See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259480655

Comparative analysis of the resource classification techniques: Case study

of the Conceição Mine, Brazil

Article  in  Applied Earth Science IMM Transactions section B · September 2010

DOI: 10.1179/1743275811Y.0000000013

CITATIONS READS

6 1,154

3 authors:

Luis Eduardo Souza João Felipe C. L. Costa

Universidade Federal do Pampa (Unipampa) Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
40 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS    221 PUBLICATIONS   792 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jair Carlos Koppe

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
142 PUBLICATIONS   645 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Machine Learning applied in Geostatistics View project

Kriging Neighborhood Analysis - An impartial approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis Eduardo Souza on 07 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparative analysis of the resource
classification techniques: case study of the
Conceição Mine, Brazil
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

L. E. de Souza1, J. F. C. L. Costa*2 and J. C. Koppe2

The major international codes recognise that resource classification involves the interaction of
numerous qualitative and quantitative criteria. However, the difficulty in quantifying the degree of
uncertainty associated with the estimation of mineral resources has led to the creation of a large
suite of methods, terms, and definitions, with almost every mining company having its own set of
standards. Traditional methods used to evaluate resources, such as, the number of samples used
to interpolate a block, or the position of samples surrounding this block, do not take into account
the spatial continuity of the grades; and some approaches based on geostatistical methods are
unable to provide a measure of the error associated with their estimates. Because they do not
provide an error assessment, these methods are inappropriate to assess the local or global
uncertainty associated with an estimate. Posed with these problems, some of the widely applied
techniques for mineral resource classification were assembled in a software package, and a
comparative study was conducted at the Conceição Mine (Iron Ore Quadrangle, Brazil), allowing
a comparison among the parameters affecting mineral inventory assessment. The results showed
the specific limitations of each classification system, the influence in selecting their key
parameters, and the empirical nature of the traditional methods that are mainly subjective.
Keywords: Mineral resources, Geostatistics, Risk assessment

This paper is part of a special issue on grade control and geostatistics of iron ore deposits

Introduction production results and reconciliation provided a way to

Most mineral resource and ore reserve classification
systems are based on sample spacing, geological con-
fidence and economical viability. These parameters
define categories of resources based on the degree of
uncertainty associated with estimates of tonnages and
grades. Evaluation and classification are included in the
mineral resource assessment process. Drilling and sam-
pling combined with quality assurance and quality
control practices systematically update this process.
New and sophisticated methods used for modelling
and evaluation are worth little if sampling, preparation,
and chemical assays are not properly controlled and
validated.
We suggest that it is important to use the most
appropriate method to provide good tonnage and grade
estimates. A poorly chosen mineral resource model
leads to poor reconciliation, i.e. high discrepancies
between predictions and actual results. Comparison of
1
Mining Technology Unit, Federal University of Pampa (UNIPAMPA), Av.
Pedro Anunciação, s/n - Vila Batista, 96570-000, Caçapava do Sul, RS,
Brazil
2
Mining Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
(UFRGS), Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 - Bloco IV – Prédio 75 - Sala 104 –
Agronomia, 91501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
*Corresponding author, email: jfelipe@ufrgs.br
measure discrepancies, to quantify errors, and to refine
the model in case errors are found beyond acceptable
limits.
The procedure selected for resource classification
should have some required characteristics. The method
used for mineral resource classification should be able
to define confidence either to the geometry or to the
grade estimates. Classes of resources (measured, indi-
cated and inferred) are defined based on the spatial
distribution of the samples and the uncertainty asso-
ciated with tonnages calculated for a given deposit or
part thereof. Thus, classification of a mineral re-
source requires the calculation of the uncertainty
associated with the estimate. However, two areas are
not clear in the classification systems: which metho-
dology should be used for estimating the uncertainty
and what are the acceptable levels of uncertainty for
resource classification.
Due to an increasing number of low-grade mineral
deposits coming into operation, the acceptable margin
of error in estimates of grades and tonnages becomes
less. Consequently, it is necessary to define clearly the
level of reliability associated with the estimates of
mineral resources. Thus, the reliability in the estimation
of mineral resources has also become increasingly
important (Annels, 1991; Stone and Dunn, 1996;

ß 2010 The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
Received 18 February 2011; accepted 16 July 2011
166 DOI 10.1179/1743275811Y.0000000013 Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil
Sinclair and Vallée, 1998; Stephenson and Vann, 2001;
Souza et al., 2004).
Regarding the recent codes and systems of classification
of resources, the trend is not to regulate either the
technique used for classification or the method to estimate
these resources. The codes emphasise the principles of
transparency, materiality and also the responsibility of the
so-called competent person whose experience determines
which approach should be adopted for modelling any
given mineral deposit. In transferring the responsibility to
the competent person, the codes allow a greater degree of
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
freedom to choose methods and procedures for resource
assessment (Shaw et al., 2006). Various approaches that
have been historically used in the mining sector are still in
use, even with their limitation to provide an accurate error
definition.
Because the potential errors associated with an incorrect
or inappropriate estimate of grades can dramatically alter
an assessment of the mineable tonnage and because these
estimates are completely dependent on the available
information, methods used for the estimation and
classification should provide a realistic risk model (Rossi,
2005).
This article provides a review of some of the widely
applied techniques to quantify the uncertainty asso-
ciated with the estimation of a mineral resource. The
methods were assembled in a software package devel-
oped using as initial template, i.e. the kriging program
(kt3d) presented by Deutsch and Journel (1998). Thus,
different scenarios of resource categories (measured,
indicated, and inferred) could be obtained for each
method or for a given set of parameters chosen. To
determine its applicability and robustness, a compara-
tive study was conducted for the large iron ore deposit of
the Conceição Mine in central Brazil.
Background of the topic
The historical evolution for international standards,
which regulate estimation, classification and reporting of
mineral resources and mineral reserves are presented by
Rendu (2000). Vallée (1999a, 1999b) examined the role
of the committee comprising the major international
regulatory agencies (CMMI-Committee of the Con-
gress of Mining and Metallurgical Institutions) from
Australia, South Africa, United States, Canada, and the
United Kingdom and compared its resolutions with
those from the United Nations Council to define
international standards for evaluation and classification
of mineral resources and reserves and for the future
possibility of ISO certification.
One of the most advanced and organised proposals
to report ore reserves and mineral resources is the
Australasian code (AusIMM, 1999) and some of its
historical aspects, implementation and enforcement are
presented in Stephenson (2000a, 2000b). Some reasons
that led Rio Tinto, for example, to adopt the JORC
code (or Australasian code for Reporting of Mineral
Resorces and Ore Resenses) are discussed by Weather-
stone (2000). The competent person role under the laws
ruling Australian corporations, and the role of both the
technical staff and Board of Directors from a mining
company are discussed by Phillips (2000). The compe-
tent person definition appears in all recent codes and is
well defined in the JORC code.
Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B)
There are definitions embedded in the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy (IMM, 2001) code from the
United Kingdom (Dowd, 1999). He emphasises the
importance of correctly defining continuity and con-
fidence levels for classifying resources and reserves. The
standard established by the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum, as well as its definitions, were
presented by the CIM (2000). South African code
definitions (SAMREC, 2000) are discussed by Camisani-
Calzolari and Krige (2001). The geostatistical implications
involved with the implementation of the code are not
prescriptive with respect to the techniques that are used
in the estimates of resources and reserves (Camisani-
Calzolari et al., 2000).
Most codes currently used for classifying mineral
resources suggest the combination of numerous quanti-
tative and qualitative criteria, such as the quality of data
and geological and grade continuity. The codes should
not be prescriptive without proposing pre-established
rules (De-Vitry, 2003). He explains that these rules are
difficult to apply to all situations, or even to use the
same rules for different types of ore within the same
deposit. This is even though such rules are used
indiscriminately without a clear understanding of their
convenience or correct application. Conversely, some
drawbacks in not having a clearly defined procedure are
discussed in Shaw et al. (2006). They proposed an
approach that would use not only the geological
knowledge but also the alternatives for quantifying the
error, highlighting the importance of incorporating such
information in classifying mineral resources.
Due to the absence of standards prescribing a
particular methodology, several studies can be found
showing different approaches to determine the uncer-
tainty associated with estimates. Some of the traditional
methods and the geostatistical procedures used to
quantify and classify resources and reserves are pre-
sented in Annels (1991). A review of these traditional or
classical methods and also the geostatistical framework
available for the purpose, including conditional simula-
tion, is found in Mwasinga (2001), Sinclair and
Blackwell (2002) and Souza (2001, 2002). Annels
(1996) discusses the sources of error, their influence on
resource classification and proposes a classification
system (RRR, Resource Reliability Rating) based on
assigning a score to several factors.
The limited relevance of the kriging variance as an
indication of the uncertainty, and a proposition named
the combined variance (a combination of the kriging
variance with the weighted variance of the data used to
estimate a given block) are discussed by Arik (1999) and
Heuveling and Pebesma (2002). Similarly, an alternative
to the kriging variance is the variance of interpolation
(Yamamoto, 1999), which allows a measure of the local
data dispersion. Most of the work in this area and even
the latest codes used for classification, emphasise that
geostatistics is one of the few methods able to predict the
uncertainty associated with the estimate because it is
able to address accuracy, i.e. the unbiased-ness and
precision or spread of the error (Camisani-Calzolari and
Krige, 2001; Camisani-Calzolari et al., 2000).
There is a need to create international standards and
for better geological and geostatistical methods to
measure global and local continuity of a geological
model (Vallée, 1999b). He also points out the necessity
2010 VOL 119 NO 3 167
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil
to integrate the conceptual geological model, the
sampling spacing and the geostatistical methods. There
are some geostatistical procedures that help in classify-
ing resources (Yamamoto, 1999). The methods provide
alternatives to assess estimation error and would be
appropriate to reflect the quantity and quality of the
information used for evaluation of mineral resources.
Estimation methods based on the theory of regiona-
lised variables (Matheron, 1963) have been widely used in
the mining industry. Only after kriging was introduced,
the industry started to assess the uncertainty associated
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
with estimates of mineral resources. However, kriging has
its limitations as a tool to assess uncertainty. Kriging
variance, originally proposed as able to quantify the
confidence of the estimates, has been questioned in this
regard because sample values are not considered in its
calculation. A model obtained via kriging provides a false
idea of the variability of the true grades as the estimates
were calculated minimising the error variance, and
therefore smoothing the grades (Armstrong, 1998). A
comprehensive presentation on kriging is presented by
Matheron (1963), David (1988), Isaaks and Srivastava
(1989), Goovaerts (1997) and Armstrong (1998).
Study methodology and data
The Conceição Mine is located in the Iron Ore
Quadrangle at the central portion of the Minas Gerais
state, Brazil. It is a low grade itabirite deposit (20–
50%Fe), with hematite and some higher iron grades.
Also, the itabirite and hematite can be found at the mine
in two different forms: (i) a compact form, with massive
structure and more than 80% of the material retained at
the 8 mm sieve, and (ii) as a friable material, with
approximately 20% of the material above 8 mm. The
case study was based on a dataset with 1195 samples of
iron ore grade in the friable itabirite domain.
The proposal herein presented is based on traditional
geometric and geostatistical methods, such as ordinary
kriging and convex kriging (Deutsch, 1996) to address
uncertainty. All these methods provide the means to
evaluate the degree of uncertainty associated with an
estimate on a block-by-block basis.
A detailed discussion on traditional and geostatistical
methods used for resource classification is presented by
David (1988), Annels (1991), Stone and Dunn (1996),
Mwasinga (2001) and Sinclair and Blackwell (2002).
All these methods were implemented in a computer
software program developed using as an initial template
of the kriging program (kt3d) presented by Deutsch and
Journel (1998). The software was named Mineral Re-
sources Classification (MineReC) and it incorporates the
tools to define resources using various classification
schemes (traditional and geostatistical).
An estimate presents a certain degree of uncertainty
which is intimately associated with:
(i) the amount of information used for this estimate
(ii) the degree of correlation between the block
estimated and the data used for this
(iii) the variability in the data used for the estimation.
Therefore, a classification system should be able to
guarantee the quantity and quality of the ore for a given
mining project. The resource classification schemes
available in MineRec include:
(i) the minimum number of samples used in the
local neighbourhood of an estimated block
168 Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010
1 Post-processing procedure used to reclassify blocks if
the block is surrounded by a distinct class of
resources
combined or not with the alternative of these
samples being within a certain distance from the
block. This distance is set as a fraction of the
variogram range
(ii) geometric methods based on an area of
influence for the samples. It includes the radii
of influence of a sample, dilation-erosion and
the maximum extrapolation distance from a
sample
(iii) the estimation error, allowing to the user the
options of using the kriging standard deviation,
interpolation standard deviation (Yamamoto,
1999), or the combined standard deviation
(Arik, 1999) for a given level of confidence
(iv) the slope of the linear regression (Rivoirard,
1987; Mwasinga, 2001).
In choosing a specific classification method, each block
is flagged to a resource category. When using a
classification procedure on a block-by-block basis, there
is a high probability of obtaining blocks of one class
surrounded by blocks belonging to different classes,
evidencing the so-called ‘salt and pepper’ texture in the
classification map. This situation is not practical from a
mining perspective, i.e. one block in a class and its
closest neighbours in different ones, and needs to be
corrected. The approach demands a post-processing
algorithm to clean the isolated blocks by reclassifying
them to the most likely class in the local neighbourhood.
The post-processing is conducted by comparing the class
of a block with the percentage of blocks in the local
neighbourhood of the block being reclassified. If the
surroundings comprise blocks exceeding a certain
percentage, say 80%, of distinct blocks, the block under
analysis is reclassified to the dominant class. The
procedure is illustrated where the block marked by the
arrow is surrounded by a majority of blocks from a
distinct resource class (Fig. 1). The required action is to
reclassify this block to the statistically dominant group.
The effects of cleaning ‘salt and pepper’ textures in
terms of reclassification blocks as in the above procedure
was analysed. For the example, any block surrounded
by 80% of blocks belonging to a different class was
redefined to the dominant group. Generally, the amount
of reclassified blocks is insignificant and the final
resource map is free of the ‘salt and pepper’ artefact.
Less than 1% of the blocks originally classified as
measured were reclassified.
The idea of using MineRec was not to prescribe what
parameters should be used for resource classification,
but to allow the user to evaluate the effect of a certain
choice of parameters and method on the results obtain-
ed. Additionally, using multiple methods, the user can
VOL 119 NO 3
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

2 Comparative results for resource classification at the Conceição iron ore mine using the criterion of minimum number
of samples to estimate a given block grade: a refers to samples found within a maximum search distance larger than
the range of the variogram, and b repeats the process, but forces the samples used to estimate block grade to be
within a maximum distance of 70% the range of the variogram

compare the results selecting a method adequate to their
aims.
Number of samples
This method is based on the minimum number of
samples found within a search volume and used to
estimate a given block. Generally, the search volume is
defined as a percentage of the variogram range as these
ranges indicate the distance where the data exhibit
spatial correlation. The minimum number of samples is
used within the mining industry despite it being
empirical and highly arbitrary in terms of defining the
number of samples used in each class. There are two
additional issues this method does not address:
(i) by having zonal anisotropy, the sill of the
variogram is reached at infinity, and conse-
quently the minimum number of samples would
be found within this search leading to all blocks
being classified as measured resources. A prac-
tical range is necessary to proceed with the
method
(ii) the number of samples within the range of the
grades relates to the fact that this range refers to
the spatial continuity of the grades, not necessa-
rily the geological spatial continuity. For iron ore
deposits, the geological risk associated with the
size of a hematite orebody for instance is larger
than the risk associated with its grades.
Standard error of the estimate
Ordinary kriging is probably the most used geostatistical
method for mineral resource estimates due to its
simplicity, robustness and capacity to provide an
uncertainty measurement using the kriging variance

Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3 169
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil

3 Maps with variances of the estimated grade (left) and the corresponding error calculated for 95% confidence limits for
the bench at 970 m elevation (right) in the Conceição iron ore mine. Plots a and b refer to kriging variance and error,
c and d for interpolation variance and e and f for combined variance

(Matheron, 1963; David, 1988; Isaaks and Srivastava,
1989). The pros and cons in using the kriging variance as
an index to assess the quality of an estimate are
discussed by various authors (Arik, 1999; Yamamoto,
1999; Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989; Goovaerts, 1997).
The kriging variance (s2OK ) incorporates in its
calculation only the geometrical characteristics from
the sampling pattern, including sample locations and the
spatial continuity model (Journel, 1986). s2OK is not
affected by the sample values, i.e. it does not recognise
local variability (Goovaerts, 1997). It is not uncommon
to find blocks or grid nodes with the same estimated
kriging variance even though the local grade variability
from the sample values in the local neighbourhood at
the two locations are significantly different. This
inability to recognise local variability is the major
weakness in using s2OK to measure uncertainty asso-
ciated with an estimate.
Considering this limitation associated with s2OK , two
alternatives were used to calculate the error associated
with an estimate, i.e. the interpolation variance (Yama-
moto, 1999) and the combined variance (Arik, 1999).
These two alternative variances consider both the data
spatial distribution and their local variability.
Slope of the regression line (p)
This method was originally conceived as a test to
evaluate the quality of the estimates, and it consists of
calculating the slope of the regression between the
estimated values and the real value of each block. As the
real values are unknown, the slope of the regression (p)
is derived using the covariances between the samples
used to estimate a given block and the block. Thus, the
estimate is closer to reality (smaller error) the closer to 1
is the value of p.
Commercial software packages have implemented the
method and, currently, it is being used to analyse and
optimise the search neighbourhood used for kriging
(Rivoirard, 1987; Vann et al., 2003). Additionally, the
method is used to classify blocks according to different
values of p.
Geometrical methods
Two variants of geometrical methods were investigated,
i.e. the area of influence, and the dilation-erosion which
is a type of mathematical morphology analysis to
distinguish between extrapolation and interpolation
zones. However, these methods do not provide a direct
measure of uncertainty as recommended by most codes,

170 Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil

and consequently there is a tendency by resource ana-

lysts to avoid their use.
The first method based on the area of influence adopts
an extrapolation distance defined from the drill holes to
assign zones from the orebody to each resource class. In
between drill holes, the resource classes are defined
based on the average sample spacing used on each part
of the deposit. Close-spaced data tend to guarantee
larger confidence in geological continuity.
The second-mentioned method, dilation-erosion, is
used in Brazilian iron mines (Guimarães et al., 2004).
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

The method assumes that a 1006100 m sampling grid is

appropriate to delineate with a high degree of confidence
iron orebodies. Steps involved in this method comprise:
(i) all blocks inside the boundary defined by a
1006100 m drilling grid are tagged as well as
the blocks outside this zone within a 75 m
radius (50 m radius plus 25 m tolerance). Along
the vertical axis the radius used is 20 m due to
the trend in the grades associated with super-
gene enrichment
(ii) all blocks inside the boundary defined by a
2006200 m drilling grid are tagged as well as
the blocks outside this zone within a 125 m
radius (100 m radius plus 25 m tolerance).
Along the vertical axis, the radius used is 30 m
(iii) all blocks outside the 2006200 m drilling grid
are tagged using a 150 m extrapolation distance
along the XY plane and 40 m along the Z axis
(iv) using the blocks selected in (iii), a subgroup of
blocks is tagged including the ones within an
extrapolation distance of 125 m along the XY
plane and 10 m along the Z axis
(v) interpolation and extrapolation zones are
defined for the two drilling spacings, i.e.
1006100 m and 2006200 m combining the
information from the tagged blocks.
4 Resource categorisation for the 970 m elevation bench
Results in the Conceição iron ore mine based on errors calcu-
lated using a the kriging variance, b the interpolation
The effect of the minimum number of samples used to variance and c the combined variance. Blocks in class
estimate each block on the amount of resources in each 1 are measured resources, class 2 are indicated
class (measured, indicated and inferred) is shown at resources and class 3 are inferred resources
Fig. 2. This includes the number of samples used
without the restriction to include these samples within
the range of the variogram (Fig. 2a), and the samples associated with the estimate. Still, there is no idea about
used should be no farther than 70% of the variogram the size of this error. Similarly, an excess of rigour to
range (Fig. 2b). The horizontal axis presents the number obtain a low error certainly can be dangerous with an
of samples to include in a block for each class, i.e. excessive loss of measured and indicated mineral
36261 means at least three samples to be classified as resources.
measured, at least two for indicated, and one for Block maps for each of the three estimated variances
inferred. As the minimum number of samples for the are plotted (Fig. 3). Additionally, a map is plotted with
measured resource class increases, the number of blocks 95% confidence limit errors assuming a Gaussian
satisfying the restriction reduces making the blocks distribution for these errors. These errors are categorised
migrate from a higher to a lower class. This explains the into classes assuming that block values with estimated
reduction in measured resources and the increase in errors below 5% belong to measured resources, 5 to 10%
indicated and inferred as the minimum number of are indicated, and above 10% are inferred (Fig. 4).
samples increases. Each kind of variance leads to a different scenario of
The example corroborates what is expected, i.e. as the calculated variability, which impacts on the calculated
minimum number of samples imposed to estimate a errors and ultimately on block categorisation (Figs. 3
given block increases, the number of blocks flagged for a and 4). However, for this case study where the variable
specific class of resources decreases. Conversely, the analysed exhibits a low variability within the geological
number of blocks not classified into any class of domain studied, the changes in local variability do not
resources increases. Intuitively, the more the require- significantly affect the number of blocks allocated to
ments are increased in terms of the number of samples to each category using the different approaches. The
classify a particular block, the lower will be the error variation in the number of blocks defined as measured

Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3 171
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil

6 Plan view at level 970 in the Conceição iron ore mine

with all blocks allocated to resource categories accord-
ing to p values. Colour 1 corresponds to blocks
assigned as measured resources (p>0?90), colour 2
corresponds to indicated resources (0?90.p>0?80) and
colour 3 corresponds to inferred resources (p,0?80)

as measured, for 0?90.p>0?80 the blocks were assigned

to indicated, and for p,0?80 the blocks were defined as
inferred (Fig. 6).
A 3D block model with the three resource categories
defined using the area of influence is shown in Fig. 7.
The distances selected to define the classes around each
drill hole are 75 m for measured, 125 m for indicated
5 a 3D block model with respective p values and b plan and 150 m for inferred. A plan view at level 970 for the
view from the block model at level 970 in the same block model is presented in Fig. 8; and the effect
Conceição iron ore mine with p values for each block
on the number of blocks assigned to each class for
various distances used to define the area of influence
resources using any of the three types of variances did around a drill hole is illustrated in Table 3.
not exceed 5% (Table 1). Following the same rationale, the results in using the
Due to the previously mentioned low variability of the dilation-erosion methodology is depicted in a plan view
iron ore grades used in this study and the amount of data for resource categories at level 970 (Fig. 9), where the
available within the deposit, most of the calculated p classes were defined using 75 m for measured, 125 m for
values are close to 1. The number of blocks classified into indicated and 150 m for inferred. Different extrapola-
each p value interval is shown in Table 2. The classifica- tion radii will also change the number of blocks for each
tion scheme adopted defines measured resources as blocks class of resource (Table 4).
with p>p1, indicate resources for p1.p>p2 and inferred
resources for p,p2. There is a variation in the number of
blocks in each category of p that is adopted, with an Discussion and conclusions
increase in blocks in the indicated and inferred resource Each of the methods presented classifies blocks into
categories and a decrease in measured resources as p resource classes using a different approach. The methods
increases (Table 2). The method leads to acceptable have either an implicit or an explicit manner to express
results because only blocks with a high degree of the uncertainty associated with grade estimates. Me-
reconciliation (slope of the regression approaching 1) thods based on a geostatistical approach use a numerical
are elected to be measured. measure for the uncertainty, whereas the geometrical
Various scenarios can be tested in selecting blocks for methods use a subjective uncertainty assessment nor-
different classes of p values using a three-dimensional mally associated with sampling density.
(3D) block model view with the associated p value
calculated for each block for the friable itabirite
Table 2 Number of blocks classified to each resource
geological domain (Fig. 5), and a horizontal section, at
category based on p values
level 970, where the blocks with p>0?90 were classified
Slope of the regression Resources
Table 1 Number of blocks classified to each resource
category using three forms of variances to p1 p2 Measured Indicated Inferred
define the standard error
0.95 0.90 20 573 1269 2429
Class of resource 0.95 0.80 20 573 2392 1306
0.90 0.80 21 842 1123 1306
Type of variance Measured Indicated Inferred 0.90 0.70 21 842 1655 774
0.80 0.70 22 965 532 774
Kriging 23 254 203 0 0.80 0.60 22 965 977 329
Interpolation 22 174 1237 46 0.70 0.60 23 497 445 329
Combined 23 409 48 0 0.70 0.50 23 497 774 0

172 Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
7 3D view of the block model with the three resource
categories defined using the area of influence. Blocks
for category 1 are measured resources, and blocks for
category 2 are indicated resources and category 3 are
inferred resources
8 Plan view of resource categories for each block from
level 970 in the Conceição iron ore mine defined by
area of influence. Blocks for category 1 are measured
resources, blocks for category 2 are indicated
resources and category 3 are inferred resources
A check of how each block is classified using various
classification methods simultaneously was undertaken,
which also involved changing the parameters controlling
each method. The idea was to check the frequency a
given block is assigned to a resource category. A block
with a high probability to be assigned to a certain class
after testing multiple methods with internal variations
on the controlling parameters of each method guaran-
tees a reasonable robustness in deciding to tag this
specific block to the prevailing class. To illustrate this
idea, 32 schemes were tested involving six different
Table 3 Number of blocks assigned to each resource
category using a geometrical method based on
the area of influence. Three values for the radius
of influence around a drill hole were chosen for
each resource category
Resources
Radius of influence Measured Indicated Inferred
75, 125 and 150 22 129 1942 138
90, 140 and 170 23 215 947 82
100, 150 and 200 23 642 567 62
Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B)
9 Plan view of resource categories for each block from
level 970 in the Conceição iron ore mine defined by
dilation-erosion. Blocks for category 1 are measured
resources, blocks for category 2 are indicated
resources and category 3 are inferred resources
methods and various choices of parameters for each
method. The resulting class for one selected block using
the 32 classification options tested in presented in
Table 5. This block used in the example had an 84%
probability (27 of 32 possibilities) to be assigned to
measured resources after running all 32 classification
alternatives. This means that, independently of which
method the resource analyst used, this block most likely
will be allocated to measured resource.
To extend the procedure explained above to a selected
block, the remaining block probability maps were
generated. The same concept explained in the previous
paragraph was applied to all blocks in the 3D model,
and all the classification schemes (listed in Table 5) were
used for each block. The probability of belonging to a
given resource class was defined after testing the 32
classification alternatives and the results are presented in
a 3D view (Fig. 10), and a plan section at level 970
(Fig. 11).
Selection of a method for resource classification
requires access to the reliability of the estimates. In this
sense, a proper method needs to provide a measure on
the level of confidence or degree of security that a given
commodity actually exists. The study described here
compares different methods of classification used for
quantifying and classifying resources. The application of
these methods is illustrated using an iron ore deposit in
central Brazil. Of the methods described, most are
presently used in the mineral industry justifying an
analysis of the results that each method provides. The
main contribution of this paper is a comprehensive
analysis of the parameters embedded in each method
and how they affect the results. It is also appropriate to
Table 4 Number of blocks assigned to each resource
category using a geometrical method based on
dilation-erosion of influence. Three values for the
radius of extrapolation were chosen for each
resource category
Resources
Extrapolation radii Measured Indicated Inferred
50, 100 and 125 14 956 8643 472
75, 125 and 150 22 093 1925 191
100, 150 and 175 23 585 554 120
2010 VOL 119 NO 3 173
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil

11 Plan view of level 970 in the Conceição iron ore mine

showing the probability for each block to be classified
as measured

assume that as the minimum number of samples used to

10 3D view of the block model for the Conceição iron ore
mine with the probability of assigning measured resource
to each block after running 32 classification schemes
use more than one method of classification and cross-
check the results.
These methods are unable to define the degree of
uncertainty associated with an estimate, which is a
recommendation from the international resource and
reserves codes. For instance, methods based on sampling
density provide some idea about the error. It is logical to
estimate a block increases, the associated error of this
estimated reduces. However, it is not possible to
determine the magnitude of this error. The limitation
of using the kriging variance as a measure of uncertainty
was also discussed, and two alternative variances were
presented. Different methods to measure uncertainty
change the values in the mineral inventory significantly.
Methods such as the slope of the linear regression and
all geometric methods are a mere indication of the
quality of the sample locations surrounding a given
block and do not provide a proper measure of the
uncertainty associated with an estimate.

Table 5 Resource category assigned to a selected block for various classification methods used and various selections
of controlling parameters

Method Parameters Category

36261 Measured
56362 Measured
Minimum number of samples* 76563 Measured
96765 Indicated
116967 Inferred
36261 Measured
Minimum number of samples 56362 Measured
within 70% of the variogram range 76563 Measured
96765 Measured
116967 Indicated
36261 Measured
Minimum number of samples 56362 Measured
within 80% of the variogram range 76563 Measured
96765 Measured
116967 Indicated
36261 Measured
Minimum number of samples 56362 Measured
within 95% of the variogram range 76563 Measured
96765 Measured
116967 Measured
Kriging variance Measured
Standard error Combined variance Measured
Interpolation variance Measured
p150.95 and p250.80 Measured
Slope of the linear regression p150.90 and p250.80 Measured
p150.90 and p250.70 Measured
Area of influence (radii for 75, 125 and 150 m Measured
measured, indicated, inferred) 90, 140 and 170 m Measured
100, 150 and 200 m Measured
Dilation-Erosion 50, 100 and 125 m Indicated
(extrapolation distance) 75, 125 and 150 m Measured
100, 150 and 175 m Measured
*The numbers represent the minimum number of samples that a given block needs to be assigned into each of the resource categories
(measured, indicated or inferred).

174 Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 2010 VOL 119 NO 3
 de Souza et al. Comparative analysis of resource classification techniques: case study of the Conceição Mine,Brazil
Finally, two important aspects need to be remembered
being the subjectivity associated with the choice of
parameters used in the various methods for determining
resource inventories, and the relevance of testing various
options and analysing the sensitivity of the choices with
respect to the resource classification results.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank CNPq (research agency
in Brazil) and Vale S.A. for supporting this study.
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
References
Annels, A. E. 1991. Mineral deposit evaluation: a practical approach,
London, Chapman & Hall.
Annels, A. E. 1996. Ore reserves: errors and classification, Appl. Earth
Sci. (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A), 105, A150–A156.
Arik, A. 1999. An alternative approach to resource classification, Proc.
28th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in the mineral
industries’, 45–53, Golden, CO, Colorado School of Mines.
Armstrong, M. 1998. Basic linear geostatistics, Berlin, Springer.
AusIMM. 1999. Australasian code for reporting of mineral resources
and ore reserves – The JORC code, Joint Ore Reserves
Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals
Council of Australia, http://www.jorc.org
Camisani-Calzolari, F. A., Krige D. J. and Dixon, J. R. 2000. The
South African code for reporting of mineral resources and
mineral reserves and the geostatistical implications involved,
Proc. 6th Int. Geostat. Cong., Cape Town, South Africa, April,
CD-ROM.
Camisani-Calzolari, F. A. and Krige, D. J. 2001. The SAMREC code
seen in a global context, Proc. 29th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer
applications in the mineral industries’, Beijing, China, April, 39–
44, A. A. Balkema.
CIM. 2000. Resource and reserve definitions: CIM standards on
mineral resources and reserves – definitions and guidelines, Can.
Min. Metall. Bull. (CIM Standing Committee on Reserve
Definitions), 93, (1044), 53–61.
David, M. 1988. Handbook of applied advanced geostatistical ore
reserve estimation, in Developments in geomathematics 6,
Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Deutsch, C. V. 1996. Correcting for negative weights in ordinary
Kriging, Comput. Geosci., 22, (7), 765–773.
Deutsch, C. V. and Journel, A. G. 1998. GSLIB: geostatistical software
library and user’s guide, New York, Oxford University Press.
De-Vitry, C. 2003. Resource classification – a case study from the
Joffre-Hosted iron ore of BHP Billiton’s Mount whaleback
operations, Appl. Earth Sci. (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A), 112,
A185–A196.
Dowd, P. A. 1999. Reserves and resources – continuity and levels of
confidence, Proc. 28th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in
the mineral industries’, 93–99, Golden, CO, Colorado School of
Mines.
Goovaerts, P. 1997. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation, New
York, Oxford University Press.
Guimarães, M. L. V., Toledo, J. P. and Faria, C. A. 2004. Estimativa e
Monitoramento das Reservas de Minério de Ferro do Sistema Sul
- CVRD – Quadrilátero Ferrı́fero – MG, Proc. III Cong.
Brasileiro de Mina a Céu Aberto/III Cong. Brasileiro de Mina
Subterrânea, Belo Horizonte, Instituto Brasileiro de Mineração.
Heuveling, G. B. M. and Pebesma, E. J. 2002. Is the ordinary Kriging
variance a proper measure of interpolation error?, Proc. 5th Int.
Symp. of Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and
Environmental Sciences, 179–186, Melbourne, RMIT University.
IMM. 2001. Code for reporting of mineral exploration results, mineral
resources and mineral reserves (the reporting code), Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, European Federation of Geologists and
The Institute of Geologists of Ireland, http://www.imm.org.uk/
rescode/reportingcode.doc. Accessed at http://www.eurogeologists.
de/images/content/panels_of_experts/minerals_and_their_sustainable_
use/reporting_code.pdf.
Isaaks, E. H. and Srivastava, M. R. 1989. An introduction to applied
geostatistics, New York, Oxford University Press.
Journel, A. G. 1986. Geostatistics: models and tools for the earth
sciences, Math. Geol., 18, (1), 119–140.
Applied Earth Science (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B)
View publication stats
Matheron, G. 1963. Principles of geostatistics, Econ. Geol., 58, 1246–
1266.
Mwasinga, P. P. 2001. Approaching resource classification: general
practices and the integration, Proc. 29th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer
applications in the mineral industries’, Beijing, China, April, 97–
104, A. A. Balkema.
Phillips, R. 2000. The liability of company directors and competent
persons for resource/reserve disclosure, in The Codes Forum,
Mineral Industry Consultants Association (MICA), Sydney,
Australia, http://www.mica.org.au/pdf/phillips1.pdf
Rendu, J. M. 2000. International aspects of resource and reserve
reporting standards, in The Codes Forum, Mineral Industry
Consultants Association (MICA), Sydney, Australia, http://
www.mica.org.au/pdf/rendu1.pdf
Rivoirard, J. 1987. Two key parameters when choosing the kriging
neighbourhood, Math. Geol., 19, (8), 851–856.
Rossi, M. E. 2005. Indicator simulations of categorical variables, Proc.
32nd Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in the mineral
industries’, Tucson AZ, USA, March–April, EUA, 247–252.
SAMREC. 2000. South African code for reporting of mineral resources
and mineral reserves (The SAMREC Code), The South African
Mineral Resource Committee (SAMREC) and South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, http://www.saimm.co.za/
links/reporting-codes.
Shaw, W. J., Godoy, M. C. and Larrondo, P. 2006. An approach to
more objective classification of mineral resources, Proc. 6th Int.
Min. Geol. Conf., 85–89, Darwin, Australian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy.
Sinclair, A. J. and Vallée, M. 1998. Preface – quality assurance,
continuous quality improvement and standards in mineral
resource estimation, Explor. Min. Geol., special ed., 7, (1–2), iii–v.
Sinclair, A. J. and Blackwell, G. H. 2002. Applied mineral inventory
estimation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Souza, L. E., Gambin, F., Costa, J. F. C. L. and Koppe, J. C. 2001.
Estimativa de Incerteza na Classificação de Recursos Minerais
por Simulação Geoestatı́stica, Revista Escola de Minas (Revista
Técnica-Cientı́fica Mı́nero-Metalúrgica), 54, (2), 143–148.
Souza, L. E., Costa, J. F. C. L. and Koppe, J. C. 2002. A geostatistical
contribution to the use of resource/reserves classification systems,
Proc. 30th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in the mineral
industries’, 73–84, Phoenix AZ, USA, February, Society for
Mining Metallurgy and Exploration.
Souza, L. E., Costa, J. F. C. L. and Koppe, J. C. 2004. Uncertainty
estimate in resource assessment: a geostatistical contribution, Nat.
Resour. Res., 13, (1), 1–15.
Stephenson, P. R. 2000a. The JORC code – its operation and
application, Mineral Industry Consultants Association (MICA),
in The Codes Forum, Sydney, Australia, http://www.mica.org.au/
pdf/stephenson1.pdf
Stephenson, P. R. 2000b. The 1999 JORC code and the mining
professional, Proc. 4th Int. Min. Geol. Conf., Coolum,
Queensland, Australia, May, The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, http://www.jorc.org/pdf/stephenson2.pdf
Stephenson, P. R. and Vann, J. 2001. Common sense and good
communication in mineral resource and ore reserve estimation,
mineral resource and ore reserve estimation, in The AusIMM
guide to good practice, 13–20, Melbourne, The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Stone, J. G. and Dunn, P. G. 1996. Ore reserve estimates in the real
world, 2nd edn, Littleton, Society of Economic Geologists.
Vallée, M. 1999a. Toward resource/reserve estimation, inventory and
reporting standards, Proc. 28th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer
applications in the mineral industries’, 69–76, Golden, Colorado
School of Mines.
Vallée, M. 1999b. Resource/reserve inventories: what are the objec-
tives?, Can. Min. Metall. Bull., 92, (1031), 151–155.
Vann, J., Jackson, S. and Bertoli, O. 2003. Quantitative Kriging
neighbourhood analysis for the mining geologist – a description
of the method with worked case examples, Proc. 5th Int. Min.
Geol. Conf., Bendigo, The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1–9.
Weatherstone, N. 2000. Rio Tinto’s adoption of the JORC code as a
world reporting standard, Mineral Industry Consultants
Association (MICA), in The Codes Forum, Sydney, Australia,
http://www.mica.org.au/pdf/weatherstone1.pdf
Yamamoto, J. K. 1999. Quantification of uncertainty in ore reserve
estimation: applications to Chapada copper deposit, State of
Goiás, Brazil, Nat. Resour. Res., 8, (2), 153–163.
2010 VOL 119 NO 3 175