Guidelines for acceptable allotted

sampling uncertainty

Presented by Francis F. Pitard, Dr. Tech.

How much allotted variability is reasonable
for the Fundamental Sampling Error?

40%

32%

16%

10%
?
5%

1%
 It depends on Data Quality Objectives

(DQO)
There are various points of view:

• Exploration Geologist
• Grade Control Engineer
• Metallurgist in charge of Material
Balance
• Metallurgist minimizing impurities
in high purity materials
• Trade of commodities
• Environmental Assessments
 All these people have something in common.

The Fundamental Sampling Error FSE is not their only problem.

GSE
AE
IDE
IEE Residual Sampling and
IWE
IPE Analytical Errors
Etc…
Furthermore: the cumulative effect of n
There are n sampling stages
and one AE:
FSEn
AE How much allotted
GSEn
IDEn
IEEn
uncertainty
IWEn
IPEn
for each of them?
 Furthermore: some sampling errors
are extremely difficult to quantify.

GSEn
IDEn The only thing you
IEEn can do is to be
IWEn preventive.
IPEn
 A Logical Approach
Step #1:
Allow a Total Allotted Uncertainty considered
as an upper maximum limit.

Examples:
Exploration for gold: ± 32%
Exploration for copper: ± 20%
Material Balance for gold: ± 10%
Material Balance for copper: ± 5%
Sales of concentrates for gold: ±3%
Sales of concentrates for copper: ±1%
Environmental assessments: ± 32%
 Step #2:

Allow HALF of the Total Allotted Uncertainty to the

Residual Sampling Errors and the Analytical Error all
combined, after preventive action took place.

Examples:
Exploration for gold (total 32%):
(22.6%)

Grade control for copper (total 20%):

(14%)
 Step #3:

Allow the other HALF of the Total Allotted Uncertainty

to all the Fundamental Sampling Errors combined:

Examples:
Exploration for gold:

(22.6%)

Grade control for copper:

(14%)
 Now the Total Fundamental Sampling Error can be divided
between the various sampling stages in an appropriate way.

Example: Exploration for gold:

2
sFSE 
0.32 
2
 0.0256 (±16%)
1
4
Therefore, the 16% recommendation made by Pierre Gy for
precious metals and for the primary sampling stage was based on a
logical analysis.
0.32 
2 0.32 2

FSE3   0.0064
2
s FSE2 
2
 0.0128 s
8 16
(± 11%) ± 8%)
 Guideline for Exploration, Grade Control, and
Environmental Assessments:
Precious Metals and Trace Constituents
Total Allotted Uncertainty: 32%
Residual Uncertainty: 23%
Total Fundamental Sampling Error: 23%

Primary Sampling Stage FSE1: 16%

Secondary Sampling Stage FSE2: 11%
Tertiary Sampling Stage FSE3: 8%

Etc…

It is understood that each sampling stage involves a different stage of

comminution.
Guideline for Exploration, Grade Control:
Base Metals
Total Allotted Uncertainty: 20%

Residual Uncertainty: 14%

Total Fundamental Sampling Error: 14%

Primary Sampling Stage FSE1: 10%

Secondary Sampling Stage FSE2: 7%

Tertiary Sampling Stage FSE3: 5%

Etc…
 Guideline for Process Control, Material Balance:

Precious
Metals, Base
Impurities Metals
Total Allotted Uncertainty: 10% 5%
Residual Uncertainty: 7% 3.5%
Total Fundamental Sampling Error: 7% 3.5%

Primary Sampling Stage FSE1: 5% 2.5%

Secondary Sampling Stage FSE2: 3.5% 1.8%
Tertiary Sampling Stage FSE3: 2.5% 1.3%

Etc…
 Guideline for Commercial Sampling:

Precious
Metals, Base
Impurities Metals

Total Allotted Uncertainty: 3% 1%

Residual Uncertainty: 2.1% 0.7%
Total Fundamental Sampling Error: 2.1% 0.7%

Primary Sampling Stage FSE1: 1.5% 0.5%

Secondary Sampling Stage FSE2: 1.1% 0.35%
Tertiary Sampling Stage FSE3: 0.75% 0.25%

Etc…
 Conclusions and Recommendations:

• Objectives and Requirements can be drastically

different.

• Guidelines in this paper are not the panacea, however

they are needed for sampling practitioners. Important
decisions depend on them.

• WCSBs Technical Committees/Forums need to provide

a consensus to be used by International Standards
Organizations.