HOME

Geometallurgy Data Management –

A Significant Consideration
V Liebezeit1, M Smith2, K Ehrig3, P Kittler4, E Macmillan5 and
C Lower6

ABSTRACT
Data management is a significant, but perhaps unrecognised, consideration for any organisation
embarking on a geometallurgy program. While resource geologists are accustomed to dealing with
thousands or millions of samples and their associated assays, metallurgists and mineralogists
have traditionally carried out only a few expensive and complicated tests and consequently tend to
manage the resultant data in spreadsheets. The emerging discipline of geometallurgy arrives with
significant challenges as a result of the sheer volume of data generated.
As an example, the Olympic Dam geometallurgy program has generated more than:
 60 000 physical subsamples analysed for up to 30 analytes;
 25 000 spreadsheet-based laboratory test results;
 30 000 sized fractions analysed via QXRD, MLA and/or QEMSCAN;
 multiple external providers of data, and
 more than seven terabytes of data.
Considerations for any geometallurgy data management system include storage space, data
integrity, accessibility, traceability (sample provenance), maintenance and ease of use, integration
with data providers and the ability to modify the system to adapt to changing requirements.
Further, aspects of a geometallurgy program, such as conducting a range of tests on one sample,
producing subsamples such as concentrates and tailings, compositing and routine QA/QC may not
be well handled by existing software and providers geared to standard geochemistry, mineralogy or
metallurgical test programs. The development of a geometallurgy database using existing software
(AcQuire), and the associated file management system will be described for a large geometallurgy
program at Olympic Dam.
As with many aspects of geometallurgy there is no approach that meets the needs of every site
or program. Recognition of data management as an issue, a structured approach in the program
planning phase and commitment to executing the strategy will increase the chances of successfully
mining the geometallurgical data.

INTRODUCTION
A fundamental principle of geometallurgy is to test a large
number (high volume) of samples and to relate metallurgical
response to ore properties. Results from the metallurgical
program must be able to be associated with the ore
characterisation program, and with the spatial location of
the sample. This means analysing and correlating data from
a number of sources. Metallurgists have traditionally carried
out test work based on relatively few bulk or composite
samples, supplemented by so-called variability samples, and
therefore data has generally been managed in spreadsheets.
Spreadsheets will always be a valuable tool for analysis of the
data but may not be the most appropriate repository for long-
term use and storage of large data sets. Spreadsheets often
do not include documentation about the intent, assumptions
or limitations of the particular metallurgical test program,
and may contain only limited information about the assays
(methods, detection limit and original units).
Resource geologists are used to having well defined
data structures to support their data. There are numerous
commercial solutions available to support universally accepted
data structures, such as assays, downhole geology and
geophysics. There is nothing comparable in the geometallurgy
world.
In addition, in the excitement of kicking off a major
test program, the relatively boring issue of managing and
accessing the data tends to get overlooked. However, when
the mine planners, design teams and upper management are

1. Senior Engineer, Long-Term Planning, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: vanessa.liebezeit@bhpbilliton.com
2. Senior Database Geologist, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: michelle.smith@bhpbilliton.com
3. Principal Geometallurgist, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: kathy.ehrig@bhpbilliton.com
4. MAusIMM, Senior Geometallurgist, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: paul.kittler@bhpbilliton.com
5. MAusIMM, Project Geometallurgist, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: edeltraud.macmillan@bhpbilliton.com
6. Geometallurgist, BHP Billiton, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Email: chantelle.lower@bhpbilliton.com

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 237
V LIEBEZEIT et al
clamouring for results, the prospect of manually combining
data from thousands of spreadsheets into coherent data sets
for analysis can be a major and time-consuming obstacle.
DEFINING THE DOMAIN
Geometallurgy program scope
There are four metals recovered at Olympic Dam (copper,
uranium, gold and silver). The existing process is
relatively complex and includes grinding and flotation, a
hydrometallurgical facility comprising concentrate and
tailings leach circuits coupled with copper and uranium
solvent extraction and uranium oxide production, and a
smelter/refinery facility to produce copper cathode and
gold and silver bullion. Future process routes may or may
not include all of these elements, and the decision on
process route is intrinsically linked to the characterisation
of the ore. Therefore the type of information required to
geometallurgically characterise the Olympic Dam orebody is
extensive and includes:
 assays inclusive of potentially economic or deleterious
elements,
 mineral characterisation of head and selected products
via Mineral Liberation Analyser (MLA) and QEMSCAN®
(‘QEM’) automated mineralogy systems,
 comminution data,
 flotation data at a sufficient level of detail to characterise
the deportment of minor elements,
 leach extraction of valuable and deleterious elements for
both flotation concentrates and tailings, and
 settling and rheology behaviour of flotation and leaching
products.
Metallurgical tests and analytical suites were devised
to meet these requirements. Five service providers were
initially involved in delivering the range of tests. In the
first comprehensive geometallurgy program there were
500 - 1000 samples for full metallurgical characterisation,
and approximately 10 000 samples for mineralogical
characterisation.
The primary continuing objective of the geometallurgy
programs is to populate the Olympic Dam resource block
model (approximately eight million 30 × 30 × 15 m blocks)
with sufficient geometallurgical information to enable value-
based mine planning.
Data management scope
The scope of the data management requirements for the
Olympic Dam geometallurgy program was identified early in
the first study. It was clear that, given the number of samples
to be analysed, significant volumes of data would be generated
throughout the program. The data would be generated by
multiple laboratories, and delivered in a variety of digital
formats as shown in Table 1.
Example of data generated per primary geometallurgy sample.
Primary sample Data generated
Assays 75 subsamples (up to 30 analytes)
Metallurgical tests
GMxxx Mineralogy type A
Mineralogy type B
Mineralogy type C
238 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
The geometallurgical program budget is significant and
it was critical that the data is utilised to its full potential by
being accessible to, and usable by, future project investigation
teams. Each team member had prior experience of projects
where previous test results were examined but ending up
being thrown out because the test conditions were unclear, or
of spreadsheets of results from previous test programs that
could not be verified from their primary source. Thus it was
identified that a degree of discipline and rigour with respect
to data management was required to ensure the maximum
benefit from the Olympic Dam geometallurgy program.
Additionally, the aims of the program work were so
research-focused that it was clear the resultant data would
need to be reviewed from many different angles to extract
the knowledge that the data represented. There were a large
number of relationships to be defined to characterise the
behaviour of the known valuable and deleterious elements, as
well as investigations into mineral occurrences which had not
previously been seen in the ore processing zones at Olympic
Dam. As such, the geometallurgical team were aware that all
the data needed to be hosted in a centralised repository which
would permit ‘slicing and dicing’ of the data. In short, they
recognised that a database was required.
Data management objectives
Explicit recognition of the primary objectives of the data
management system is a critical element of program
planning. Objectives will vary between companies, operations,
projects, and even between programs. For the Olympic Dam
geometallurgy program the primary objectives of the system
were to:
 Provide a single, centralised data source accessible by
multiple users.
 Provide mechanisms, preferably automated, to import and
validate data provided by various laboratories.
 Store sufficient data such that future personnel could fully
replicate the test conditions/assumptions (ie the system is
a data repository, not an analysis tool).
 Ensure that all data fit within a predefined data structure
that would facilitate standardised querying and reporting
of that data.
 Provide easy access to the data, ie export to Excel or
statistical analysis packages.
Secondary objectives included:
 Providing functionality to support project management
such as tracking despatch of samples and listing pending
results.
 Providing basic Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) functionality for assay data.
Organisations of different sizes may have very different
objectives and requirements in the area of ease of use and
maintenance of the system. In the case of Olympic Dam, the
geometallurgical team was closely aligned with the resource
TABLE 1
Number of reports Format of report Size
Text files (*.csv) <20 kB per file
30 Spreadsheets (*.xls) <500 kB per file
5 Database (*.mdb) ~ 25 MB per file
Up to 5 ‘Datastores’ >100 MB per datastore
1 Spreadsheets (*.xls) <20 kB per file
 GEOMETALLURGY DATA MANAGEMENT – A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION
planning team and there was familiarity with various database
and data management solutions. A different organisation may
require that data is managed with software that already exists,
or may prefer manual rather than automated data entry
techniques. Whichever objectives are set, explicit statement
with respect to these requirements proves beneficial in
determining possible solutions to the data management
challenge.
A specific objective for Olympic Dam was to include a
certain level of the mineralogy data in the database. This
objective arose from the relative inflexibility of a certain
interface for analysis of mineralogical data supplied by one
of the service providers. While an excellent platform for
examining one sample (or size fractions from one sample)
in a lot of detail, it was difficult to compare data between
multiple primary samples and extremely time-consuming
to extract data manually. Thus it was decided that the data
management system should accommodate the storage of basic
mineralogical data.
DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Identifying requirements
The geometallurgical team identified some fundamental
concepts during the development of the program scope and
execution plan. Each primary sample came from a resource
delineation drill hole; that is, the sample could be related to a
spatial location within the deposit.
Multiple primary samples were to be analysed. A series of
analytical and metallurgical ‘procedures’ were to be performed
on each primary sample during the initial phase of work. Any
sample could be tested by multiple procedures. Furthermore,
the same procedure could be executed on a sample multiple
times as part of a replicate program. Each procedure would
have specific conditions and attributes. Many procedures
would generate physical subsamples, such as flotation
products, sized products or leach kinetic samples.
Data relating to each subsample may need to be stored, and
a subsample from one procedure could be used as the feed
stock for another procedure. For instance, a flotation tailings
subsample would be the feed to a tails leach test. The data
from both the flotation and leach tests needed to be related to
the primary sample and its spatial location.
These initial concepts helped form the framework of the
system and clarified some obvious requirements:
 each sample would need a unique identifier,
 each procedure would need a unique identifier,
 each test event (ie when a sample is ‘analysed’ using a
procedure) would need a unique identifier which would
TABLE 2
Example of procedure and subsample identifiers.
Procedure ID Procedure description
FKR
FKR
FKR Flotation test – kinetic rougher
FKR
FKR
LFT
Leach test on flotation tailings
LFT
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
indicate the number of times the procedure had been run
on the sample,
 the subsamples generated by each procedure would need
to be identified,
 the data elements that were to be collected for each test and
each subsample needed to be identified and rationalised,
and
 the ability to associate a test with a ‘parent’ test needed to
be provided.
Thought was given to the future extensibility of the system
which raised some additional requirements:
 tests should include information on the phase of work;
 in the event of multiple test runs being conducted, the
ability to flag a single test as the ‘preferred’ test was
needed; and
 a method of monitoring the ‘history’ of a sample would
be required, including the ability for geometallurgy team
members to log comments against individual test events.
The geometallurgical team had already devised a definitive
sample numbering scheme that provided unique identifiers to
tests and samples, eg GMxxxx-YYY-n-ZZZZ where GMxxxx
represents the primary sample, YYY represents the procedure
conducted on the sample, n is the test run number (‘zero’
being the initial run) and ZZZZ is the subsample identifier.
Procedures and subsamples were given an identifier as
shown by the examples in Table 2. Systematic nomenclature,
regardless of the ultimate data management solution, will
always be required in order to maintain physical sample
labelling, file naming and to maintain sample ‘provenance’
across service providers.
Prototype
The system was initially developed in Microsoft Access as
a prototype following verbal discussions with the geomet-
allurgical team. Although somewhat limited in functionality,
the system was serviceable and was used to manage actual
program data. The prototype helped identify and cement
ideas about the requirements of the final system, for example,
demonstrating that the final system would need to store
information about the order subsamples were extracted
to facilitate the correct reporting and (where appropriate)
calculation of some results.
Using the knowledge gleaned from the prototype,
requirements were captured in a comprehensive document
that clearly outlined each element of functionality the
geometallurgy team required, as well as providing detailed
information as to procedure types, sample types, subsamples
and any parent-child relationships between tests. Provision
of such a document assists greatly with the development of
information systems since it ensures all stakeholders have a
Sub-sample ID Sub-sample description
RC1 Rougher concentrate 1
RC2 Rougher concentrate 2
RC3 Rougher concentrate 3
RC4 Rougher concentrate 4
RT Rougher tail
LR Leach residue
LL Leach liquor
239
V LIEBEZEIT et al
clear understanding of the problem domain and allows the
development team to align their development against the
requirements. Prioritisation of requirements also ensures
that initial implementations focus on the most important
functionality with ‘bells and whistles’ left to the final stages of
implementation. Requirement prioritisation can also reduce
the inevitable ‘scope creep’.
System design
The provision of the requirements document greatly assisted
the development team since it clearly outlined the functionality
that would ultimately be required. Clearly, the volume of data
precluded the use of Microsoft Access which has a 2 GB file
size limit. The preferred database platform was SQL Server
since this environment is readily available at Olympic Dam.
Thus, the development team had two options; to build a
custom SQL Server database and associated interface, or to
use or adapt a commercial solution.
Custom solution
Undoubtedly a custom solution would have provided a
system that fully met all the user requirements. However,
development of application interfaces (either desktop or web-
based) is time consuming and such solutions can be difficult
to support since extensive in-house knowledge is required.
BHP Billiton prefers not to develop in-house software unless
no other solution is feasible.
Commercial solution
Use of commercial solutions is generally the preferred option
because an interface, or a tool to adapt or develop an interface,
is provided and some of the required functionality is likely to
already be present in the system. In addition, in-house support
is easier to locate when commercial solutions are used,
because there is a wider pool of potential employees familiar
with well known commercial packages. Both Geological
Borehole Information System (GBIS) and AcQuire were
considered since both provide a database schema suited to
storing geological data. Each of these solutions uses a client/
server model. The database resides on a centralised server
(SQL Server or ORACLE) and user workstations have the
GEOLOGY
(unused)
PHASE
WATER
(unused)
PROCEDURE
DEFINITION
EVENTS
(unused)
TEST
SURVEY
DRILLHOLE
(unused)
FIG 1 - Representation of principal data compounds in Geometallurgical Database.
240 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
client program (ie the interface) installed on their computers.
The client application is configured to communicate with the
database server and display the data in a manner intuitive
to the users as well as facilitating querying and reporting.
AcQuire has a standard data model and a flexible interface
whereas GBIS has a more flexible data model and a relatively
fixed front-end interface. Both systems have the capacity to
support typical geological data structures such as defining
drill holes, samples with downhole intervals, assay support
and capturing geological data.
It was decided to implement the geometallurgical system
using AcQuire, partly because Olympic Dam already used the
AcQuire database system to host its geological data (hence
the data manager was familiar with the software) and partly
because the standard schema met many of the sample/
assay/workflow based requirements without customisation.
Despite this, the underlying database schema was adapted
quite significantly to support the mineralogical analysis and
incorporate the concept of procedures and tests. The design
and implementation of the resultant solution was achieved in
collaboration with Snowden Technologies.
The extent to which a commercially available solution can be
implemented depends entirely on the requirements. Various
alternatives can be evaluated with respect to the requirements,
cost and schedule. A baseline or default solution should be
constructed as part of the evaluation.
DATABASE DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a representation of some of the principal data
compounds (ie collections of data tables) in the AcQuire
schema as well as the data compounds added to support the
geometallurgical teams requirements. The principal AcQuire
compounds used are the sample/subsample and despatch
systems.
Standard AcQuire compounds
Sampling system
A significant proportion of the geometallurgical data is
supported by the default AcQuire sample compound.
Individual tests are actually stored as samples. This facilitates
LEGEND
Default AcQuire
Compound
Addition to
AcQuire Schema
Supports parent-
child relationship
MINERALOGY
SAMPLE
SUBSAMPLE DESPATCH
 GEOMETALLURGY DATA MANAGEMENT – A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION
the link between the data in the Sample compound and the
non-AcQuire test compound. The sampling tables include
provision of hierarchical keys that support the parent/child
relationship that occurs between tests and subsamples as well
as between subsamples and tests conducted on the subsample.
The example in Figure 2 shows that Test 2 was conducted on
the Test 1 subsample material. Additional metadata relating to
both the tests and the subsamples is also stored in the system,
but is not shown in Figure 2.
Subsequent to the design of the Olympic Dam geometal-
lurgical system, AcQuire has introduced a new ‘fractions and
composites’ compound into the schema. The tables in this
compound are designed to maintain a hierarchy of samples
and subsamples to multiple levels; any future geometallurgical
solution designed using AcQuire would almost certainly take
advantage of this compound.
AcQuire includes a mature QA/QC system which has been
extensively used by the geometallurgical team.
Despatch system
The default AcQuire despatch system is used to maintain
a record of when samples were sent to laboratories for
analysis, the types of analysis requested, when the data was
returned and, where applicable, information relating to how
assay analysis was conducted such as methods and detection
limits. The despatch system is largely used to assist the
geometallurgical team monitor the progress of their work
programs and to track outstanding or overdue test results.
Schema additions
Customisation of a commercial product such as the AcQuire
database schema is not to be taken lightly and should only
be performed if absolutely necessary. In this instance, the
benefits of using AcQuire (the existing interface, the close
association with other related AcQuire-hosted data sets, the
in-house knowledge and development capabilities) made the
decision to append tables to the existing database a logical
one. All information relating to the ultimate design was
provided to AcQuire Technologies Pty Ltd in the spirit of
TEST COMPOUND
(Non-AcQuire)
TEST 1
SUBSAMPLE
SUBSAMPLE
TEST 2
FIG 2 - The data relationships between tests, samples and subsamples.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
industry cooperation to assist with the development of tools
that would be useful to multiple industry user-bases.
There are three fundamental ‘concepts’ that do not logically
correlate with the functionality provided by AcQuire; the
notion of a fixed procedure definition; the fact that the same
procedure may be run during multiple phases of work (but that
the definition may change in each phase) and the provision of
a data structure that represented a ‘test event’ on a sample.
Additionally, the mineralogy data is essentially ‘geological’
information stored about individual samples. Owing to the
extremely large volume of data generated, the data structures
to support this data must be highly optimised to minimise
storage space and support fast querying of the data. The
default AcQuire geology compound was not deemed sufficient
to store the mineralogy data; a new compound was required.
Snowden Technologies created new compounds to support
those requirements not fulfilled by the default AcQuire
schema. These new compounds are entered into the existing
AcQuire metasystem which controls interaction of the data
compounds. This ensures that the customised compounds
are accessible by all elements of the default AcQuire desktop
interface application.
Phases and procedure definitions
The new Phase compound stores the unique Phase identifier
and the intent, limitations and assumptions of each Phase. The
same types of analyses can be conducted during each phase,
but the procedure may evolve in each subsequent stage of work.
For example, the subsamples generated by procedure ‘ABC’
in Phase 1 may be refined and different to those subsamples
generated by the same procedure in Phase 2. Each procedure
definition and resultant test event is linked to a Phase. A sample
can be analysed during multiple phases of work.
Procedure definitions (or ‘templates’) are provided by the
Procedure compound. This ensures consistency and therefore
assists with standardisation of data collection, querying and
reporting. A procedure definition includes a unique identifier
for the analytical/metallurgical procedure, the phase of work
SAMPLE COMPOUND
(Standard AcQuire)
SAMPLE
TEST 1
TEST 2
SUBSAMPLE
241
V LIEBEZEIT et al
PHASE
A
Generate Test
PROCEDURE SUBSAMPLE
SAMPLE
FLOAT1 (1)
S001
ABC FLOAT2 (2)
FLOAT3 (3)
RT (4)
FIG 3 - The ‘instantiation’ of sample tests from a procedure definition.
the procedure is applicable to, a description of the purpose,
assumptions and limitations of the procedure and a listing of
the valid subsamples that will be generated by the procedure.
Information standard to the subsample can also be stored,
for example the order that subsamples are generated by the
execution of the procedure may be constant so each subsample
is assigned a numeric order identifier.
Test events
A test event is the execution or instantiation of a procedure
against a sample. This process is displayed in Figure 3. When a
geometallurgist creates a test in the database, the appropriate
procedure definition for the applicable phase of work is
copied to create the sampling framework of the test; at this
point a unique identifier is assigned to the test event and to
each subsample copied from the procedure definition. When
results are received from laboratories, they are appended to
the relevant subsamples and the test is marked as complete.
Mineralogy
The Olympic Dam geometallurgical program includes the
capture of mineralogy data for multiple samples from both
Mineral Liberation Analyser (MLA) and QEMSCAN® (QEM)
automated mineralogy analysis systems. In the original
program of work the MLA analysis was conducted on a split
of the original drill hole composite sample. The QEM analysis
was conducted on sized subsamples from flotation and leach
tests, that is, the QEM test was a ‘child’ of another test. In
later programs MLA analysis was also used for the sized
subsamples. Of the data sets collected by these procedures,
the Mineralogy compound is designed to store grain size
distribution, mineral associations, the mineralogy of individual
particles and grains, and an assessment of the leachability,
lockability and liberation of various minerals within a sample.
A comprehensive list of minerals is maintained as well as
‘mineral suites’ which represent groupings of similar minerals
that are reported by the mineralogical analysis. For example,
‘Carbonates’ includes dolomite, ankerite and siderite.
Figure 4 shows the data distribution within the geometall-
urgical database. The entire database is approximately
53 GB in size of which 49.6 GB is actual analytical data.
Of the analytical data, 49.1 GB (99 per cent) is contained
242 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
SUBSAMPLE
S001-ABC-0-FLOAT1
TEST
S001-ABC-0-FLOAT2
S001-ABC-0 S001-ABC-0-FLOAT3
S001-ABC-0-RT
SUBSAMPLE
S001-ABC-1-FLOAT1
TEST
S001-ABC-1-FLOAT2
S001-ABC-1 S001-ABC-1-FLOAT3
S001-ABC-1-RT
within the mineralogy compound. To maximise performance
surrogate integer keys are used on the mineralogy tables. The
use of integers reduces the amount of data stored because
descriptive, alphabetic keys use more storage space. Indexes
are maintained to promote the efficiency of queries conducted
on the tables. A series of data views are available to provide
users with a more ‘human-readable’ view of the data. SQL
Server triggers (event triggered code) are used to control the
insertion, updating and deletion of mineralogy data through
the views into the underlying data tables.
Security and interface
Access to the database is restricted to members of the
geometallurgical team. Access is maintained by SQL Server
security groups.
The interface to the geometallurgical database is via the
AcQuire client application. An AcQuire workspace has been
created that allows authenticated users to create phases,
procedure definitions and tests and review imported data sets.
Export and reporting functions are developed on demand for
the geometallurgical team.
USE OF THE SYSTEM AT OLYMPIC DAM
Figure 5 represents the activities and data flow divided into
decisions and activities and the corresponding data entry into
AcQuire. The explicit definition of the phases of work, the
procedures and subsamples, and the analytes and methods
has already proved to be an integral part of the definition of
program scopes at Olympic Dam.
Importing data into the database
At the start of each phase of work, the geometallurgical team
liaises with laboratories to create a workable template that
will be used to report the data results for each procedure. For
the metallurgical testing (comminution, flotation, leach) the
data was provided in a formatted Excel spreadsheet which is
converted to CSV (comma separated) ASCII format prior to
import.
The mineralogy testing proved to be rather more complex.
For both MLA and QEM the laboratories tended towards
reporting results in ‘datastores’ or individual databases that
 GEOMETALLURGY DATA MANAGEMENT – A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION
Mineralogy
99%
Sample
0.8%
Other
1%
FIG 4 - Data distribution in Olympic Dam geometallurgical database.
required additional processing using client software to extract
results. Given the number of samples analysed, the overhead
of the manual processing to extract results from individual
datastores was significant. Both laboratories worked with
BHP Billiton to adjust their client software to either allow
the generation of multiple results sets or by publishing a
programmable API (application programming interface) that
allowed the creation of a customised Visual Basic program
that automatically extracted required data from the data sets.
MLA data is imported extremely efficiently from individual
Access MDB databases and QEM data is imported from a
series of ASCII files automatically extracted from individual
QEM datastores.
An existing automated import system designed by Snowden
Technology for the AcQuire geological database was adopted
to provide similar functionality to the geometallurgical
team. A series of importers (either AcQuire import objects,
or SQL server stored procedures) have been developed to
support the import of each individual file format provided
by the laboratories engaged to conduct testing for the
geometallurgical programs. On receipt of results, team
members transfer the digital files to a designated folder for
the specific phase/procedure on a file server. Every hour, the
database automatically examines each of the import folders
and attempts to import the data contained in the file using
the importer interface designed for the phase/procedure.
Successfully loaded files are transferred to a ‘loaded’ folder;
rejected files are transferred to a ‘reload’ folder. Team
members periodically review the reload folder and fix the
rejected files. This system reduces the time taken to enter data
into the database and also provides an initial data integrity
check; the importer will not load the file if it is formatted
incorrectly or if the test/sample identifiers listed in the file do
not match those that already exist in the database.
This aspect of data validation has proved to be extremely
useful in minimising manual scrutiny of files for errors. The
Olympic Dam geometallurgy program has generated more
than 20 000 reports from various analytical laboratories
and the import functionality has allowed many common
data reporting errors to be intercepted. The more stringent
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Phase
0%
Procedure
0%
Test
0.1%
Despatch
0.1%
requirements have however required changes to some
laboratory practices such as the prevention of entering text-
based comments in numeric columns and the reporting ‘less
than detection limit’ assays using the ‘<‘ symbol instead of as
a negative number. Further, Olympic Dam has imposed the
requirement of maintaining test and subsample nomenclature
at a service provider level. Now that the Olympic Dam system
is established, a clear set of guidelines can be provided to
potential service providers as part of the initial tender or
scope of work package.
The original data files are maintained as original source
files. This increases the storage capacity requirements of the
system but is deemed an essential backup to the database as
well as providing a demonstrable audit trail.
Data analysis
As described earlier, the geometallurgical team decided that
the database would primarily be a data repository and the
focus would be on fundamental test data. Therefore despite
the importance of uranium leach extraction, it is not stored as
an explicit variable in the database and the database cannot
be queried directly to deliver ‘uranium extraction’. Instead a
standard report was created containing all the information
needed to calculate the extraction and other parameters
from the leach tests. This is extracted and used as an input
to various data analysis software packages depending on the
requirements. This ensures that the data is the most current
data prior to use.
The QA/QC functionality within AcQuire was used
extensively, beyond its original intent as a method of
comparing duplicate data sets. It proved to be an excellent tool
for comparison of assay data sets and assisted in identifying
sample swaps, quick visual reviews of flotation and leach
behaviour, and for identifying outliers on a statistical basis for
further investigation.
Other reports are developed on request and may include
calculations, or generation of a report mimicking the
original worksheet. Commonly used reports which produce
data for multiple samples include the comminution report
243
V LIEBEZEIT et al

LEGEND
Start phase
of work
Activity

Data Entry into

Define Assign unique identifier, AcQuire
phase assumptions, limitations and intent

Define Define mineral

Define Define Define
assay lists and
laboratories procedures subsamples
suites groupings.

Collect
samples

Define Identify each physical sample with a Test is

samples unique identifier finalised.

Devise test
schedule
Re-testing Review
is required results

Create test
events Procedure definition is copied to
create “empty” test/subsample
framework; each element has unique
Create identifier. Import
subsamples results

Send Analysis is
Create
samples to performed and
despatches
laboratory results returned


FIG 5 - Logical data flow.

(summarised comminution data with head assays and
mineralogy); uranium mineral speciation incorporating
mineralogy, assay and weight by size fraction; QA/QC reports
for comparison of replicate data sets; assay extraction for
minor element deportment calculations and gangue mineral-
ogy reports. These output data sets are then analysed in
various ways with spreadsheets, statistical packages or
exploratory data analysis packages with the ultimate aim of
populating the block model.
EXTENSIBILITY
Links to other databases
The samples analysed by the geometallurgical team were
sourced from drill hole core. In the geometallurgical database,
each sample is flagged with the identifier of the drill hole it
originated from. Other data relating to the drill hole such
as geology and drilling information is not replicated in the
geometallurgical database; instead the geometallurgical and
the geology AcQuire database can be queried as one system
using a linked server.
Web-based reporting
The geometallurgical database is hosted by Microsoft SQL
Server 2005. A web-based reporting interface is included with
this Microsoft product which facilitates the delivery of reports
and data to users that may not have access to the AcQuire
system. The reporting application includes a subscription
service that allows scheduled emailing of specified reports to
user groups. Currently used to notify users of rejected imports,
web based reporting is likely to become a larger component of
the geometallurgical database as the geometallurgical team
move towards data publication rather than data collection.

244 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 GEOMETALLURGY DATA MANAGEMENT – A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION
Search library
The geometallurgy search library was introduced as a web-
based interface in response to a request to make the results
from the geometallurgical database widely accessible. The
search library provides authenticated users with the ability
to conduct ‘range’ based searches (for example, find all the
samples that have a copper assay between one and three per
cent, have four per cent chlorite and that have been analysed
by flotation testing). Users of the search library do not need
to understand the structure or underlying assumptions of the
database, the system purely delivers summary results to them.
Most users of the search library are not authenticated to use
the geometallurgical database; they consume information
from the system that the geometallurgical team have elected
to make available.
Additional data sets
The original design and implementation of the geometallurgical
database was based on the nomenclature and structure of the
Olympic Dam geometallurgical teams requirements for their
initial phase of work. Since implementation, the system has
been identified as a potential host for various other data sets.
To date, the system has incorporated information on stope
grade control samples, monthly composite samples from the
plant as well as the drill core composites that it was originally
designed to manage.
LESSONS LEARNED
Commitment and resources
The explicit identification of a geometallurgy program’s data
management requirements is critical. The data generated
from a program must be managed in some form or another;
it is recognition of the differences between geometallurgy
and conventional metallurgical or geological programs which
may lead to a geometallurgy-specific solution. The cost of a
geometallurgy-specific data management solution is not
necessarily more than conventional methods although this
does not become apparent until the costs of an alternative or
baseline are calculated.
In the case of the Olympic Dam system, there is no doubt that
the resultant system is a product of the skills and experience
base of the available resources, and the commitment of
the organisation to a relatively sophisticated solution. It is
extremely valuable to have personnel who can liaise between
the technical user base and information system developers,
leading to a streamlined development process and clearer
understanding of the possibilities and limitations. The Olympic
Dam data management solution definitely requires a mixture of
skills, as with geometallurgy itself.
Implementation at the start of the program
One of the most important lessons learned was the importance
of implementing the system as early as possible in the program
to obtain the maximum benefit. One of Olympic Dam’s test
work programs was run by one of the technical teams, and
it was later identified that the sample source and test work
program was aligned with the geometallurgy program
objectives and therefore it made sense to include the data in
the geometallurgical database. However this required a huge
amount of manual work even though the number of samples
was relatively few. The contract metallurgical laboratory had
not maintained the sample nomenclature (every sample re-
named based on the order in which they were unpacked) and
the Excel worksheets were not named consistently. Therefore
every single spreadsheet report required a manual re-work.
In addition, there was a major workaround required because
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
the metallurgical laboratory would not, or could not, supply
the original assay files. In contrast, recent programs which
specified the sample nomenclature and file formats have
enabled loading of more than 1000 worksheets and 1000
assay files with virtually no changes.
Engagement of service providers
The willingness of the service provider to maintain test and
subsample nomenclature is critical to the success of whatever
system is selected. Every data management system must rely
on correctly named files, and for geometallurgy programs,
sample provenance (maintaining the relationship of the
subsamples and data to the primary sample and its spatial
location) is crucial. Sample nomenclature and reporting
requirements are now included as a specific aspect in Olympic
Dam geometallurgy scope of work documents. Every system
has its constraints, and a number of accommodations might
need to be made on both sides, but the willingness of a service
provider to work within the selected system is a considerable
advantage.
CONCLUSIONS
Time spent defining objectives and developing requirements is
never wasted in any project, and the data management aspect
of a geometallurgy program is no exception. The definition
of the scope of the geometallurgical test work program
enables the number and form of the reports to be examined
to determine the scope of the data management challenge.
Objectives and requirements relating to data storage, location
and accessibility, degree of manual data management,
production of data sets for analysis, program management
and QA/QC should be set. The various options for data
management can then be evaluated against an explicit set of
objectives and requirements.
The implementation of a logical nomenclature assists in
both program and data management, and should be developed
at the start of the program in conjunction with the service
providers. A range of commercial solutions are available
based on geological data management but some degree of
customisation is required to accommodate metallurgical and
mineralogical data.
It is recognised that a large geometallurgy program requires
a variety of skills and experience in the areas of geology,
resource estimation, metallurgy and mine planning. It is
less recognised that skills in data management are equally
important to achieve maximum ongoing benefit from the
program. The Olympic Dam example is only one possible
solution to the data management challenge, but it has
demonstrated the value of a truly cross-disciplinary approach
to geometallurgy data management.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The permission of BHP Billiton to publish this paper is
gratefully acknowledged. In addition the authors wish
to acknowledge the expertise and assistance of Michael
McMahon from Snowden Technologies in development of the
Olympic Dam geometallurgical database, and the cooperation
of AcQuire Technology Solutions Pty Ltd in allowing
customisation of the AcQuire database schema. Finally the
authors would like to thank all of the service providers to the
geometallurgy program (Amdel Bureau Veritas Australia,
David Wiseman Pty Ltd, JKTech, ALS Mineralogy, SGS
Minerals, CSIRO Land and Water, Pontifex and Associates)
for their cooperation as the file format requirements for the
Olympic Dam geometallurgical database developed.
245
246 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011