chapter 23
VALIDATING A DRILLING PROGRAM WITH NEW SAMPLES
Michel David and Michel Dagbert
~ e ~ a r t m e noft M i n e r a l E n g i n e e r i n g
Ecole P o l y t e c h n i q u e
M o n t r e a l , Canada
INTRODUCTION
Once a m i n e r h i z e d body h a s been
d e l i n e a t e d , d r i l l e d and e s t i m a t e d from
s u r f a c e s a m p l e s , i t o f t e n happens t h a t
b e f o r e t h e f i n a l go-no-go d e c i s i o n '
i s t a k e n , a n underground s a m p l i n g
program i s d e c i d e d , v e r y o f t e n v i a a . ~
ramp which h o p e f u l l y w i l l b e l a t e r
used t o e x t r a c t t h e o r e . The c o s t o f
such a program can b e c l o s e t o a
m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . On o t h e r o c c a s i o n s ,
when a p r o p e r t y changes hands and i s
reexamined maybe 20 y e a r s a f t e r t h e
o r i g i n a l d r i l l i n g program, a "check
sampling" program i s c a r e f u l l y ,
d e s i g n e d t o make "sure" t h a t t h e o l d
assays a r e "correct". One may f e a r
poor s a m p l i n g p r a c t i c e i n o l d d a y s ,
o r d e l i b e r a t e h i g h g r a d i n g by p r o m o t e r s .
Again one may b e t a l k i n g o f r e s a m p l i n g
c o s t which may b e i n t h e s i x - f i g u r e s
range. Other s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s
i n c l u d e t h e d r i l l i n g of a few l a r g e
diameter h o l e s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e
v a l i d i t y of a majority of small
diameter d r i l l holes, o r auger
d r i l l i n g , o r back-rimming. I n uranium
checking radiometric information i s
a l s o a problem r e l a t e d t o t h e above
ones.
Most of t h e s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d
above a r e e x p e n s i v e e x p e r i m e n t s a n d
c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e y c a r r y a l o t of
e x p e c t a t i o n s . One wants t o b e "sure",
t o prove o r disprove an i n i t i a l
d r i l l i n g campaign a n d make t h e f i n a l
decision about proceeding o r not with
t h e development o f t h e orebody: The
t r u t h i s t h a t more t h a n o f t e n t h e
r e s u l t s a r e u n c o n c l u s i v e and one s t i l l
does n o t know w h e t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l
s a m p l i n g i s a c c e p t a b l e o r n o t . To
t h e a u t h o r s 1 knowledge few of t h e s e
d i s a p p o i n t i n g c a s e s a r e documented,
a n d i t i s o u r p u r p o s e h e r e t o show
how one c o u l d have b e f o r e h a n d d e c i d e d
what c o u l d and what c o u l d n o t b e
e x p e c t e d from t h e a d d i t i o n a l money
s p e n t on t h e s e c o s t l y " c h e c k i n g
programs".
The g e o s t a t i s t i c a l f o r m u l a e which
w i l l b e used a r e ' a l w a y s t h e same o l d
o n e s . They do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
improve t h i n g s , b u t a t l e a s t t h e y c a n
s a y how bad a s i t u a t i o n i s , and c o u l d
have s a v e d a l o t of s a m p l i n g e f f o r t s
( S a n d e f u r and Grant ( 1 ) ) . We w i l l
t h u s review s e v e r a l p r a c t i c a l examples
o f c h e c k i n g programs. F o r o b v i o u s
r e a s o n s a l l t h e d e t a i l s may n o t b e
g i v e n b u t t h e s e examples s h o u l d b e
s u f f i c i e n t t o convince e x p l o r a t i o n
groups t h a t i t i s w o r t h s p e n d i n g a
few h o u r s d o i n g g e o s t a t i s t i c s b e f o r e
d r i l l i n g . A recent paper r e f e r r i n g
t o e x p l o r a t i o n s i t u a t i o n was c a l l e d
"stop thinking, s t a r t d r i l l i n g " .
W e w i l l t h u s p r e s e n t a s e r i e s of
d i s t u r b i n g c a s e s and e x p l a i n why t h e
f i g u r e s t h e y show a r e a f t e r a l l n o t
s u r p r i s i n g i f one remembers a few
elementary g e o s t a t i s t i c a l concepts.
CASE STUDIES
D i s t u r b i n g Case I , Changing t h e D r i l l
Hole Diameter t o Reduce V a r i a t i o n s and
Ending w i t h More Tons
I t i s w e l l known t h a t by i n c r e a s i n g
D.D.H. d i a m e t e r one w i l l c a t c h more
"nuggets" and r e d u c e u n c e r t a i n t y on
t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e w a l l s o f a g o l d
v e i n f o r i n s t a n c e . However one s h o u l d
also remember t h e r e g r e s s i o n e f f e c t ,
where one h a d a s m a l l low g r a d e s a m p l e ,
 VALIDATING A DRILLING PROGRAM WITH NEW SAMPLES 251

one w i l l probably end up w i t h a r i c h e r Round Channel Sample

l a r g e sample and c o n v e r s e l y . Hence 0.47 0.36
t h e v a l u e s o f T a b l e 1 which show two 0.51 0.65
h o l e s , one s m a l l d i a m e t e r and one
1.04 3.00
l a r g e diameter i n a gold vein.
0.68 1.06
1.92 2.50
. Large Small
2.02 2.60
diam. diam. 1.72 2.23
1.65 1.12
0.04 0.04 0.92 0.57
0.06 0.04 0.49 0.39
0.74 0.52
0.43 0.25
0.12 0.13 0.39 0.68
0.38 0.22
m = 0.95 m = 1.15
@ 0.15

Table 2. C o i n c i d e n t round and c h a n n e l

samples i n a c a r b o n a t i t e d e p o s i t .
0.05 0.04
These r e s u l t s a r e d i s t u r b i n g a s
Table 1. C o i n c i d e n t d r i l l h o l e s i n a t h e y s u g g e s t t h a t channel sampling
g o l d v e i n . Grade o f 5 f t samples a r e w i l l n o t b e a n a d e q u a t e way o f
expressed i n oz/ton. sampling o r e f a c e s underground. I n
f a c t , t h e observed v a r i a t i o n i s w e l l
The, cut-off used t o d e f i n e t h e w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s of what t h e v a r i o -
"ore" i s 0 . 1 o z / t o n and t h e t o n s of gram s u g g e s t s . The r e l a t i v e v a r i o -
o r e i n t h e l a r g e h o l e have i n c r e a s e d , gram o f c h a n n e l samples i s s e e n i n
without increasing t h e gold quantity. F i g u r e 1.
This i s one more example showing how
a s s a y b o u n d a r i e s d e f i n e d on D.D.H.
have a tendency t o o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e
grade o f t h e o u t l i n e d o r e , and l e a v e
behind t o n s o f m a r g i n a l m a t e r i a l which
c o u l d b e mined. Designing a c o r r e c t i o n
f a c t o r t o go from one t y p e of sample
t o t h e o t h e r can b e done, b u t i t i s
u s e l e s s a s what i s needed i s a c o r r e c -
t i o n t o go from s m a l l d r i l l h o l e s t o
mining u n i t s . T h i s i s e x a c t l y t h e
purpose o f k r i g i n g . A s i m i l a r example
i s e n c o u n t e r e d when a d r i f t i s d r i v e n
and a c o i n c i d e n t d r i l l h o l e i s t a k e n
i n t h e middle a s shown i n David (2)
o r i n t h e n e x t example.
F i g u r e 1. R e l a t i v e variogram o f
D i s t u r b i n g Case 11: Channel Samples c h a n n e l samples i n a c a r b o n a t i t e
O v e r e s t i m a t e t h e Grade of t h e Ore deposit.
Table 2 shows t h e c o r r e l a t i o n which The model chosen i s s p h e r i c a l , w i t h
was observed i n a c a r b o n a t i t e between a range o f 9 0 f t , s i l l of 0 . 5 8 and
t h e g r a d e o f l o f t d r i f t samples ( t h e nugget e f f e c t of 0.11. This means.that
e n t i r e 60 t o n s 'of each round was two nearby c h a n n e l sam l e s may d i f f e r
q u a r t e r e d and p r o c e s s e d ) and t h e grade
o f c a r e f u l l y t a k e n 1 5 l b channel
by a s much a s 22 ?- 0 . 1 1 = 66% i n
r e l a t i v e v a l u e . This a l o n e c o u l d
samples.
252 16th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed. I n To check t h e " v a l i d i t y " of t h e s e

a d d i t i o n however, even i f t h e r e were channel samples, d u p l i c a t e s a r e
no nugget e f f e c t , a 15 l b channel h a s sometimes t a k e n , e i t h e r i n t h e same
a v a r i a b i l i t y which is known a s t h a t channel, o r i n a channel on t h e
of a " p o i n t sample (channel) w i t h i n a opposite s i d e of the p i t . Differences
volume (round)". ' A f t e r s t a n d a r d between supposedly corresponding
formula ( s e e f o r i n s t a n c e , David, (2) p a i r s can b e f r i g h t e n i n g , a s shown i n
and having checked isotr_opy, a2(v1v) Figures 2 and 3.
1
c ~ ~ ( 1 0 / 9 0 , 1 0 / 9 0 , 1 0 / 9 0/)C = (0.58-0.11)
(0.11) = 0.051 ,samples s'hould be
w i t h i n lt2 = 44% of t h e round.
A l t o g e t h e r due t o t h e added nugget
e f f e c t , a channel sample i s expected
t o h e w i t h i n +2 4 0.11+0.051 = 80% of
t h e round! Coming back t o t h e e n t i r e
s t r e t c h of 140 f t , t h e confidence
i n t e r v a l f o r t h e mean o f 14 channel
samples i s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e e r r o r
i n one round i s independent of n e x t
(David ( 3 ) ) .

C.I. = 801JI-6 = 21%

s o t h a t t h e two means of 0.95 and 1.15

a r e not alarmingly d i f f e r e n t .

I n t h i s d e p o s i t a l t o g e t h e r 2,180
f t were sampled and 218 p a i r s of such F i g u r e 2. Channel samples on two
samples were t a k e n and t h e confidence s i d e s of a p i t .
i n t e r v a l f o r t h e mean o f a l l channel
samples i s s t i l l

C.I. = 8O/J218 = 5.4%

s o t h a t t h e two means of 0.52 and 0.54%

cannot a g a i n be considered a s d i f f e r e n t .
A l l t h i s however s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t
a 1 5 f t channel sample every LO f t i s
a poor sample!

D i s t u r b i n g Case 111: Check Sampling

i n a Bauxite Deposit

Alumina and s i l i c a grade i n l a t e r i t i c

b a u x i t e d e p o s i t is u s u a l l y h i g h l y
v a r i a b l e w h i l e t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e -
q u a l i t y o f t h e product a r e very 1 2 3 4 5 6 m Depth
s t r i n g e n t . A s a consequence i t i s
u s u a l l y f e l t t h a t one must be "sure"
of where t h e t o p and bottom of t h e Figure 3 . Channel samples on one
economic h o r i z o n i s and what t h e s i d e of t h e p i t .
average grade of t h e product i s . On
many o c c a s i o n s , sampling i s done by The d i f f e r e n c e s can be thought
means of hand-dug p i t s , up t o 60 f t of a s d r a s t i c b u t i n f a c t they
deep and 3 f t i n diameter. Then c o i n c i d e f a i r l y w e l l w i t h what t h e
channel samples a r e c o l l e c t e d on one nugget e f f e c t o b t a i n e d on t h e f i r s t
, s e r i e s of samples s u g g e s t s a s shown
s i d e of t h e p i t a t 50cm i n t e r v a l s .
 VALIDATING A DRILLING PROGRAM WITH NEW SAMPLES
i n t h e variogram of F i g u r e 4.
1 I t h a s been shown above t h a t t h e
I I I I I I J where r i s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ,
I .O . 2.O 3.0 Distance
F i g u r e 4. Variogram of c h a n n e l
samples.
The nugget e f f e c t of 2.0 g i v e s f o r
each sample a c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l of
f2 a = 2.84% A1203 f o r samples on
t h e same channel.When t h e c h a n n e l s
a r e on opposing s i d e s , t h e r e i s of
c o u r s e ,an a d d i t i o n a l s o u r c e of
variation.
The c o n c l u s i o n can t h u s be made
t h a t t h e f i r s t and second s e r i e s of
samples a r e c o n s i s t e n t . Now, t h e y
can b o t h b e wrong b u t i f one c o n s i d e r s
t h a t normal c a r e h a s b e e n g i v e n i n t h e
p r e p a r a t i o n of samples, i t simply
r e f l e c t s the high l o c a l v a r i a b i l i t y
of t h e b a u x i t i s a t i o n p r o c e s s and a g a i n
p o i n t s - t o t h e f a c t t h a t one s h o u l d n o t
r e l y upon i n d i v i d u a l samples t o v a l u e
a b l o c k , b u t one s h o u l d r a t h e r use t h e
s u r r o u n d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and a method
l i k e kriging. A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n
o c c u r s i n phosphate and i s w e l l docu-
mented i n J o u r n e l and H u i j b r e g t s ( 4 ) .
A l l t h e s e examples c l e a r l y show t h a t
t h e mining l i m i t s s h o u l d n o t b e d e f i n e d
on s i n g l e d r i l l h o l e s o r sample v a l u e s .
K r i g i n g h a s t o b e used t o e s t i m a t e t h e
g r a d e of b l o c k s and c u t - o f f s h o u l d
be applied t o t h e s e blocks. I n t h e
c a s e where t h e r e ' i s a c l e a r g e o l o g i c a l
boundary, one s h o u l d n o t i n s i s t on
g e n e r a t i n g o r e w i t h a k r i g i n g program,
253
above o r below an h o r i z o n where
clearly the mineralization is not here.
Nugget E f f e c t and C o r r e l a t i o n
C o e f f i c i e n t of Assay Values i n
Nearby Samples
e x p e c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between nearby
samples can b e d e r i v e d from t h e
nugget e f f e c t of t h e variogram o f
t h e s e samples. One can a l s o r e l a t e
t h i s nugget e f f e c t t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t of t h e s e samples. The
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o use is:
Co t h e nugget e f f e c t and a 2 t h e
v a r i a n c e of t h e samples ( o r s i l l of
t h e v a r i o g r a m ) . Going back t o t h e
p r e v i o u s b a u x i t e example:
The c a s e of c h a n n e l samples i n t h e
c a r b o n a t i t e o r e was worse:
The u s e of c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
and r e g r e s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s when
comparing t h e r e s u l t s of d u p l i c a t e
sampling i s a common p r a c t i c e i n
uranium d e p o s i t s where r a d i o m e t r i c
a s s a y v a l u e s a r e checked by comparing
them t o chemical a s s a y v a l u e s of t h e
same i n t e r v a l i n a few t e s t h o l e s . .
S i n c e n a t u r a l gamma r a y l o g g i n g i s an
i n d i r e c t measure of t h e uranium c o n t e n t
i n t h e samples, i t is w e l l r e c o g n i z e d
t h a t t h e y may e x i s t l a r g e d i s c r e p a n c i e s
between t h e two t y p e s of measurement
and c o r r e l a t i o n diagram l i k e t h e one
shown on F i g u r e 5 i s n o t uncommon.
Sophisticated regression techniques
have r e c e n t l y been proposed t o recon-
c i l e t h e two i n non-standard lognormal
s i t u a t i o n s (Dagbert and David, (5) ) .
254 16th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

From a n i n c l i n e and d r i f t d r i v e n
.. undergtound, a new s e r i e s of d r i l l
CHEM h o l e s on approximately 1 5 f t i n t e r v a l s
h a s been s e t . T h i s y i e l d s a n a r e a
.I - of 600 f t x 150 f t which i s h e a v i l y
d r i l l e d and where o n l y 4 i n t e r s e c t i o n s
were p r e v i o u s l y a v a i l a b l e . Can one
expect t o v a l i d a t e t h e s u r f a c e
d r i l l i n g by comparing t h e e v a l u a t i o n
made from underground u s i n g a b o u t
80 d r i l l h o l e s and t h e e v a l u a t i o n
made from t h e s u r f a c e u s i n g o n l y 4
h o l e s ? Using a r b i t r a r y u n i t s , t h e
a v e r a g e GT p r o d u c t from s u r f a c e i s
9.89 and t h e a v e r a g e from underground
samples i s 7.51. Should one s u s p e c t
t h a t s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g i s overestima-
t i n g t h e q u a n t i t y of g o l d ? There a r e
of c o u r s e a l l k i n d s of t h i n g s which
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 could go wrong i n d r i l l i n g and
.01 05 I assaying but the present difference
is not s i g n i f i c a n t a s the following
F i g u r e 5. C o r r e l a t i o n diagram o f g e o s t a t i s t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n w i l l show.
r a d i o m e t r i c and chemical a s s a y v a l u e s
i n an uranium d e p o s i t . The r e l a t i v e variogram computed on
t h e 80 c l o s e samples shows no a n i s o -
D i s t u r b i n g Case I V : Underground t r o p y and i t s e q u a t i o n i s :
Sampling from Ramps
y(h)' = 0.29+0.33(1.5h/200-0.5h~/200~)
A t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n encountered
i n vein-type d e p o s i t s c a n b e s e e n i n y(h) = 0.62 f o r h > 200 f t
Figure 6.
Hence t h e s t a n d a r d e r r o r of t h e
mean o f t h e 600 f t x 150 f t b l o c k ,
u s i n g o n l y 4 random s t r a t i f i e d i n t e r -
s e c t i o n s i s , u s i n g s t a n d a r d formulae
( s e e f o r example, David, 1977):

ae = J) C(0.525) (0.33)+0.29] 14 = 34%

,
Now c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e r e i s
a p p r o x i m a t e l y one o f t h e 80 under-
ground i n t e r s e c t i o n s i n each 75 f t x
1 5 f t b l o c k t h e s t a n d a r d e r r o r ' of
t h e mean f o r t h e second e s t i m a t e is:

Hence they do n o t c o n t r a d i c t each

Surface DDH Underground DDH
F i g u r e 6 . S u r f a c e and underground
d r i l l i n g i n a vein-type g o l d d e p o s i t .
The o r i g i n a l s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g i n
t h i s gold d e p o s i t i s on 2 0 0 f t s e c t i o n s .
o t h e r and one s t i l l does n o t have
a n answer f o r t h e q u a l i t y of t h e
s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g . One c a n a p p r e c i a t e
however t h a t o n e , s h o u l d n o t e x p e c t
c l e a r answers from such a program.
The u n c e r t a i n t y on a small number of
s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g j u s t allows anything
f o r underground r e s u l t s . To b e more
 VALIDATING A DRILLING PROGRAM WITH NEW SAMPLES
c o n s t r u c t i v e one may s a y t h a t . 20,000 p i e c e s o f c o r e .
e s t i m a t i n g t h e 600 f t x 150 f t
b l o c k from 4 s u r f a c e i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s
a v e r y p r i m i t i v e way o f d o i n g t h i n g s .
Hence, t h e s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g and geo-
s t a t i s t i c s could possibly be b e t t e r
checked by u s i n g i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e
4 holes contained i n the blocks, those
which s u r r o u n d i t and c o u l d b e
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a k r i g i n g program.
T h i s h a s , been done a n d b a s e d on 1 4
s u r f a c e h o l e s t h e r e s u l t is 7.68 w i t h
a s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f 17%.
T h i s r e s u l t i s now much more
c o n c l u s i v e and 7.68 w i t h a 17% s t a n d a r d
e r r o r i s c l o s e enough t o 7.51 w i t h a
s t a n d a r d e r r o r of 7%. One c a n now
r i s k a n e n g i n e e r ' s c o n c l u s i o n and
s a y t h a t b a s e d on t h e underground
d r i l l i n g program, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e
s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g program i s u n b i a s e d .
S t o p p i n g a t t h e comparison between
.9.89 and 7.51 may h a v e l e d t o e i t h e r
an erroneous conclusion o r a u s e l e s s
d o u b t . One s h o u l d a l s o n o t i c e t h a t
u s u a l l y a n underground s a m p l i n g
program w i l l b e c o n d u c t e d i n a "good1'
a r e a , u s u a l l y a n a r e a above t h e
a v e r a g e g r a d e , h e n c e by t h e s i m p l e
regression e f f e c t one s h o u l d e x p e c t
t h e d e n s e l y d r i l l e d underground
working t o show g r a d e s l e s s t h a n
what s u r f a c e d r i l l i n g s a y s . A p a p e r
by L a l l e m e n t ( 6 ) d e s c r i b e d how
' t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s c a n b e made a s
a h e l p t o choose between s a m p l i n g
programs.
D i s t u r b i n g Case V: Checking on
20-Year Old D r i l l i n g Programs
The s m a l l h i g h g r a d e porphyry
c o p p e r d e p o s i t which w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d
i n t h i s s e c t i o n changed hands s e v e r a l
t i m e s and was e x t e n s i v e l y d r i l l e d i n
the early f i f t i e s . I n t e r e s t i n the
p r o p e r t y was r e c e n t l y r e v i v e d and s e e n
with today's standards, the d r i l l i n g
and s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s a p p e a r e d
dubious and q u e s t i o n s were r a i s e d
a b o u t t h e v a l i d i t y of a b o u t 60,000
f e e t of c o r e a s s a y e d e v e r y 3 f e e t .
F o r t u n a t e l y t h e o l d r e j e c t s were s t i l l
a v a i l a b l e and i t was p o s s i b l e t o p l a n
a n e x p e r i m e n t t o check t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
o f o l d samples w i t h o u t , r e a s s a y i n g t h e
The T e s t and t h e Problem. I n e a c h
h o l e a n d i n e a c h group o f 100
c o n s e c u t i v e s a m p l e s , t h r e e samples
a r e s e l e c t e d : t h e l o w e s t (above
0.05%Cu) t h e h i g h e s t a n d a medium
one. T h i s y i e l d s 600 samples which
h a v e been c r u s h e d t o l m m , q u a r t e r e d ,
ground t o -100 mesh a n d a s s a y e d . A
f i r s t look a t the f i r s t assays
available yielded the distressing
p l o t shown on F i g u r e 7, showing
i n s t e a d o f a 45' l i n e , a s y s t e m a t i c
overestimation of o l d values, thus
s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e g r a d e of t h e
d e p o s i t i s i n f a c t a b o u t 20% l e s s
than expected.
- NEW
/
- CuO/o
*r'
/:
. .&.
- 4::
-- ..A*.
-- / *
- J.,. .
- 4
..* /
/ OLD
-*.
::./ Cu O/O
t/" ,' , 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I I I
F i g u r e 7. Old a n d new a s s a y v a l u e s
of t h e same samples i n ' t h e h i g h g r a d e
porphyry c o p p e r d e p o s i t .
Hence t h e q u e s t i o n : c a n t h i s new
lower g r a d e b e a c c e p t e d a s such o r
s h o u l d one r e a s s a y t h e 20,000 s a m p l e s ?
Simple s t a t i s t i c a l arguments can
help i n t h i s case:
- f i r s t o f a l l , t h e samples compared
a r e n o t comparable. The o l d v a l u e s
were o b t a i n e d from m a t e r i a l c r u s h e d
t o 114 i n ; t h e new o n e s a r e o b t a i n e d
from m a t e r i a l c r u s h e d t o l m m . Hence
a c c o r d i n g t o Gy's formulae f o r
i n s t a n c e , t h e v a r i a n c e of o l d samples
s h o u l d b e h i g h e r t h a n t h a t o f new o n e s ,
t h i s is the usual regression effect
256 16th APCOM SYMPOSIUM
and e x p l a i n s why a l l o l d h i g h v a l u e s
a r e now l o w e r and c o n v e r s e l y f o r low
v a l u e s . T h i s however does n o t e x p l a i n
t h e s y s t e m a t i c b i a s which a p p e a r s .
F i g u r e 8. D i s t r i b u t i o n s of o l d and
new a s s a y v a l u e s i n t h e h i g h grade
porphyry copper d e p o s i t .
A l o o k a t F i g u r e 8 shows e a s i l y
i n f a c t t h a t t h e b i a s might be b u i l t
i n t h e checking experiment. The
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f g r a d e v a l u e s i s log-
normal and s o w i l l b e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
of s u b s e t s of 100 v a l u e s . One c a n
s e e t h a t i f t h e l o w e s t , h i g h e s t and
medium v a l u e s a r e t a k e n t o r e p r e s e n t
a group of 100 s a m p l e s , t h e n chances
a r e t h a t t h e i r average overestimates
t h e grade o f t h e 300 f t s e c t i o n .
This suggests t h a t t h e f i r s t t h i n g
t o do i s t o check h o w ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of t h e d e p o s i t t h e 600 samples r e a l l y
a r e . . A q u i c k method had t o b e d e v i s e d
i n t h e f i e l d , w i t h no computing
f a c i l i t i e s available.
v a l i d a t i o n of t h e Old Samples. Are
t h e o l d v a l u e s and t h e 600 new v a l u e s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e d e p o s i t ? Can
t h e o l d v a l u e s s t i l l b e used? To
answer t h i s q u e s t i o n q u i c k l y one
s e c t i o n was chosen i n t h e d e p o s i t .
The 6 D.D.H. w i t h i n t h e s e c t i o n
c o n t a i n 747 o l d samples, t h e a v e r a g e
of t h e s e 747 samples i s 0.755% Cu.
Now t h e new sampling p l a n h a s y i e l d e d
72 samples p i c k e d up r e g u l a r l y , 3 i n
e v e r y 100. The a v e r a g e of t h e 72
new v a l u e s i s 0.756% Cu and t h e
a v e r a g e of t h e 72 o l d c o r r e s p o n d i n g
v a l u e s i s 1.06% Cu!
The f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s can b e
made: 72 new s a m p l e s , c o r r e c t l y
p r e p a r e d can d u p l i c a t e t h e a v e r a g e
of t h e e n t i r e s e t o f 747 p o o r - q u a l i t y
samples i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The
d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e 72 o l d and
new v a l u e s i s probably due t o t h e
cumulative e f f e c t of poor sample
p r e p a r a t i o n , and s e l e c t i v e c h o i c e
of t h e r e a n a l y z e d samples which
c o n c e n t r a t e s on h i g h g r a d e s . These
c o n c l u s i o n s of c o u r s e have t o b e
s u p p o r t e d by c o n t i n u i n g t h e e x e r c i s e
on o t h e r s e c t i o n s . A more d e t a i l e d
i n v e s t i g a t i o n l a t e r allowed t h e
d e s i g n of a c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r t o
use t h e o l d samples, which a f t e r
a l l showed a s y s t e m a t i c over-
e s t i m a t i o n of about 10%.
CONCLUSIONS
From t h e above examples, i t a p p e a r s
t h a t one s h o u l d n o t e x p e c t e x a c t l y t h e
same outcome from two sampling cam-
p a i g n s i n t h e same r e g i o n of a n o r e -
body simply b e c a u s e t h e m a t e r i a l
a n a l y z e d i s n o t t h e same. Of c o u r s e ,
and t h i s can a l s o b e s e e n i n t h e '
examples which have been p r e s e n t e d ,
t h e magnitude of t o l e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s
i s n o t t h e same i n e v e r y s i t u a t i o n and
i t depends, f i r s t on i n t r i n s i c
p r o p e r t i e s of c o n t i n u i t y of t h e
m i n e r a l i z a t i o n and second on t h e s i z e
and r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n o f ' r o c k masses
b e i n g compared: e x p e c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s
between two nearby c h a n n e l samples i n
the carbonatite ore a r e f a r greater
t h a n i n t h e b a u x i t e d e p o s i t and i n
t h e same c a r b o n a t i t e t h e p e r m i s s i b l e
d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e means of 218
channel samples i s much l e s s t h a n
between two c h a n n e l samples' o n l y . It
h a s a l s o been shown how variograms
can t a k e a l l t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t o
account and how s i m p l e g e o s t a t i s t i c a l
formulae h e l p p r e c i s e t h e limits
beyond which one may s u s p e c t f a u l t y
o p e r a t i o n s . The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn
i n each example may l o o k d i s a p p o i n t i n g
t o t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n c e they s u g g e s t
t h a t check sampling programs, i n some
 VALIDATING A DRILLING PROGRAM WITH NEW SAMPLES
c a s e s very expensive o n e s , a r e n e v e r
c o n c l u s i v e . I n f a c t , i t seems r e a l l y
d i f f i c u l t t o p u t i n t o evidence b i a s e s
i n t h e r e s u l t s of a sampling o p e r a t i o n
a l t h o u g h p h y s i c a l r e a s o n s f o r such
b i a s e s l i k e a poor c o r e recovery may
e x i s t . N e v e r t h e l e s s we t h i n k t h a t one
s h o u l d adopt t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e
s t a t i s t i c i a n and a f t e r d e c i d i n g upon
a c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l , one s h o u l d a c c e p t
d i f f e r e n c e s which a r e w i t h i n t h e
limits of t h e c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l
d e r i v e d from t h e variograms. F u r t h e r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h o u l d b e conducted
only i f t h e s e limits a r e exceeded.
Acknowledgements
Once a g a i n thanks a r e due t o t h e
g e o l o g i s t s and mining e n g i n e e r s who
r a i s e d t h e s e q u e s t i o n s and made t h i s
work p o s s i b l e encouraging i t by
h e l p f u l d i s c u s s i o n s and c r i t i c i s m s .
References
1. Sandefur, R.L. and Grant, D.C.,
"Preliminary e v a l u a t i o n of uranium.
d e p o s i t s . A g e o s t a t i s t i c a l s t u d y of
d r i l l i n g d e n s i t y i n Wyoming s o l u t i o n
f r o n t s i n Symposium on E x p l o r a t i o n f o r
Uranium Ore Deposits : Vienna, I n t e r -
n a t . Atomic Energy Agency, 1976,
pp. 695-714.
2. David, M., " G e o s t a t i s t i c a l o r e
reserve estimation". Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1977, 364p.
3. David, M . , "Variance d ' e s t i m a t i o n
e x a c t e et approch6e d ' u n e ' l i g n e p a r N
p o i n t s e n sch6ma sph6rique1'. B o l e t i n
G e o e s t a d i s t i c a , 5 , 1973, pp. 1-15.
4. J o u r n e l , A. and H u i j b r e g t s , C . ,
"Estimation of l a t e r i t i c - t y p e depo-
sits", i n Proc. 1 0 t h APCOM Symp.,
South A f r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of Mining and
Metallurgy, Johannesburg, 1 9 7 2 , .
pp. 207-212.
5. Dagbert, M. and David, M . , "A new
method t o c o r r e l a t e r a d i o m e t r i c and
chemical a s s a y v a l u e s i n uranium
d e p o s i t s " , SME p r e p r i n t , SME-AIME
Annual Meeting, New O r l e a n s , Feb.1979,
pp. 1-23.
6 . Lallement, B., "Use of g e o s t a t i s -
t i c s a t t h e B.R.G.M. t o determine t h e
b e s t way t o prove an orebody" i n Proc.
of 1 4 t h APCOM Symp., SME-AIME,
New York, 1977, pp. 1026-1032.