.,.·.

-ElM e
Bxplor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 117·127, 1998
1999 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
-IEM AU rights re=ved. Printed in Canada.
0964-1823/98 $17.00 + .00

'
Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation
SCOTT D. LONG
· Mineral Resources Development Inc.
San Mateo, California, U.S.A.

Received May 18, 1999; accepted July 31, 1999.

Abstract-Grass roots exploration has an emphasis on good precision at low (sub-economic) con-
Centrations of an element. in order to identify "anomalies" which may lead to drilling targets.
Although it is wise to have well-defined quality controls in place during early stage sampling, the
control procedures at this stage tend to be rudimentary. When a deposit warrants detailed delineation,
the need for accurate geological characterization and assaying of ore-grade rock must be supported
by appropriate quality control procedures.
As a project returns more promising results, and the likelihood of the project warranting a pre-
feasibility study increases, it is time to tighten quality assurance requirements and quality control
protocols. Delays in instituting adequate quality control and verification procedures may lead to
costly remedial actions that can also delay completion of the prefeasibility or feasibility study. Some-
times, as a project matures, the quality control and quality assurance aspects fail to keep pace with
the changing nature of the work: an increasing emphasis on precise and accurate assaying of ore-
grade rock.
A resource model is like a house of cards. The foundation of the house is the geological obser-
vations, the sampling methods and the geological interpretations performed upon those samples.
Upon the sampling, which includes all the sub-sampling steps of sample preparation, rest the assay
results. The quality of the assays can be no better than the quality of the sampling. Good assaying .
teclmique will preserve all biases and imprecisions introduced during sampling and sample prepara-
tion; it cannot remove them. If the sub-samples and/or assays are bad and must be redone, all the
succeeding levels of the house of cards must also be rebuilt, or at least patched up.
From geological observations, a geological interpretation is built. the quality of which is critical
to the construction of an acceptable resource model. Geological elements are difficult to assess, and
are not discussed here; they are dependent upon the expertise of the geologists involved. Geological
knowledge contributes essential quality control elements to resource/reserve deterininations (Sin-
clair and Postolski, 1999; Postolski and Sinclair,1999).
This paper consists of five sections: (1) overview of quality control protocols, (2) maintaining
quality control of da~1>ases, (3) quality control of drill sampling, (4) optimi.iing crushing and grind-
ing requirements, and (5) quality control of assay data acquisition. ©1999 Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy arid Petroleum. All rights reserved.

Overview of Quality Control Protocols

In the ISO perspective, quality assurance policies and pre-feasibility or feasibility report are required; such proce-
: '
quality control activities emphasize problem prevention . dures should be documented from the initiation of a project
rather than depending on problem detection after occur- to assist with internal and external audits. These written pro-
rence. Hence, quality control actions are part of the process tocols should be dated~ because they often become modified
of generating data. Like safety, quality mostly cannot be in the course of a project When modifications take place,
tacked on later when needed, foi: example at the time of a they should also be written down and dated and appropriate
feasibility study. Sampling quality control protocols depend actions taken to ensure that all people concerned have been
upon: personnel, written procedures, and traceability of informed of the changes. Records of all successive modifi-
actions. cations should also be kept Details to address in advance of
The first line of defense is the quality of the personnel. the onset of drilling or surface sampling programs include:
Are they reputable? Has any effort been made to verify sample identification conventiQns, acquisition of standards
information on· their resumes? Are they honest? Are they and blanks, protocols for theit insertion and protocols for
qualified to do the work required? Has a qualified person sample preparation, chain. of custod'fof samples as well as
evaluated them and verified that they can perform the work handling and storage procedures for core, pulps and rejects.
correctly? Are they supervised regularly and adequately? The chain of documentation should be sufficiently clear that
Secondly, written procedures are. essential. Docu- there is no question which protocols were used with which
mented procedures used in obtainirig measurements for a drilling campaigns. Protocols should be posted at work sites, r
j
,,
117
I
t
118 Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2, 1998
so that they are readily accessible to technicians performing
the work. This helps maintain consistency in the procedures
when there are changes in the workforc-e .
Tirirdly, traceability is essential and it applies on several
levels. Anonymity erodes quality. This applies as much to
who checks the rejects and pulps for grind quality as it does
to who maps, logs the drill core or drill chips or handles the
samples. A common problem encountered with geologic data
is inconsistent mapping and logging. To monitor this, it is
worthwhile to include the identity (typically the initials) of
the geologist, as one of the fields entered into any database
table of geologic data. Maintaining a reference set of drill
core samples which show all or most of the rock+alteration
combinations encountered during drilling, and a training set
of portions of two or three drill core and/or drill chip holes
are practical tools for maintaining uniformity of quality.
A project may pass through several companies before it
is brought to feasibility. Procedural changes should be doc-
umented as clearly as possible. The new project manager
should strive (make ·reasonable efforts) to acquire all rele-
vant quality control and quality assurance documentation
from previous drilling campaigns, as well as ensure ade-
quate correlation between geologists. Too often, these
details are overlooked in the transfer of data from one party
to another. The lack of traceability information may jeopar-
dize the use of these data in subsequent resource models,
pending geological correlation, verification by check assays
on stored rejects, or twinning old drill holes. Rude surprises
await the unwary.
Maintaining Quality Control of Databases
Drilling projects usually rely upon relational databases
to store and manage their data. Some of the better-known
personal computer databases are ACCESS, DBASE, PARA-
DOX and INFORMIX. Older software programs include
FOXPRO and RBASE. There are some more powerful soft-
ware packages such as ORACLE. Some geologic packages,
such as TECHBASE also contain relational databases.
These programs are all designed to keep data in order, match
up data from different sources using unique identifiers,
answer questions about the data, and provide the capability
to edit or change the data.
Database Entry
Database entry and reporting forms can be avoided by
importing and exporting selected data from and to spread-
sheets. A good flow of analytical data consists of receiving
computer files from the laboratory (attested by them to be
identical to the printed laboratory certificate) provided in
spreadsheet format (such as LOTUS, EXCEL or QUAT-
TRO-PRO). These files can be saved as back-up files and
edited copies can be loaded into the relational database. The
spreadsheets typically are named with the certificate name,
with the original computer files stored with the same care as
the original assay certificates.
Whenever data are transferred from on~ software to
another, it is not sufficient to rely on built-in check mecha-
nisms. In addition, basiC tools such as checksums for
columns or strings of data or checksums with rank order
weighting should be used to ensure transfer of data without
errors. If data are entered from a keyboard rather than
received electronically, they should be entered twice {dou-
ble-entry) by two different individuals, and the two sets of
data cross-matched in a relational database to trap all errors.
Data should be entered from originals, not faxes or poor-
quality photocopies where legibility may be compromised.
The same goes for any critical geological information used
to construct the resource model If hand-entered data are
thought to be virtually error-free, check a random selection
of three percent for errors. A quality standard for data entry
is less than one error in 10 000 keystrokes.
Most projects do not adequately compile in their rela-
tional database, all the information needed to easily evaluate
the quality of the data and to manage that data. In the case
of assay certificates, essential information in the header of
the certificate, such "as date, analytical method, and what
samples were analyzed together, usually is not preserved.
All that is necessary to do so is to add a field (column) to
record the certificate name, which is always unique for a
particular laboratory. For even more detail (convenient if the
majority of assay reports are large and the sample numbers
are not well-ordered within it) the line number of each sam-
ple number can be recorded in a second field; this step is
easily accomplished using the "data fill" menu function in a
computer spreadsheet.
A separate relational database table can then be main-
tained which contains all the header information from each
certificate. With this· structure in place, it is possible to
arrange data accurately by time sequence and to group data
having different detection limits for a particular element,
different assay procedures, or different laboratories. Locat-
ing the hard copy of particular results becomes simple.
Adding this step, which can be done in a few seconds in a
spreadsheet, by copying the certificate name into a column
for all rows "Of assay results, maintains the ability to evalu-
ate many aspects of data quality after the data pass to a rela-
tional database.
Handling Special Values
Managing values below detection is a common problem.
Relational databases and spreadsheets do not interpret a less-
than sign (<) as a numeric character; hence, if the computer
file of assay results Jl,as this character in data fields, some
modifieation must M ma~e to the data. The most common
convention is to replace the1ess-than sign with a minus sign.
This is the best approach, since the meaning is unequivocal,
and no information is lost. Information is lost if one replaces
these values with a zero, and there is also risk that such val-
ues will become confused with "not analyzed," a very differ-
ent result when the data are composited!
Using a zero value when a value below the detection
limit is reported becomes ambiguous within a database if an
I. .
I I

Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation • S.D. l..oNO l19

element has different detection limits over the life of the table, which has the "preferred" or "to use" value. Document
.__ project. The author has seen a large database with one ele- the method of obtaining this value in detail, so that others can
ment having four different detection limits. In that case, confirm it In this way, no information. is lost, and auditors
some below-detection entries were entered as half the detec- can easily trace the chain of steps that leads from the assay
tion limit, some as one unit less than the detection limit, and certificates to the values used in the resource model.
some as zero. The element was a contaminant; the levels of
that contaminant could not be estimated from the. data as
recorded in that database. In general the rules should be: Quality Control of Drill Sampling
make the minimal changes necessary so that the data can be
easily checked against assay certificates, and make changes Evaluation of Diamond Drill Sampling
which are unambiguous and thus easily reversible. Some
software packages have an insidious tendency to introduce Core recovery is the first evaluation step. This is partic-
ularly important in vein-type deposits with structural con-
zeroes into blank numeric fields; this is another reason to
trol, as controlling structures and schistosity reduce the
avoid using zero.
mechanical competency of the rock, leading to selective
A value of zero is best reserved for those intervals that
core loss in metal bearing structures. Core recovery should
are not analyzed .intentionally because they are known,
be monitored systematically and recorded on the drill logs,
based on geological observation and previous testing, to
paying particular attention to expected or known mineral-
contain negligible amounts of the element of interest. In this
ization intercepts. Other core features warrant attention.
case, it may be preferable to assign a value of zero only in
"Washboard type" undulations on the core surface indicate
the "preferred" or "to use" fielcl, and use a special code, such
too high a drilling pressure and hole ·vibration, leading to
as ''-9990" in the assay field. There are more sophisticated
lower core recoveries in weaker rocks.
(statistical) methods of handling dilution effects. A zero
assigrunent is conservative for conunodities but becomes
optimistic and cannot be used for contaminants.
Evaluation of Rotary Drilling Sampling
Sometimes, a greater-than sign (>) is used to report
results that exceed the upper range of measurement. These Drilling recovery is often neglected for rotary samples
samples should be re-analyzed, using a method with a probably because it is more difficult to measure. To obtain a
'ugher upper limit. It is unwise to load these (>) values into reasonable estimate of rotary drill recovery, the drill hole
'--"a database, where some subsequent user may misinterpret diameter, the sample split, the wet weight and the dry weight
them as accurate measurements of concentration. The author of the sample must all be studiously recorded. Failures most
recently audited a project in which he was provided with a often occ.u r where changes in the sample split fail to be
database of check assays in which the highest reported recorded (such as changing from collecting 1/8 to l/4 split,
grades exceeded the stated upper limit of analysis for one of when drilling recovery drops). Very wet Samples are prob-
the check assay· lab~ratories. Results with the greater-than lematical. Rock density changes complicate the picture.
symbol(>) should be assigned a specific code so they can be Despite all this, recovery data from rotary drill holes can
recognized confidently. · . reveal problems that might otherwise be overlooked. For .. ,I
Unambiguous, useful numeric codes in assay fields typ- example, recoveries greater than 100% which correlate with 'I
ically consist of negative numbers, such as -999, that are pronounced decreases or increases in grade may reveal I
I
impossible to confuse with a below-detection limit value. A doWn-hole sloughing and contamination probiems. I
I
well-ordered database may have a variety of codes to cope Rotary drilling should also be evaluated for down-hole I
with different situations, such as -9997 for insufficient sam- contamination by examining changes in grade which occur I
l
ple, -9998 for sample lost, -9999 for not analyzed, and so on. whenever another. segment of drill rod is added (cyclicity ·I
testing), because there is an increased probability of down- I
In such cases, a table describing the meaning of each code I
should also be maintained. For example, the number -99500 hole contamination when this occurs. This is done by com- '
might indicate that the value was above an upper limit of paring assays of those samples straddling the point at which
analysis of 500 ppm; this code is easy to generate by per- a drill rod was added, with other adjacent sample pairs. Indi-
forming a global replacement of -99 for> in a column of the cations of down-hole contamination may lead to a decision
assay computer file. Codes such as these are useless unless to modify or change drilling methods. Clearly, this is a fac-
well documented, unambiguous and consistently applied. tor which should be explored early in any drilling program,
To ensilre all available information is used adequately, since there is no remedy for contaminated samples.
further editing of the data may be needed once transferred
into the assay table. For example, one may have two deter-
minations for a given element, both valid, and wish to take Bulk Specific Gravity (Density)
+he mean for use in the resource model. Or, one may wish to Bulk specific gravity (density) is as critical as assay
~ assign a non-negative value to below-detection limit values results in estimating the total metal content of a deposit, and
(a necessary step before compositing values). Rather than is too often badly neglected. The author is familiar with one I
lose information, it is best to either create a new table with case in which ore tonnage was· underestimated by about i
the modified values, .o r create a new field within the existing 15% because the engineers modeling the deposit used a ton- I
I,
I· i
....-.11
~-·

120 Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. I and 2, 1998

nage factor from another deposit, even though the presence results should be averaged. Data from the first half of the
of large quantities of barite was known. ' core should be disregarded where the other half of the core
More often, bulk _specific gravity is mis-estimated as a was incomplete. Results from such samples may therefore
consequence of two factors. Core samples are weighed in be expected to have an additional contribution to variance
water without first sealing them with wax, so that pore space which is a function of geological variation. In such cases,
volume is not preserved, leading to underestimation. Con- and in the case of twin hole studies, where the spatial sepa-
versely, less competent sections of core, which often have a ration is much larger and less well-known, it is advisable to
lower bulk specific gravity, are not subjected to measure- compare distributions of results for the entire hole, and aver-
ments, leading to overestimation. Tills constitutes a selec- age values (means and medians) of grade populations, rather
tion bias. Just like assays, bulk specific gravity measure- than individual sample pairs.
ments should be systematic and they should be subjected to Some portions of drill holes may not warrant any dupli-
independent checks. Enough density measurements should cate samples, because, based on geologic information, they
be made of each lithological/alteration/metallurgical cate- are very unlikely to provide grades above the lowest antici-
gory of ore, so that a reliable estimate of the error on the pated ore/waste cutoff. Such intervals should be verified in
mean value can be calculated. Bimodal or skewed distribu- a cursory fashion by sampling, particularly next to mineral-
tions of density measurements indicate the likely presence ized intervals.
of domains and the need to review geological categories. Use of the entire core for assay is generally an unac-
ceptable practice and should be considered only as a last
resort. Use of entire core destroys evidence oftampering; it
Rig Duplicates and Half-cores also prevents revisiting geological intetpretations. Ore min-
eral losses can be exacerbated in some rock by wet sawing. ·
For rotary drilling samples, there may be "rig" or
In such cases, the answer is to use a core-splitter, and be
· "field" duplicates collected from a rotary (wet) or riffle
very conscientious about including half the fines after split-
(typically Gilson) splitter at the drill site. Each duplicate
ting. Where large samples are required, reliance should be
is submitted with a unique sample number (preferably
placed on larger core diameter or reverse circulation drilling
one which preserves its anonymity) and subjected to the
rather than using entire core. This is one of the reasons why
same sample ·preparation and analytical steps as other
many gold deposits depend largely upon reverse circulation .
samples. These additional splits can be collected at a uni-
drilling, even though in doing so, geologic understanding is
form interval, such as every 20th sample, or they may be
reduced and sample quality control can be more difficult.
selected at random.
Most geologists are very cognizant of the fact that when
splitting core, it is important to try to obtain two halves hav-
Optimizing Crushing and Grinding Requirements
ing the same grade, hence, to submit a half-core for analysis
without biasing the selec~on in favor of higher or lower
Required Specifications
grade halves. Even in favorable conditions, split core rarely
provides true duplicate samples, as there is a spatial (geo- Experimental studies by Gy (1979) have demonstrated
logical) component in these duplicates which is not present the 95% passing size (P-95) to be the most reliable particle
in drill chips. Sometimes the technician splitting the core size standard for evaluating crushing and grinding. Any cri-
will be instructed to alternately submit the left or right terion other than P-95 should be recast by selecting an
halves of each split piece, after first attempting to cut the appropriate, usually larger, sieve size. For example, it may
piece as normal to structures as possible, while still obtain- tum out that a laboratory's quoted 60% passing a 10 mesh
ing two half-cylinders. The risk of bias exists where the screen is equivalent to 95% passing 1/4 in.
mineralization is easily recognizable, its distribution is To establish an appropriate protocol, duplicate samples
highly non-uniform, and technicians are not adequately should be collected initially at each step of the sample
trained or supervised. When unintentional, an introduced preparation process where the sample is split to reduce mass
bias is likely to be slight; if intentionally done, it can be prior to proceeding to the next comminution step. A well-
huge. If supervision is close, if there are good records of balanced sequence of sample preparations protocol will pro-
who worked on what samples (that is, chain of custody duce approximately equal contributions to sampling vari-
records), testing for bias can be made more definitive, and ances for each such step. The variances of each step are
any potential damage can be minimized. additive, with the . gr~atest proportion carried by the step
Old assaying may be tested by analyzing the other half contributing the great~st -v~ance because estimates of pre-
of drill core, or in some cases, re-splitting the half-core and cision are proportional to the square root of the sum of vari-
analyzing a quarter core. Analyzing the stored half of the ances. Once the "worst step" is identified, immediate efforts
core where it still exists provides the only test for selection to improve precision should focus upon this step, before any
bias during the core splitting process. Typically, at least 50 other step is targeted.
samples, taken from several contiguous runs within the ore Coarse rejects and pulps should be periodically checked
zone(s) need to be selected for such a check, in order to to be certain that the sample preparation protocol is being
obtain a sufficient population for a statistically valid test. If rigorously followed. While the laboratory should be doing
results for the second half show negative bias, the two this as part of its internal quality control, the project man-
 Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation • S.D. LoNO
:er should keep in mind competing considerations, such as
-.sample throughput at the laboratory which may cause qual-
ity to suffer, particularly in periods of high sample load.
Checks on coarse rejects should be done using a single sieve
of the size expected to pass 95% of the material. In addition
to requesting that the preparation manager perform this
check daily, one should perform an independent check on
randomly-selected coarse duplicates on a weekly or bi-
weekly basis. Checks on pulp quality should be performed
by the check assay laboratory on about 10% of the pulps
received by them.
Minimizing the Nugget Effect
One should accept the fact that a material with a sub-
stantial nugget effect will incur higheJ;" sample preparation
costs in order to reduce the effect. Such added effort may
involve grinding larger masses of samples to smaller parti-
cle sizes prior to taking sub-samples, plus perhaps perform-
ing screen fire assays on a larger sample pulp, or firing sam-
ple quantities larger than one assay-ton (about 30 grams).
Otherwise, the resource model will suffer, and the project
will carry greater risks in its estimates of tons and grade
above cutoff, its mine plan, its pit design and plant capaci-
ties. Poor precision means greater uncertainty, which trans-
lates into lower efficiencies, higher risk, and lower profits.
... eostatisticians may place fewer tons in the "proven and
-yrobable" categories than would be the case if the results
were more reproducible. It is usually far cheaper to upgrade
preparation and analytical protocols than to drill holes at a
closer grid spacing.
Use of Duplicate Samples
Duplicate sample submissions should be used to gauge
the adequacy of the sample preparation protocol, as well as
for evaluating analytical precision. Several different types of
duplicate samples should be evaluated, including those per-
formed on coarse rejects (typically, the portion of material
from the crusher which is not passed on to the pulverizer for
final sample preparation) and on sample pulps. Rig dupli-
cates· may also be collected from splits of chips from
reverse-circulation drills. The remaining core-half of split
core is sometimes submitted as a check, particularly as part
of a ..due diligence" examination of a property's value.
Coarse Reject Duplicates
In North and South America, coarse reject material typ-
ically consists of the output of a jaw or roll crusher. It is pos-
sible to have more than one type of coarse reject, if there is
more than one stage of crushing and grinding followed by
_JUtting. In Australian gold prospects, there is often no
coarse reject, because the entire sample is reduced to a fine
pulp in a very large pulverizer. It is preferable to submit
coarse reject duplicates to the same laboratory that routinely
analyzes the samples (the primary laboratory). If such dupli-
121
cate samples are submitted to a different laboratory (the
check assay laboratory) and the results do not agree, one
cannot tell, without additional information, whether the
problem rests with the analytical technique or with the
preparation stages. If coarse reject duplicates are analyzed in
an identical manner, any bias may be more clearly ascribed
to problems with the sample preparation.
Same-pulp Duplicates
At least a portion of same-pulp duplicates should be
sent to a second independent laboratory; these are the check
assays. Some geologists take the position that there is no
need for check assays at a second laboratory if adequate
numbers of standard reference materials (SRMs), having
well-established grades, are inserted into the sample stream
in such a way as to maintain their anonymity. Since an out-
sider can never be certain that anonymity is maintained
throughout a project's life, and since a set ~f SRMs may not
be adequate at uncovering every manner in which bias may
be introduced into a sample population, it is best to confirm
results at a second reputable laboratory.
As a rule of thumb, one should expect to obtain
agreement on assays of the same pulp by the same labo-
ratory of 10% for 90% of such pairs; and 20% for a
coarse reject material (assuming there is only one such),
using the pair difference divided as the pair mean as the
estimate of precision. These are levels of precision which
include an allowance for Type I errors such as sample
mix-ups. If rig duplicates show a precision of 30% (for
90% of pairs), the variance is evenly distributed through
the process, and one can improve precision by improving
.
..
any step. Where there is a nugget effect, such levels of
precision may not be obtainable using an affordable
pr~paration protocol.
Quality Control of Assay Data Acquisition
The frrst requirement of a quality assurance program
for assaying is the selection of the laboratory. .Whenever
possible, a certified laboratory should be selected (ISO
25, Canada Standards, or other equivalent accreditation).
A laboratory's reputation also should be checked, but
even good reputation and accreditation do not free the
project manager and project geologist from diligent
supervision. Particularly in remote areas, the laboratory
should be visited before selection and occasionally dur-
ing field work, preferably unannounced. This is how one
learns that a 'half assay ton' rather than 'one assay ton'
portions are being weighed and assaye<f.!...or that other less
obvious steps of the agreed-upon sampte preparation pro-
tocols are not being respected. The first step of quality
assurance consists of improving precision and reducing 'I
errors at the source. I" I
Quality control procedures of assay results include the
following steps: 1) selection of check assays and avoidance
II
of selection bias; 2) graphs of duplicate sample results; 3) I.
!
dll
...
~u
122 Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. I and 2, 1998
t6
,.
relations among relative precision, detection limit and ore
cutoff; 4) use of standard reference materials (SRM); 5) use
··.·' of blanks; 6) maintaining the anonymity of quality control
materials; 7) batch . control; and 8) guidelines regarding
assay quality ·control.
·...
Check Assays -Avoiding Selection Bias
A very common mistake is to use the original assay
results to decide which samples to submit for check assays
or other duplicate analyses. This introduces a selection bias.
Because every result includes measurement and sub-sam-
pling errors, there will be a regression in results toward the
most probable value of a population. Thus, high values will
~·-
tend to come back lower and low values higher. When there
is no bias, these effects exactly cancel. Choosing a dispro-
portionate number of high values from a population, how-
'"· ever, introduces a selection bias; the check assays will tend
to average lower than the average of the original results. The
magnitude of the effect ranges from negligible (where pre-
cision is very good) to quite large (where precision is poor).
In some cases the person evaluating the check assays
introduces a selection bias by, for example, grouping the
results j.nto grade ranges based upon the.original result, and
then comparing the averages of the grade ranges. Where
preei.Sion is poor, such as for data having a substantial
"nugget. effect," the lowest grade range is much lower for
the original data than for the check results, while the reverse
is true in the highest grade range. If, however, the data were
to be ordered by the check assay data, one would find that
the check a5say data for the lowest grade range has a lower
mean than the original data. This apparent paradox is a con-
sequence of the selection bias created by grouping the data
by one of the sets of results.
The best way to avoid selection bias is to be sure that
samples selected for re-assay are chosen in such a way that
they are' random with respect to grade for the sample popu-
lation being evaluated, and using all values to establish an
average value for a sample, avoiding a selection based on
only one of the results. Using the mean of the two results for
each sample does not introduce a selection bias, and the
means can be used for grouping the data. In such a case, one
should keep in mind that precision in any group near the
detection limit may appear better than it actually is, because
at these low concentrations, pairs with the poorest precision
are excluded from that range; if one of the members of the
pair is high enough, the pair mean will place that pair in a
higher grade range, even if the other member of the pair is
below detection.
Drill holes outside the area of interest, or intervals iden-
tified by geologic observation to be waste can be excluded
from check assaying; these are selections that are not based
directly on assay results, and so do not have a selection bias.
Most geologists also realize the fallacy of selectively
~~ re-assayiog samples with lower grades, in the hope or
expectation that a higher result will be obtained the second
'
time around. Because tlie lower end of a distribution of
results will contain more negative sub-sampling and mea-
i
j
N • II. Cbtcb tr- 'higl>.gado' _ . HI&.Ucl d .-doa Aaalylilb7
I Asoq.Toa Fire A•sq. Coa1latioo c"'l• OJI T_, pm njeciU u
auliert ... cirdt4.
5 10 15 25
Original Resull. hi gmfl'
.DATA -x:::.y linear regressions
Fig. 1. Example of a scatter (xy) plot with a linear fit. This exam-
ple shows poor agreement between the check assays and the origi-
nal assays. Poor correlations lead to very different linear regression
fits, depending upon which variable is defined as the independent
variable.
surement errors than positive ones, one can obtain a higher
average result from selectively re-assaying samples
below the median grade. The amount of "improvement"
will be a function of the precision. Quite outstanding
"improvements" can be obtained when the precision is poor.
Variants of this fallacy include assaying slag from fire assay,
at gold levels where precision is very poor, to account for
gold "losses" from the sample. Since negative grades cannot
occur, an accumulation of positive errors takes place with
these rounds of re-assaying.
Graphing Duplicate Sample Results
The most common treatment of duplicate data is to
make a scatter plot of the data. This is a good first step. Such
plots have tremendous shock value when the distribution
looks like a shotgun blast. Scatter plots serve the widest
readership of the feasibility document, because everyone
who reads them will understand them. The same is true of
histograms. Other plots can be used, but they are often most
effective if the subject is first introduced in terms of his-
tograms and scatter plots.
The next refinement usually done is to calculate a clas-
sical least-squares regression fit of one result to the other
and to calculate the correlation coefficient Different equa-
tions are obtained depending on which variable is taken as
the dependent variable. These two equations can be very
similar if the prufed .d ata plot closely about a line, but where
data are widely scattered, the two equations can be very dif-
ferent A linear fit between the two extremes is preferred and
one recommended procedure is a reduced major axis fit
which estimates the true functional relationship between the
two sets forming the paired data. Regression fits are not
acceptable unless data pairs with large Type I errors (such as
sample swaps, decimal point misplacements) are first
removed. The identification of such mao-made outliers is
 .,

Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation • S.D. LoNo 123

. 200%
' U%

i'
''' .
. -............. -... -............ ---.- .. ----- ...... -..... -.................... -- .... --.... -
t
'
I t I
12%
.
········r········T·········;········· ' . ········· ·········
i 150%
... .: .: ..
f I t

--------- ---------
t

: : ....f.~ .:
................................................................................
i .. .. '
.................................................................................................... .. .. ..
<:
1CI% '
:
.
-- .. -- .. -............... ................... . -............... .. .. -.... -...... .. ........ -- .. -
'

l
100% • t

'
' .
'
' .
..
•
.
''
"'
"
·~
E
8% ... ~

.:
~-

:
'
-----1· --- - ---·1··--···-·-~---··-··-
-~

.: .............................. . . . . .
~
6%
'
~ ----------~---·-------t·---·-· ---
. . .!----·-
Sl% 0
. "'
«

i~~~~·~~~·~~~~~~:r~~_J
OTt : 2%
0%
-All -t- Weight> 2.5 kg
Fig. 2. Example of a cumulative frequency of precision plot For this
plot, the estimate of precision is taken as the pair difference divided
by the pair mean. For each line on the graph, the precision estimates
are sorted, and a cumulative percent for that line calculated.
often done visually. If outliers have been excluded when
performing the linear fit, they should be identified on the
scatter plot for ease of general evaluation and audit (Fig. 1).
Scatter plots of duplicate data give a good picture of all
the data, but they are difficult to compare. To obtain direct
comparisons between two scatter plots, one needs a plot that
compares distributions of differences, rather than the data
themselves. This can be achieved by plotting the cumulative
frequency of some measure of precision. A useful measure
of precision is the pair difference divided by the pair mean,
the measure utilized by state geological laboratories of the
former U.S.S.R. Several such lines can then be plotted on
the same graph without clutter. This approach can be applied
to many comparisons because it assumes nothing about the
distribution it is representing, excepting that the groups
compared are representative of the s~e population (Fig. 2).
Summary statistics·, such· as correlation coefficients, often
have an underlying assumption that the distribution of errors
is bell-shaped. Because a duplicate population will contain
gross 1YJ)e I errors unrelated to measurement errors, the dis-
tribution is usually far from bell-shaped, even for popula-
tions where no value is below the ·analytical detection limit,
and no nugget effect is present.
Relative Precision/Detection limit/Ore Cutoff
Relative precision worsens as the concentration of the
element being assayed decreases toward the analytical
detection limit. Thompson and Howarth (1978) define a
"practical detection limit" as the concentration at which the
"precision" measured by duplicate samples is equal to 100%
of the concentration. If one uses this nomenclature, be sure
to keep that "practical" word because this "practical detec-
tion limit" can be very different from the analytical detec-
tion limit, which is performed on laboratory calibration stan-
dards lacking the sub-sampling variance of different
aliquots from the same pulp. It is important to know how the
· relative precision changes with respect to grade; estimates
of this can be obtained from the duplicate results.
········i·....····+·········L........L......
' '
0%+-~--;-~--+--+--+--+--~-+--~~~
0 10 50 60
...,_Weight> 3.5 kg
Fig. 3. Relative standard deviation versus grade. Graph is made
by sorting the duplicate pair data by pair means, calculating the
pair difference for each pair, then calculating a moving window
(30 pairs were selected in this case) of standard deviations of
those differences, divided by the mean of the same 30 pairs.
The result is plotted against the mean value of the same 30
pairs, to create a curve of the form y 1/x. In this example, =
precision begins to worsen when grade falls below about 4
oz(f Ag.
It is important to demonstrate that the sampling and
analytical protocols are ·appropriate for the anticipated
ore/waste cutoffs; the range of probable ore-waste cutoffs
should occur in the fiat (sub-horizontal) region of a preci-
sion versus grade curve (Fig. 3). Some low-grade gold pro-
jects; particularly those with a substantial nugget effect,
push the ore/waste cutoff boundary down to where the pre-
cision of the assays cannot provide a good estimate of the
gold present, even when ~suits are composited.
Use ofStandardReference Materials (SRMs)
A good standard reference material includes the follow-
ing characteristics: low variability in assay results under
optimized conditions, grade near important boundaries,
matrix (ore and gangue minerals) similar to the project
material. Low variability in assay res.ults is a function of
sample uniformity and assay method
When an appropriate assay method is optimized, most
of the variability should be a consequence of the distribution
of particle sizes of the minerals containing the element of
interest, the unifofmity of the distribution of those particles
between different sub-samples used for the analytical deter-
mination, and the amount of material used in the determina-
tion. Just because a deposit has high variability (such as, in
many deposits, with visible gold) does not mean that the
standard reference materials ·; used to monitor the Iabora-
tory's analytical performance shou\d also be highly variable.
On the contrary, one of the pUrpoSes of the standard is to
demonstrate that the variability present is not a conse-
quence of poor assaying practices, but is inherent in the
samples being analyzed. This means that materials col-
lected from a project may not always make good standards,
or may require special treatment in order to become ade-
quate standards.

:.~
'I
124 Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2, 1998
Misinterpretations of the results of inserted standard
reference materials can be avoided if the material is care-
fully split up into portjons for submission at the outSet of the
project, rather than the all too common, happy-go-lucky,
'scoop as you go' practice. Those last scoops can be very
different from the first It is also important to place the pack-
ets containing standard refere~ce materials in random order.
Then one will not confront subtle mysterious shifts in the
baseline value of an inserted standard that turn out, after
some hair-pulling, to be the consequence of opening a new
jar of supposedly homogenous material.
SRMs that have grades near important grade "bound-
aries" have additional benefits because they provide a
method of measuring the precision of the assay technique at
that level. The most important of these boundaries is the ore-
waste cutoff. While one cannot know the precise cutoff that
may be selected near the completion of a feasibility study, a
competent geologist will know the probable range in which
this cutoff will occur. For especially thorough evaluation,
two standards, one at the bottom and one at the top of this
"cutoff range," can be used. In the author's experience, this
often becomes an important issue in deposits where the
range of probable ore-waste cutoff values drops below about
fifty times the analytical detection limit. With well-prepared
standards in this grade range, one may determine early in a
project's life whether the analytical method is adequate for
the contemplated cutoffs. Another important "boundary" is
any .grade level which encompasses more thari a few percent
of the "above-cutoff' sample population and also prompts a
change in the analytical protocol. Typical changes in proto-
col for such "high" samples are a dilution, or a new diges-
tion using a lower sample weight. .for gold, there may be a
repeat assay with a gravimetric finish, whereas the typical
sample might be done with an atomic absorption finish. ·
The matrix of a sample can impact the precision and, in
rare cases, the accuracy of determinations. A typical example
is whether a sample submitted for fire assay is "oxide" or
"sulfide." The analytical laboratory will "adjust the flux"
used to smelt the sample in the fire assay pro<:ess, depending
upon its assessment There are other possible adjustments for
high clay, high carbonate, etc. One sometimes obtains a false
sense of security from SRM results where the SRMs used
have none of the problems present in the samples. This is
another reason why check assays should be performed at
other laboratories in order to verify assay accuracy.
Use of Blanks
Blanks are most effective when used to check for cont-
amination during sample preparation. This requires use of a
bulk sample, which is submitted and processed like a drill
chip sample. Geologists usually take little care to insure that
a
such bulk blanks are free of gold or gold nugget effect.
Sometimes river gravels are submitted, which can show a
substantial nugget effect A more reliable blank material is
barren unaltered volcanic r~k. which is usually much more
consistent in composition. s ·uitable pre-crushed material can
be obtained from quarries or distributors of landscape sup-
plies. These should be tested before purchase in quantity, by
obtaining small samples. Some effort should be made to
approximate the matrix of the project's samples, although
this is somewhat less critical than for Standard Reference
Materials, since the primary purpose of blanks is to detect
contamination, rather than check assay methodology.
Blanks are sometimes used as a check to see if samples
have been kept in order. They are not particularly effective
at this with low-grade samples because often the most prob-
able result is near the detection limit; thus the blank is often
like a zebra hiding in a herd of zebras. Good-quality stan-
dard reference materials are more effective at detecting
sample mis-orderings.
Maintaining the Anonymity of Quality Control Materials
To the extent possible, it is preferable to keep the iden-
tity of inserted standard reference materials, blanks, and
duplicates anonymous. This insures that these materials are
treated in a fashion identical to that of the samples they are
assessing. Reputable ·laboratories have their own internal
quality controls. While the control exercised from outside the
laboratory can never be as thorough as that exercised by a
well-operated laboratory over its own control samples, exter-
nal control provides the advantages of being tailored to the
needs of your project, and serving as an independent check
and method of controlling the quality of your samples.
When a laboratory is aware of the identity of control
samples, there can be a tendency to take their preSence into
aceount when deciding whether to pass or fail a batch of
samples. These decisions can be very subtle, such as taking
an additional instrument reading on the inserted standard
and averaging the results (something that only takes a cou-
ple seconds to do), or applying very slightly more stringent
requirements on the laboratory's own internal standards on
those batches of samples which are known to contain the
client's standards. At the other.extreme, complete falsifica-
tion of SRM results may take place. Most reputable labora-
tories, which are those that perform the majority of analyti-
cal work for the mining industry, make no distinction
between a client's inserted controls and a client's samples,
except for such obvious distinctions as noting that a sample
is submitted as a pulp and not as drill cuttings, which is nec-
essary for invoicing. · ·
Often the same commercial laboratory is in charge of
both the sample preparation and analysis of samples. Com-
mercial laboratories generally discount the cost of preparing
samples in order to obtain sufficient work for their analyti-
cal laboratories. This approach also allows a reputable labo-
ratory to maintain good quality control on the sample prepa-
ration. When the task ' is split between two different
laboratories, a laboratory's price list for preparation typi-
cally increases. Surcharges of 100% are not unusual. This
can be an expensive way to maintain the anonymity of
inserted standard reference materials!
In such cases, a reasonable compromise · may be to
provide pulps of quality control materials with anony-
mous, unique numbers where one type is indistinguishable
 Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation • S.D. LoNo
from another, with groups containing varying numbers of
different types, including duplicate pulps, pulps prepared
from coarse reject duplicates, and standard reference mate-
rials. The duplicates are selected from returned pulps (if
pulps are not returned but are instead stored, an agent inde-
pendent of the laboratory may be necessary to select these
from the laboratory's pulp storage) or duplicates can be
made at the time the original pulp is made, assigned a new
number by an outside agent, and submitted in a subsequent
batch of samples. Considerable care must be taken in cre-
ating an error-free list (a key), and making multiple back-
ups of that key.
One can also make up pairs of standard reference
materials with values close enough to each other that it
would be difficult for the laboratory to tell them apart
based on a single assay result, but different enough that
over the course of time they have different distributions.
When the laboratory is unaware that you have done this, it
can be an effective method of testing the laboratory's
integrity. . be done. This can be a problem when some matenals
Pulps of coarse reject duplicates are also mcluded
within the group of inserted control samples. Because the
identity of the duplicates is unknown and duplicate pulps
are indistinguishable from inserted standard reference
materials, the expected value of any particular control
material tends to remain unknown to the laboratory for an
extended period of time. It should be realized that this is a
compromise; the laboratory could treat these controls more
carefully than other samples. Also, because the ordering of
the controls should be at least somewhat random, some sub-
missions may have· only inserted duplicates for controls,
and no standards.
Special care must be taken with the custody.of SRMs.
Higher grade, in-house SRMs are the perfect salting mater-
ial because their matrix match makeli.~em indistinguishable
from other samples.
Table 1. Overview of quality control protc;x:ols
Quality control first aims at problem prevention and th~ at probl~
detection: it is an essential part of the process of generallllg data. Like
safety, quality mostly caooot be tacked on latec when needed.
Persormel .
Should be adequately qualified, reputable, responsible, honest, trallled and
supefflsed
Procedures
Should be documented in writing from "day one," and co~unic~t~ to
all c:oooemed, including updates and changes, in order to aSSlst wuh mter-
nal and exlemal audits
Sampling protocols should cover all aspects of procedures, quality control
methods, use of checks, duplicates, standards, blanks, elc.
Successive protocols should be recorded and available for appraisal of
earlier data
Reference material should be available to ensure consistency: rock types,
sample materials for correlations, previous standards, etc.
TraceabWty (Identification of Who does What, Why, Where, When
and How)
Applies on most levels:
• who maps, logs drill core or chips, who handles the samples;
• to ensure consistent quality of geological work; . Document carefully the method(s) used to:
• to ensure correlation between successive campaigns, between successive
owners, contractors: and
• to facilitate internal and external audits.
125
Batch Coverage
Exercising batch control, that is, rejecting or accept-
ing sets of samples grouped by how they are process~ in
the laboratory, is a task that can only be done effectively
by the laboratory. From the client's perspective, some
kind of quality control material is required in nearly' every
batch. This can be done by spacing control materials
rather evenly in a submission of materials to the labora-
tory. Many commercial laboratories assign a unique labo-
ratory number to each sample pulp; this is certainly true
for -computerized Laboratory Information Systems
(LIMS). To keep control insertions well-spaced, the pro-
ject's numbering system for control materials can be us~d
to fix spacing of the quality control materials, or a spec.tal
instruction can be provided to the laboratory. Laboratones
are usually, but not always, diligent about following spe-
cial instructions. Occasionally, someone in the labora-
tory's organization believes they know best what sho_uld
arrive at the laboratory as pulps, whereas others require
sample preparation. In one case, the author discovered
after some months had gone by, that all the pulps (the
quality control samples) were run immediately on receipt
because they were 'ready to go.' Why create an unneces-
sary backlog? The regular samples were run later, and the
results placed in proper order (as per the special instruc-
Table 2. Quality control of databases
Database Entry
Whatever the entry mode, ensure thorough testing of data entry (re-entry,
cheek sums, rank order cheek sums, etc.)
Database Contents
Should contain all information needed to easily evaluate the quality of
data, manage that data, and allow easy reference to hard copy: sample
batch, assay certificate, date, sub-sample ~~on ~od, ass~y ·
method, detection limit, etc. -some of this infonnatton may be m a sep-
arate relational database.
Handling Special Values/Special Information • .
Replace symbols like'">,""<:' which have no mathematical value m a
database or spreadsheet. •
Use unambiguous ad boc codes to express r;peciaJ situations or values
such as ·999xxx, insufficient sample, sample lost, not analyzed. etc.
For values below detection limit: use minus sign (-) ralber than (<), recoro
detection limit of sample bateh or campaign. avoid the use of zeros.
For values exceeding upper detection limit or analysis: rep~">," gel
new assay by appropriate method; use ad boc code for reconling.
Use of zero values:
• beware of software which add zeros automatically in empty fields; tum
out this feature;
• never use zeros aUUlmalically for values below detection limit a zero
value is pessimistic for a valued component, but optimistic for a contami-
nant; and
• a zero value should be attributed only to geological material known to
be sterile (in the "to use" or "preferreld" column).
Database Editing ·- _
Do not change any recorded data, unless erroneous, record all check
assays. .
Establish new field for "to use" or "preferred" values.
• select the preferred values, and .
• attribute values to below detection limit results to replace the "-detection
limit'" values.
 126 Explor. Mining Geol., Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2, 1998

tion, "run in order listed") in the final assay certificate.
This is not an optimum approach for monitoring labora-
li tory performance! ,....
lj
Guidelines on Assay Quality Control
A reputable laboratory will have its own quality assur-
ance program. Results of their standards and duplicates can
often be obtained from them upon request In fact, some lab-
oratories have reported that this information has been
rejected by some clients when offered. These results typi-
Table 3. Optimizing drill Sampling requirements
Diamond Drill Hole Monitoring
Core recovery, drill advance and penetration rate.
Core quality: "washboard surfaces," lost intervals, etc.
Monitoring of Reverse Circulation, Rotary, etc., Drilling
Hole diameter, sample split (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.), wet and dry weight, rock
density.
Recovery (should be lower than 100%).
·Check for assay changes associated with drill string additions (drill hole
caving).·
Bulk Specific Gravity (Density)
Measurements of each lithological/alteration/mineralogical mineralized
category, to allow reliable estimate of error of the mean.
Analyze the distribution of measurements: skewed or bimodal distribu-
tions may indicate the presence of domains and the ·need to review geo-
t I logical categories or procedural problems.
cally show a better level of precision and accuracy than con-
trols inserted by the client because the laboratory's reports
do not include performance on failed batches, because these
are re-run.
There are no strict guidelines for how much should be
spent on quality control and quality assurance. One fairly
widespread recommendation is that not more than 10% of
Table 4. Optimizing crushing and grinding requirements
Required Specifications for Crushing and Grinding
Particle size evaluation for crushing and grinding should be based on 95%
passing the sieve size used (P 95), as required by Gy's sampling formula.
Other sieve tests should be redone to P 95.
Evaluate a protocol by using duplieate samples at various stages.
Determine the step contributing the greatest variance and give priority to
reducing this imprecision.
Review other steps if contributing significant variance.
Steps to Minimize the Nugget Effect .
Grind larger sample masses to smaller sizes prior to sub-sampling.
Screen gold particles for fire assay out of larger pulps portions.
Use larger sample quantities than 30 g for fire assay.
Duplicate Sample Checks for Independent Appraisal of Adequacy of
Sample Preparation
Assay and grinding checks of coarse rejects and pulps at separate labora-
tory, using identical analytical method (when the nugget effect is not sig-
nificant):
• for 5% of pulps: agreement of+/- 10% on 90% of pairs;
• for S% of coarse rejects: agreement of+/- 20% on 90% of pairs; and ·
• for rig duplicates: agreement of+/- 30% on 90% of pairs.
Use similar assay methods to avoid variations from this cause.

Table 5. Basic rules for assay quality control

1. Select samples for re-assay, and use blanks and SRMs over the whole range of assay value distribution, avoiding selection bias suCh as checks of
only low and high values.and targeting between 5% and 10% of the total assays. Warning: for exploration work pay panicular aJtenticnfor limit of
detection and check variability at low values.
2. Graph duplicate sample results on scatter plots (.try):
• find and remove data pairs with large accidental (Type 1) errors (also identify them on the graph);
• calculate least squares regression of one result over the other both ways. then graph, or use reduced major axis fit method.
3. For comparison of different scatter plots, use melhod(s) that assumes nothing about the distribution(s) represented by the samples that just represent
groups of samples, e.g., plot the pair of differences divided by the mean (used widely in former U.S.S.R.).
4. Establish the "practical detection limit" to define precision in that range:
• relative precision worsens near the analytical detection limit;
• the range of anticipated oce/Waste cutoffs should occur no lower than the flat (sub-horizontal zone) before precision worsens (Fig. 3).
5. Standard Reference Materials (SRM) preparation and handling should ensure low variability in assay results, in order to detemtine if observed vari-
ability in assays of project material is related to particle size distribution and/or to assaying problems. This requires:
• using project material only if found suitable to objectives;
• providing uniformity by careful planning to eliminate "scoop as you go," and by arranging SRM samples in random order (regarding grade);
• selecting SRMs that will "bracket" both the probable range of cutoff values and also the practical detection limit. to measure the variability of the
assay·method in these ranges;
• ensuring that the matrix of SRMs is similar to that of the project (several types may be required); and
• supervising the use of SRMs: high-grade SRM materials are ideal salting material.
6. Blanks are most effective to check Cor contamination between samples, but often useless to try and detect sample misplacement Blanks should be
drawn from a large sample which is uniform, resembles the deposit matrix, is not likely to contain possible "contaminants" (do not use gravels) and
bas been adequately checked for the absence of the substances sought. · .
7. Anonymity of control samples is important to ensure they are treated like any other samples beingiassessed. They are independent checks, tailored to
the needs of the project. Handling of control samples by laboratories may vary depending on circums~:
If the laboratory is aware of their identity among the regular samples, their handling may or may not be subtly influenced:
• more stringent procedures may be taken on a batch known to contain identified controls; ·
• no particular care may be taken, except for invoicing, when they have been submitted as pulps among coarse samples; and
• some laboratories may process pulverized samples immediately, separating them from the crushed samples to be pulverized, and regrouping the
results on the assay certificate.
When control materials are obvious because they are pulps and other samples are not, submit a mix of control types (SRMs, blanks, duplicate pulps,
pulps from duplicate samples, etc.) so that no particular result will come to be expected. ·
8. As a check of laboratory integrity, it is recommended to introduce a few pairs of SRMs close in value, but different enough that only multiple assays
will show different distributions.
l
I
I
j
 Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory Estimation • S.D. LoNG
ut operation's expenditures, including drilling, should be
if for this purpose. Most projects spend far less than this
tlb.-.~ugh it rather depends upon what costs are counted in
he total. The author ,makes the following general quality
:ootrol recommendations for a drilling project (see also
\non., 1996):
1. Five percent of pulps should be checked by an inde-
~ndent laboratory. These need not include sub-popula-
tons from well-defined zones or rock types which are con-
istently waste rock, as based on geological observation.
iubmissions to the checking laboratory should also
nclude blind commercial and in-house (if used) SRMs,
nd blanks. Five to ten percent of the pulps sent to the
hec~ laboratory should be subjected to a sieve test, to
nomtor the adequacy of the grind quality of the primary
a.boratory.
2. Five percent of field and/or coarse rejects should
.ave a second pulp prepared and analyzed by the primary
1boratory. These also could include some cursory sampling
ub-populations from well-defined zones or rock types
rhlcb are consistently waste rock, as defined by geological
bservation.
3. Standard reference materials should be inserted into
very submission of samples shipped to the primary labora-
)ry. How many are inserted should be based upon the size
f the submission, the laboratory's daily production, and the
umber of different types of (probable) ore-grade intervals
ncountered in the samples shipped. Generally, the percent-
g SRM inserted should be between 1% and 5% of the
opulation, with higher percentages used where there are
tany ore types either known to be subjected to different
nalytical protocols, or believed to have different levels of
nalytical difficulty (for example, high copper in materials
lbmitted for gold assaying). At least every day's work at
te assay laboratory should include a staQdard reference
tmple and a blank. · THOMPSON,_M. ~d HOWARTH, RJ., 1978.Anew !).pproach
127
Conclusions
Quality assurance-quality control in obtaining samples
and assay information by which to value a mineral deposit
is an exacting business involving close attention to detail at
all stages of the evaluation process. Table 1 represents a
checklist of the topics discussed here and provides an initial
structure from which a deposit-specific quality assurance-
quality control program can evolve.
Tables 2 through 4 list reporting, sampling, and prepa-
ration quality issues respectively. A list of common quality
control issues is shown in Table 5.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank A.J. Sinclair and M. Vallee
for their encourgement and review of this paper.
References
ANONYMOUS, 1996. Assay quality assurance-quality control
program for drilling projects at the pre-feasibility to feasi-
bility report level. Mineral Resources Development Inc.,
San Mateo, California, 35 p.
GY, P.• 1979. Sampling of particulate materials, theory and
practice. Developments in Geomathematics 4 Elsevier
Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 43t p.
POSTOLSKI. T.A. and SINCLAIR, AJ., 1998. Geology as a ··.!
basis for refining semi-variogram models for porphyry-
type deposits. Exploration and Mining Geology, this vol-
ume, p. 45-50. .
SINCLAIR, A.J., and POSTOLSKI, T.A., 1999. Geology- A
basis for quality contol in resource/reserve estimation of
porphyry-type deposits. CIM Bulletin, 1027, p. 37-44.
to the estimation of analytical precision. Journal of .Geo-
chemical Exploration, 9, p. 23-30.