet and four 100 g cuts were taken
with a small trowel, to provide 400 g for storage in a
kraft envelope. The residue was rebagged and stored
for six months. From the 400 g subsample 50 g was
weighed out for fire assay with an aqua regia digest
finish.”
Particle sizing tests and experimental repeatability
sampling should be carried out at each stage of
comminution, i.e. in the above example after the jaw
crusher, cone crusher and pulveriser. The use of 100 pairs
of samples at each stage constitutes one example of a
sampling tree experiment by means of which the total
relative variance and consequently the differential
relative variance can be defined for each stage of the
sampling protocol. This procedure should be used to
optimise the sample preparation protocol, to cost
effectively minimise the total random error of the sample
assays.
Assaying Principles And Quality Assurance
The assaying3 precision varies with the grade being
determined. The precision deteriorates as the limit of
3 In this paper the term assay is used in preference to
analysis, the latter term being commonly used for the
analysis of the assay results. In this context assays should
be considered to include all chemical determinations
including those for components like Total Fe, SiO2, Al2O3,
acid extractable Ni, organic C, as well as Zn, Cu, Ag, etc.,
and of course Au.
detection (LOD) is approached. The use of repeat assays
on pulps provides a check on the quality of the assaying
being carried out.
From personal experience, an audit of data being used for a
feasibility study should include examination of the sample
preparation and assaying procedures. Obviously such an
audit should be carried out before the resource estimation;
due diligence audits that reveal deficiencies in the data can
be embarrassing, expensive and raise doubts about the
viability of the project.
There is often little real difference in the accuracy or
precision that the various commercial laboratories can
produce. Real differences do exist in the quality of the
results provided however and they may be explained by
two aphorisms “you get what you pay for” and “let the
buyer beware”. Commercial laboratories produce results
for which the quality is only constrained by the time and
procedures used, i.e. by the cost that the client will pay.
Certification of a laboratory by the National Association of
Testing Authorities (NATA) provides some surety that the
written procedures adopted by the laboratory are followed,
and that an audit trail is established for all work carried
out. However as with all quality assurance schemes, such
certification provides no guarantee that the documented
procedures are appropriate, just that these procedures are
followed.
While quality control systems are now uniformly adopted,
these are designed to meet the production needs of the
laboratory, rather than the specific needs of the client.
Accordingly they can suffer from two specific drawbacks.
The laboratory carries out repeat assays on the same pulp
using the same method, but it knows the final result. Where
the original and the repeat assays do not agree sufficiently,
the results may be abandoned and the work repeated. This
is appropriate from the point of view of the laboratory, but
may mask the true variability of the results being produced.
Secondly, from a theoretical point of view, all repeat
assays are open to question if they are not blind and
randomised. All the pulps should be submitted as blind
randomised samples so that they cannot be matched by the
laboratory and to remove the effect of any bias due to
procedural or instrument errors.
Definition of the assaying accuracy is frequently addressed
by assaying standard samples. Such standards are obtained
from commercial sources and themselves suffer from a
number of problems:
• some are very expensive, and differences in costs may
reflect differences in quality,
• the expected accuracy and repeatability characteristics
may differ for different assaying techniques (these
should be defined in the documentation provided with
the standard),
• they have different mineral compositions and particle
distributions to the samples of interest (these define the
matrix of a sample), and
• they are readily identified by the laboratory.
Experimental Definition Of Sampling Accuracy
After the sample preparation and assaying of a batch of
samples has been completed, the kraft envelopes of
pulverised material (pulps) should be retrieved from the
laboratory. The available assay results should be used to
select batches of 100 samples with grades at or above the
level of interest, i.e. from just below the economic cut-off
grade up to values that are likely to significantly affect
grade estimates (for example the high grade cutting value).
These batches of samples should be randomised and
renumbered. They can then be submitted to the same
laboratory for determination by a different assay method,
or to a second or third laboratory.
Assessment of the comparative results for these pairs of
pulps allows the average differences in grade to be
quantified for various grade ranges. Inclusion of standard
and blank samples enables the accuracy to be monitored at
the same time.
Common Problems With Sampling And Assaying
Studies
Many of the accuracy and repeatability studies seen to date
suffer from design problems, either because of a lack of
clear understanding of the principles discussed above, or
because the experimental work is trying to achieve too
much. Common failings are:
• reliance solely on the quality control procedures of the
laboratory, with no independent validation
(consequently standards used to check instrument
calibration are claimed to demonstrate accuracy, and
repeats used to monitor and eliminate between batch
variability are used to demonstrate precision)
• the systematic re-submission of a proportion of samples
(e.g. 10%) so that most of the repeats are of irrelevant
very low grades
• re-submission of samples using the same sample
numbers, or in the same order, so that the reason for
systematic differences (bias) is not clearly defined
• confusion between the comparison of duplicate field
samples and replicate assays on pulps, so that it is
unclear which errors are due to assaying, which are due
to sample preparation and which are due to the initial
sample splitting
• submission of all the duplicates and repeats at the end
of the resource drilling when it is too late to change the
protocols if significant precision or bias errors are
identified
• submission of duplicates and repeats without
monitoring (and acting on) the results.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Tests For Accuracy
The most poorly utilised tool for interpreting sampling data
is the scatterplot. Plots with different scales on the abscissa
and ordinate, and plots showing regression lines between
the paired data, seem designed to confuse. Rather, square
format plots with equal scales should be produced, with a
45o line defining the expected perfect correlation.
Systematic differences between pairs of assays (bias) are
then clearly seen as deviations of the trend of paired data
from the 45o line.
Accuracy is frequently defined as the difference between
the means of the paired data. This is a valid measure but
the sensitivity of this statistic to outliers must be tested by
trimming the data and by examining subsets of the data4. A
non-linear bias may be identified between two assay data
sets (called here the “standard” and the “check” assay
methods). For example the “standard” method may
overestimate gold grades below 4 g/t Au and underestimate
them above that value. At a mining cut-off grade of
1 g/t Au this creates a problem. Use of the “standard”
method results in overestimation of tonnages above the
cut-off grade, but underestimation of their grade. Use of
the “check” method would produce the opposite result.
Tests For Precision
Precision can be determined by carrying out a large
number of assays on a single homogeneous sample, to
define the distribution of errors about the mean result. The
residuals can be found by subtracting the mean from each
assay result and examined to ensure that they are
distributed normally. The standard deviation of the
residuals defines the precision. Thus, for example, for a
confidence level of 95 percent, the precision would be the
standard deviation times 1.96. This can then be used to
determine the precision as the absolute error of the assays
(in the case of a gold deposit as ± g/t Au).
In dealing with real gold bearing samples it is necessary to
recognise that each sample is inherently different. It would
not be appropriate to compare the means of 40 different
samples, it would be too expensive to carry out a large
number of replicates (repeat assays) on many different
samples, and generally there is insufficient homogeneous
material available to carry out a large number of replicates.
4 While mathematical treatments of the impact of outliers
on statistical methods are available (e.g. Barnett and
Lewis, 1994) the impact of geological and spatial
characteristics of the samples cannot be ignored.
Trimming, Cutting and Winzorising may be effective
techniques for obtaining repeatable results but their
limitations and impact on the results must be understood.
The methodology adopted by Pitard (1993) for
determining precision using the Fundamental Sampling
Error as the relative variance of the sample data set is
extremely sensitive to single outlier values. Similar
difficulties occur with other univariate statistics (e.g. the
standard deviation and the geometric mean) and with
bivariate statistics (e.g. the covariance, the correlation
coefficient and regression). Although it may be argued that
it is the outlier values that are of interest, problems with the
statistical analysis can make the results of the sampling
experiment apparently unrepeatable.
To enable comparison between various assay methods in
gold deposits, a method of using paired samples is
required, with the results standardised to enable statistical
comparison. Techniques for quantifying assaying precision
have been discussed by Thompson and Howarth (1973)
and Bumstead (1984). These have been adopted by the
author to define a robust estimate of error termed the Half
Absolute Relative Difference (HARD) for paired data.
This is produced by dividing half the absolute difference
between the two values by the mean of the two values. A
similar measure termed the Half Relative Difference
(HRD) may be used where the sign of the differences is
significant.
The Half Absolute Relative Difference (HARD) is
calculated as follows (note that the factors of two cancel
out):
1 ABS( Assay1 − Assay2)
HARD = * *100
2 Assay1 + Assay2
2
The HARD and HRD values may be used to produce
robust measures of the relative bias and the relative
variance of the Fundamental Sampling Error for the
purpose of defining sampling protocols5.
Three examples follow:
• If the original assay was 0.33 g/t Au and the repeat
assay was 0.99 g/t Au, the average of the two grades
would be 0.66 g/t Au, and the average of the two
residuals would be 0.33 g/t Au. Thus the relative error
as measured by the HARD would be 50%.
• The relative error between an original assay of 1 g/t Au
and a repeat of 2 g/t Au is 33.3% (the same as if the
5 The calculation of the HARD value provides similar
benefits to the use of the pairwise relative variogram for
assessing grade variability (e.g. Isaacs and Srivastava,
1989) which serves to reduce the impact of large values in
strongly skewed distributions.
 original assay was 100 g/t Au and the repeat was
200 g/t Au).
• The relative error between any original assay and a
repeat assay approaching 0 g/t Au approaches 100%
(note that assays of zero should never appear in the
database).
The limit of detection for a particular assaying method is
found to be where the HARD value reaches an upper limit
for low level assays.
The HARD values are standardised to the mean of the pair
of samples and so allow comparison between otherwise
independent samples. When sufficient samples (at least 30)
are compared, the distribution of HARD values can be
regarded as equivalent to a distribution of residuals. The
mean of all the pairs of samples used indicates the level
around which the precision is being defined.
Advantages of this method are many. It provides a robust
method which enables comparison between sample
batches, between different assaying methods, across
laboratories and across deposits. It provides a measure of
error in which the difference between an assay and a repeat
can be compared for different levels of mineralisation. It
also becomes a basis for other non-parametric measures
and comparisons. For example the percentage of samples
exceeding a specific HARD limit is a very robust measure
of error. Scatterplots and cumulative plots of HARD
against the mean of the pairs of samples provide a
complete characterisation of the quality of the sampling
and assaying in terms of relative error, and are directly
comparable from one deposit to another.
The HARD statistics are of particular use where the
precision of comparable assaying techniques must be
assessed. By doing all the work on correctly split,
pulverised material that is presented to the laboratory as
randomised blind samples, a number of difficulties are
Table 1 Experimental sampling study results for Case 1 and Case 2
Case Particle size Sample Mass
Case 1 5 mm 2.5 kg
1 mm 1.0 kg
75 µm 200 g
75 µm 50 g
Case 2 5 mm 2.5 kg
1 mm 1.0 kg
75 µm 200 g
75 µm 50 g
avoided. In particular the effect of particle size and mass of
sample that creates large precision errors during the sample
comminution process can be removed. However it must be
stressed that if poor sampling practice occurs at any stage
of the sampling protocol, knowing that the assaying
precision is excellent provides little comfort.
Typical Results
A benefit of carrying out a sampling tree experiment is that
causes for sampling difficulties can be identified. The
solution of the sampling equations previously discussed
can characterise the deposit and provide a basis for
comparison with other orebodies. For example in gold
deposits, the nominal particle size of the gold, statistics on
the HARD values, or a derived sampling nomograph, could
be used as comparative measures of the expected relative
sampling error. Such comparisons can highlight:
• High sampling errors due to pulverising a relatively
small sample or due to using a relatively coarse
nominal pulp size.
• Opportunities to reduce the sampling errors by
improving the sampling protocol.
• Problems of repeatability due to the pulveriser
attempting to reduce coarse gold particles below their
natural liberation size.
Two artificial case studies illustrate the approach that can
be taken. In each case a 5 kg sample has been submitted to
the following sampling protocol:
• jaw crushed to 5 mm and then riffle split to 2.5 kg
• milled to 1 mm and then riffle split to 1.0 kg
• pulverised to 75 µm and then mat rolled and cut to
extract 200 g
• grab sampled to produce a 50 g charge for fire assay.
Typical experimental precisions that might be obtained
using such a protocol are shown in Table 1.
Differential Precision at
relative 95 percent
variance confidence
0.0400 39.2 %
0.0200 27.7 %
0.0030 10.7 %
0.0005 4.4 %
0.0100 19.6 %
0.0030 10.7 %
0.0005 4.4 %
0.0001 2.0 %
Scatterplots indicating the variability of original and repeat
assays are shown in Figures 1 and 2. In Figure 1 the data 20

set has a precision of 20% at the 95 percent confidence

limit; in Figure 2 the data set has a precision of 10%. These
figures represent the differential variance observed for 15
samples in Case 2 after reducing the particle size to 5 mm
and then 1 mm.

Repea
Sampling nomograms, in the format adopted by Pitard 10

(1993), are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for Case 1 and Case

2. Sampling nomograms indicate the relationship between
Mass and Fundamental Error, plotted on the axes using log 5
scales. The vertical parts of the graphed line indicate where
the particle size is being reduced. The sloping parts of the
graphed line indicate where splitting is being carried out to
0
reduce the mass. These sloping lines define samples with
0 5 10 15 20
particles of constant size. (Other sloping lines for inferring
Original
the effects of alternative sampling protocols have been
omitted for clarity). The horizontal lines show error limits
Figure 1 Scatterplot of a data set with 20%
of precision at the 95 percent confidence limit.
precision at the 95 percent confidence limit. This
For the quoted precision levels it can be seen that the is typical of the differential relative variance for
sampling protocol is much less appropriate for Case 1 than samples from Case 2 reduced to a particle size of
for Case 2. This is because the nominal gold particle size 5 mm.
for Case 1 is 200 µm while for Case 2 it is 50 µm. While a
number of factors affect the calculation of this nominal 20
particle size, it can be assumed that Case 1 represents a
deposit with a moderate amount of visible gold, and Case 2
a deposit with very little visible gold.
15

Both the experimental results and the inferences of

nominal gold particle size indicate that the assay results are
Repea

less precise for Case 1. This deposit would thus have 10

poorer definition of ore blocks for both resource estimation
and grade control, incurring a higher risk that would
hopefully be compensated for by higher average grades.
5

The sampling repeatability error is affected by the orebody

(i.e. the nominal particle size of the component of interest),
the sampling practices and the assaying procedures. Thus it 0
is recommended that experimental work be carried out to 0 5 10 15 20

define the sampling nomogram long before any bankable Original

feasibility study is undertaken. Adopting generic
nomograms, or the use of the parametric approach to
define sampling constants, can be misleading and is likely
not to be supported by experimental work.
Figure 2 Scatterplot of a data set with 10%
precision at the 95 percent confidence limit. This
is typical of the differential relative variance for
samples from Case 2 reduced to a particle size of
1 mm.
 1

0.1
1 mm 5 mm
Variance

20% error
0.01
1 0% error

5% error
0.001
75 micron

0.0001

0.00001
10 1 00 M ass (g) 1 000 1 0000

Figure 3 Sampling nomogram for Case 1, a gold deposit with moderate visible gold

0.1
Variance

20% error
0.01 5 mm
1 0% error
1 mm

5% error
0.001

0.0001 75 micron

0.00001
10 1 00 1 000 1 0000
M ass (g)
Figure 4 Sampling nomogram for Case 2, a gold deposit with very little visible gold
Field Techniques
The drilling or other initial sampling method, and all stages
of subsampling and assaying, impact on both the precision
and accuracy of the data. Correctly designed experiments
in conjunction with the analytical methods presented here
can indicate where expenditure on improved procedures
can significantly reduce the errors. However in many cases,
there is no need for an experiment. Poor sampling
techniques, such as grabbing specimens rather than
splitting samples, can be avoided at very little cost.
Statistical analysis of the data can quickly indicate whether
sampling problems are a characteristic of the particular
deposit or whether the sampling has been done poorly.
Significant advances in this area can be expected as the
techniques presented here are further refined to handle
other problems, for example the quantitative analysis of
downhole smearing enabling comparisons between drilling
methods and across deposits.
Laboratory Techniques
Any assay method has an associated error. Measures of
precision quantify the expectation that the same result can
be repeated continuously. There are a number of factors
that cumulatively affect the precision of any assay result,
including:
• instrument calibration and drift
• integrity of the chemicals used to dissolve the
component of interest
• the impact of volumetric determinations using non-
calibrated glassware
• matrix effects due to other elements in solution
• the concentration of the component of interest
• the mass of material being assayed
• the homogeneity of the material being assayed
Establishing An Audit Trail
It is no longer sufficient to expect that a few duplicate and
repeat samples can be produced as evidence that the
sampling quality has been monitored.
The assay data set may include original samples, repeats,
duplicates and checks at different laboratories or with
different assay techniques. The data to be used for tonnage
and grade estimates should be maintained in a relational
database. The repeats and duplicates should be all stored in
a manner that allows easy separate extraction and cross
referencing. Averaging should be closely examined during
the data audit stage. It may not be appropriate to include
the data used for monitoring the sample quality in averages
of assay results.
Sensitivity Studies
A resource estimate should be carried out on a set of data
for which there is information on the sampling and
assaying quality. If a bias or a precision problem has been
identified it would thus be reasonable, as part of a bankable
feasibility study, to examine the sensitivity of the study to
the data quality. It may well be that differences in the Net
Present Value of a project would be identified, depending
on the change of average grade (in the case of bias) or the
change in recovered tonnes and grade (in the case of
misclassification).
The effect on a project of the sampling and assaying error
should be kept in perspective. Cases have been seen where
the effect on the average grade was less than the error
associated with the estimation method; in other cases the
viability of the project was cast into doubt by the errors
associated with the sampling or differences between the
sampling methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Monitoring and evaluating the sampling and assaying
precision and bias is necessary for bankable feasibility
studies. The statistical methods presented provide a means
by which the quality of the data can be quantified.
Meaningful comparisons are now possible between
sampling methods, assaying methods, laboratories and
deposits. Further refinements and other quantitative tests
can be expected where these provide a mechanism for
developers of mining projects to reduce their risk.
Some words of caution are advised for those who see this
approach as a panacea: sampling consists of extracting a
representative parcel of material from the deposit and then
determining the grade of that parcel through a process of
subsampling and assaying. In reality there may be
additional “errors” involved in this process which may not
be identified with a sampling study. These errors include
ignoring the spatial relationships inherent in geological
data, as well as the non-quantifiable procedural errors that
may be built into a quality assurance scheme. As
previously stated, these errors are best minimised by
maintaining good quality control practices (through
vigilance and audits) to reduce their potential impact on
profitability.
REFERENCES
Barnett, V. and Lewis, T., 1994,
Outliers in statistical data. Third edition, John Wiley &
Sons, 573 pp.
Bumstead, E., 1984,
Some comments on the precision and accuracy of gold
analysis in exploration.. AusIMM proceedings 289, pp. 71-
78, March.
Cooper, W. J., 1988,
Sample preparation - gold. Theoretical and practical
aspects. In Sample Preparation and Analyses for Gold and
Platinum - Group Elements, Australian Institute of
Geoscientists Bulletin 8, pp 31-48.
François-Bongarçon, D., 1995,
Modern Sampling Theory. Course Notes, Perth.
Gy, P. M., 1979,
Sampling of Particulate Materials - Theory and Practice. In
Developments in Geomathematics, Vol 4, Elsevier, 431 pp.
Isaacs, E. H. and Srivastava, R. M., 1989,
Applied Geostatistics, Oxford University Press, 561 pp.
JORC, 1996,
Australasian Code for Reporting of Identified Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves. Report of the Joint
Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and
Australian Mining Industry Council (JORC), issued July.
Keogh, D. C. and Hunt, S. J., 1990,
Statistical determination of a safe sampling protocol: case
studies at Granny Smith and Big Bell, Western Australia.
In Strategies For Grade Control, Australian Institute of
Geoscientists Bulletin 10, pp 31-36.
Pitard, F., 1993,
Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice. CRC
Press Inc. (second edition), 488 pp.
Radford, N. W., 1987,
Assessment of error in sampling. In Meaningful Sampling
in Gold Exploration, Australian Institute of Geoscientists
Bulletin 7, pp 123-143.
Shaw, W. J., 1993,
Mining Geology, Grade Control and Reconciliation.
Course Notes, Perth.
Taylor, M., 1993,
Grade control review at Boddington gold mine, SW region,
WA. In Proceedings of the International Mining Geology
Conference, Kalgoorlie-Boulder, WA, 5 to 8 July.
Thompson M., and Howarth R.J., 1973,
The rapid estimation and control of precision by duplicate
determination, The Analyst, 98, pp 153-160.