Mining Technology

Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A

ISSN: 1474-9009 (Print) 1743-2863 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt20

Importance of good sampling practice throughout

the gold mine value chain

S. C. Dominy

To cite this article: S. C. Dominy (2016): Importance of good sampling practice throughout the
gold mine value chain, Mining Technology, DOI: 10.1179/1743286315Y.0000000028

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743286315Y.0000000028

Published online: 11 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymnt20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 14 June 2016, At: 07:07
 TECHNICAL PAPER
Importance of good sampling practice
throughout the gold mine value chain
S. C. Dominy1,2
The mining industry routinely collects samples to assist with decision making, whether for exploration,
resource estimation, grade control, or plant design and balances. Poorly designed sampling protocols
can result in elevated project risk by increasing variability. Critically, such variability produces both
financial and intangible losses. Sample collection, preparation and assay or test work protocols that are
optimised to suit the ore type, together with QAQC systems will reduce variability. Many gold deposits
display a high natural variability, where the in situ variability can be enhanced by poor sampling practice
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016

to yield a high-nugget effect. In this case, specialised protocols are often required. Reporting codes
require the Competent Person to consider the quality and implication of sampling programmes. Despite
its importance, sampling often does not receive the attention it deserves. In this paper, the importance of
good sampling practice is exemplified through a series of case studies, which show the many sampling
issues that frequently go unrecognised or unaddressed, resulting in poor decisions and financial loss.
Keywords:  Theory of sampling, Sampling errors, Gold sampling, Protocol optimisation, Financial losses

Abbreviations
AAS atomic absorption spectroscopy; HARD half absolute relative difference;
ACE accelerated cyanide extraction; HT heterogeneity test;
AE analytical error; HQ diamond drill core (diameter of 63.5mm);
BH blast hole drilling; ISE incorrect sampling error;
CH constitution heterogeneity; K sampling constant;
CRM Certified reference material; NQ diamond drill core (diameter of 48mm);
CSE correct sampling errors; PAL pulverise and leach;
DH distribution heterogeneity; PE preparation error;
DE delimitation error; QA/QC quality assurance/quality control;
dλ gold liberation diameter; RC reverse circulation drilling;
EE extraction error; ROM run of mine;
FA fire assay;
SFA screen fire assay;
FSE sampling error;
SNE sampling nugget effect;
GNE geological nugget effect;
TOS theory of Sampling
GRG gravity recoverable gold;
GSE grouping and segregation error;
Introduction
The importance of high-quality sampling throughout the gold
1
Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, mine value chain, from exploration, through evaluation and
TR10 9FE, UK exploitation, has been stressed by many authors (Carrasco,
2
Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, Bentley, WA,
6102, Australia Carrasco and Jara 2004; Dominy, Noppé and Annels 2004;
Gy 1982, 2004; Holmes 2004, 2015; Minnitt 2007, 2013;
Email s.dominy@e3geomet.com Morrison and Powell 2006; Pitard 1993, 2009; Sketchley

© 2016 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and The AusIMM

Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
Received 14 June 2015; accepted 4 August 2015
DOI: 10.1179/1743286315Y.0000000028 Mining Technology    2016   1
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
1998; Spangenberg 2011). The sampling process, inclusive
of sample collection, preparation and assaying or testing, is
a critical component to all stages of a mining project as it
forms the basis for Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve esti-
mates (JORC 2012). Sampling includes in situ material and
broken (or crushed) rock for both geological and metallurgical
purposes. The focus is often on grade sampling (e.g. resource
definition and grade control), though metallurgical sampling
for plant design, control and metal balances (Giblett, Dunne
and McCaffery 2012; Guresin et al. 2012; Holmes 2004) must
not be ignored.
In all cases, the aim is to gain a representative sample to
accurately describe the material in question. Field sample
collection is followed by sample reduction in both mass and
fragment size to provide an assay charge or test sample. This
process is challenging in the gold environment and particu-
larly when a high-nugget effect and/or coarse gold is present
(Dominy 2014a; Dominy, Johansen, Annels and Cuffley 2000;
Dominy and Petersen 2005; Pitard 2007; Royle 1989).
This contribution presents case studies that exemplify
some of the sampling issues that can be typically identified
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
across the gold mine value chain. The effects of poor prac-
tice are presented and solutions given. An attempt is made
to provide a financial and intangible loss estimate for each
case study.
Theory of sampling
Theory of sampling overview
Samples should be collected and prepared within the frame-
work of the Theory of Sampling (TOS) (Gy 1982; Pitard
1993), along with an appropriate QAQC system (Sketchley
1998; Simon and Gosson 2010; Vallée 1998). Sampling errors
are defined in TOS; the key errors are defined in Table 1 (Gy
1982; Pitard 1993). Uncontrolled errors lead to an elevated
nugget effect (Carrasco 2009; Dominy 2014a; Pitard 2007).
Theory of sampling was developed in the 1950s by Dr
Pierre Gy at the time to deal with sampling challenges in
the mining industry (François-Bongarçon 2008; Gy 1982).
Its usage subsequently spread to other sampling applications
across the food, pharmaceuticals, environmental and waste
management sectors to name a few. Across the mining indus-
try, its application has been highly variable though on the
increase since the late 1980s, but to date not routinely applied.
Over the last 15years, the author has had involvement with
around 120 gold projects globally, for which only around 20
could be said to be fully compliant with TOS.
Some authors have questioned the applicability of TOS
and in particular the so-called FSE equation applied to
gold (Geelhoed 2011). François-Bongarçon (1998) and
François-Bongarçon and Gy (2002) addressed key issues
and proposed a modified FSE equation. The modified
equation has been applied successfully by practitioners
to optimise sampling campaigns (Afewu and Lewis 1998;
Cintra et al. 2007; Cossio, Noyola, Gonzalez and Espinosa
2004; Dominy and Petersen 2005; Dominy, Platten, Xie and
Minnitt 2011; Fallon et al. 2012; Pitard 2009). The use of
the equation represents a modelled expectation that may or
may not be attained in practice, but provides a starting point
for optimisation.
Beyond the FSE equation, TOS provides important guide-
lines for reducing the sampling errors (Table 1). It is here to
stay, though there is still much to do in context of research,
communication and education (François-Bongarçon 2008,
2015; Pitard, Esbensen and Paoletti 2015).
2  Mining Technology   2016  
Nugget effect and TOS
The nugget effect is the random component of variability
that is superimposed on the regionalised variable, and is
defined in a variogram as the percentage ratio of nugget
variance to total variance. The magnitude of the nugget
effect relates to: in situ heterogeneity of the mineralisation;
sample support; sample density; and sample and assay pro-
cedures (Carrasco 2009; François-Bongarçon 2004; Pitard
2007).
The nugget effect has two principal components (Carrasco
2009; Dominy 2014a; François-Bongarçon 2004; Pitard 2007;
Platten and Dominy 2003): the geological nugget effect
(GNE) and the sampling nugget effect (SNE). Some deposits
naturally have an inherently high GNE, which can be inflated
through poor quality sampling.
A major cause of SNE is the heterogeneity of broken rock
(e.g. a rock pile, crushed rock or pulp), which to some extent
reflects the primary in situ heterogeneity. In this context, het-
erogeneity is defined as the nature of the lot, in which all the
contained fragments are non-identical. In this case, two types
of heterogeneity are defined: the constitution heterogeneity
(CH), and the distribution heterogeneity (DH). Constitution
heterogeneity and DH contribute to the SNE, through the FSE
and grouping and segregation (GSE) errors.
Throughout the mine value chain, optimised sampling
protocols aim to reduce the total sampling variance thereby
also reducing the total nugget variance; skewness of the data
distribution; and number of extreme data values.
Correct sampling errors
Correct sampling errors are considered ‘correct’ because
they cannot be removed by correct sampling (Table 1; FSE
and GSE). They relate to the inherent heterogeneity of the
material being sampled and control sample precision (Pitard
1993).
Precision specifically relates to the CH of the material
in question and leads to the FSE. Poor precision in samples
generates ore/waste misclassification. The FSE can be esti-
mated via the FSE equation (François-Bongarçon and Gy
2002; Gy 1982). Out of all sampling errors, the FSE does
not cancel out and remains even after a sampling operation is
perfect. It is controlled via the optimisation of sample mass
and size reduction process (Petersen, Dahl and Esbensen
2004).
The DH and related GSE also contribute to sample pre-
cision. Distribution heterogeneity represents the difference
in average composition of the lot from one place to the next
in the lot; it is responsible for the irregular distribution of
grade and values in groups of fragments of broken ore.
The DH can be influenced by large differences in density
and fragment composition. Distribution heterogeneity of
a given lot is governed by CH, the spatial distribution of
fragments and the lot shape, thus leads to GSE. From a
practical perspective, GSE cannot be measured, but may
have a material effect on the total sample error (François-
Bongarçon 2014; Pitard and François-Bongarçon 2011). It
is controlled by accumulating many small increments to
form a composite sample. Segregation can theoretically be
reduced by homogenisation, though in the presence of liber-
ated gold particles is a futile exercise that promotes further
segregation. The treatment of coarse-gold-bearing samples
is a special case (Dominy 2014a; Dominy and Petersen
2005; Royle 1989).
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice

Table 1 Definition of sampling errors as defined in TOS (Gy 1982; Pitard 1993)

Sampling error Acronym Error type Effect on sampling Source of error Error definition
Fundamental FSE Correct sampling Random errors – Characteristics of Results from grade heterogeneity
error (CSE) precision generator the ore type. relates of the broken lot. Of all sampling
to constitution and errors, the FSE does not cancel
distribution hetero- out and remains even after a sam-
geneity pling operation is perfect. Experi-
ence shows that the nugget effect
can be artificially high because
sample weights are not optimal
Grouping and GSE Relates to the error due to the
segregation combination of grouping and
segregation of rock fragments in
the lot. Once rock is broken, there
will be segregation of particles at
any scale (e.g. surface stockpile
or laboratory pulp)
Delimitation DE Incorrect sampling Systematic errors – Sampling equip- Results from an incorrect shape
error (ISE) bias generator ment and materials of the volume delimiting a sample
handling
Extraction EE Results from the incorrect extrac-
tion of a sample. Extraction is only
correct when all fragments within
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016

the delimited volume are taken

into the sample
Weighting WE Relates to collecting samples
that are of a comparable support.
Samples should represent a
consistent mass per unit
Preparation PE Refers to issues during sample
transport and storage (e.g. mix-
up, damage, loss and alteration),
preparation (contamination and/or
losses), and intentional (sabotage
and salting) and unintentional
(careless actions and non-adher-
ence of protocols) human error
Analytical AE – Analytical process Relates to all errors during the
assay and analytical process,
including issues related to rock
matrix effects, human error, and
analytical machine maintenance
and calibration

Incorrect sampling errors
The incorrect sampling errors (ISE) (Table 1; DE to PE)
arise as a consequence of the physical interaction between
the material being sampled and the technology employed to
extract the sample. They result in bias, which can be reduced
by the correct application of sampling methods, equipment
and procedures (Esbensen and Paasch-Mortensen 2010; Gy
1982; Holmes 2015; Petersen et al. 2004; Pitard 1993, 2009).
The AE is generally not considered as an ISE, though
remains a potential bias generator. It can be minimised
through proper QAQC in the laboratory across staff activity,
and analytical equipment maintenance and calibration. It may
also be affected by rock matrix effects.
Defining a representative sample
A sample can be described as being representative when it
results in acceptable levels of bias and precision. The total
variance for resource and grade control sampling should not
be more than ± 32%, with the total FSE component not more
than ± 16% (Pitard 2013). The FSE is reported at a given
confidence limit, usually 68% or one standard deviation. All
sampling variances are cumulative and contribute to the total,
which in turn contributes to the SNE. In reality, FSE and GSE
are likely to contribute up to 90%, with DE, extraction error
(EE) and AE up to 25% of the total (Pitard 1993).
FSE equation and application to gold ores
The FSE can be theoretically estimated before material is
sampled, provided characteristics (e.g. sampling constant –
K) embedded in the FSE equation are determined (Gy 1982;
Pitard 1993). The equation addresses key questions of sam-
pling broken rock:
• what weight of sample should be taken from a larger
mass, so that the FSE will not exceed a specified
variance;
• what is the possible FSE when a sample of a given
weight is obtained from a larger lot; and
• before a sample of given weight is drawn from a larger
lot, what is the degree of crushing or grinding required
to lower error to a specified FSE. A technical issue with
the use of the FSE equation is the numerical value of
the power in the so-called liberation factor (François-
Bongarçon 1998; Gy 2004). The problem was addressed
by François-Bongarçon (1998), who suggested a mod-
ified FSE equation that includes the parameters α and
liberation diameter (dλ) (François-Bongarçon 1998;
François-Bongarçon and Gy 2002).

 Mining Technology   2016   3

 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
K can be experimentally determined using a sampling tree-
based method, which also yields a value for α (François-
Bongarçon and Gy 2002; Minnitt and Assibey-Bonsu 2010;
Minnitt, Rice and Spangenbeg 2007). In addition, the heter-
ogeneity test (HT) can also be used to determine K, though
no value of α is defined (François-Bongarçon 1993; Pitard
1993; Magri 2007; Minnitt and Assibey-Bonsu 2010). The HT
possesses representivity challenges when applied to coarse
gold-bearing deposits (Dominy and Xie 2016).
As originally defined, dλ represents the mineral liberation
size below which 95% of the material must be ground in order
to liberate at least 85% of the gold (Gy 1982; Pitard 2004).
For gold mineralisation, dλ can be redefined to dλm, represent-
ing the screen size that retains 5% of gold given a theoreti-
cal lot of liberated gold (Bazin, Hodouin and Blondin 2013;
Dominy 2014a; François-Bongarçon and Gy 2002; Pitard
2015; Royle 1991). If coarse gold is dominant, then dλm can
represent the coarse most influential population (Dominy et
al. 2012; Pitard 2009). If gold particles cluster, then dλm should
be redefined as dλclus (Dominy and Platten 2007; Pitard 2007,
2009). The value of K is dependent on the microscopic prop-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
erties of the minerals, and varies with gold grade and dλm or dλ.
A direct approach to the determination of gold particle
size and dλm is suggested by some practitioners (Dominy et al.
2011; Dominy and Xie 2016; Pitard 2015). This may include a
combination of mineral particle size determination via optical
and/or electron/X-ray microscopy (Dominy et al. 2012; Lyman
and Schouwstra 2011) and/or crush-screen-concentration
(Dominy et al. 2011; Gonzales and Cossio 2007). Research
has indicated that α can generally be taken as 1.5 (François-
Bongarçon 1998; François-Bongarçon and Gy 2002).
Gold mineralisation and sampling
Nature of mineralisation
Gold mineralisation frequently displays evidence of two pop-
ulations, representing fine- and coarse-gold (above 100μm)
particles (Dominy, Xie and Platten 2008; Dominy and Platten
2007; Pitard 2009). These may be a part of separate parage-
netic stages. In general, the fine-gold particles are likely to
be relatively disseminated through the mineralisation and
responsible for a ‘background’ grade of between 0.5 and 5g/t
Au (Dominy et al. 2008); whereas, coarse particles are likely
to be more dispersed and/or locally clustered, being critical
to economic viability in low-grade deposits.
Mineralisation containing substantive quantities of coarse
gold (>15% >100μm) is often typified by a high-nugget effect,
which represents variations in: (1) the in situ size distribution
of gold particles (including effects of gold particle clustering),
and (2) gold particle abundance (Dominy 2014a). Grade is
generally correlated to gold particle size, although the rela-
tionships are complex (Dominy and Platten 2007; Dominy
et al. 2008). Higher grades often relate to abundant coarse-
gold and/or clustered gold particles. The coarse-gold particle
population will generally be challenging to sample compared
to the fine-gold population (Dominy 2014a).
Peculiarities of gold sampling
There are a number of peculiarities of sampling for gold,
which relate to both CSE and ISE. Those that drive FSE
include:
• primary gold particle distribution is often erratic (high
GNE), with localised clustering effects (Dominy and
Platten 2007; Platten and Dominy 2003) and
4  Mining Technology   2016  
• grades are relatively low (gram per tonne Au), thus gold
particles can be relatively rare ‘events’ (e.g. Poisson
distribution) particularly in low-grade ores (Pitard and
Lyman 2013).
The gold content of a sample and the gold content
of the surrounding ore can be very different. Similarly,
there may be large differences between the primary
sample and subsequent sub-samples unless rigorous
optimisation is undertaken.
Those issues that contribute to the GSE and ISE include:
• poor disintegration of gold particles during pulveris-
ing often lead to smearing and/or the coating of sample
preparation or testing equipment leading to PE (Dominy
and Petersen 2005; Pitard 2009)
• high contrast between the densities of gold and gangue
minerals promote segregation once liberated, which
leads to GSE (François-Bongarçon 2015; Pitard 2009)
and
• bias during diamond drilling relates to the plucking of
gold particles from the core surface as a result of the
drilling process (Dominy 2014a; Pitard 2009), which
leads to a negative grade bias (EE). Core sawing can
also lead to gold loss in the cuttings (PE).
These problems can be overcome through the use of
larger sample and assay charges, and careful procedures
to minimise sampling errors.
Case studies
Introduction
The following case studies documented between 2001 and
2007 show sampling issues that can be found in gold projects
globally. Each case study is reported anonymously, and the
sampling errors and relative impact on the project are dis-
cussed. It was concluded that for all presented case studies,
the sampling issues were the most material. For those that
were producing operations, the resource/reserve estimation
process was considered appropriate.
Case study 1: Core quality issues
A shear-zone style deposit located in the Former Soviet Union
was at an advanced stage of evaluation as a joint open pit
and underground operation. A feasibility study had been
completed.
The deposit was characterised by steeply dipping gold-
quartz-sulphide veins up to 0.3m in width, forming a larger
15–30m wide stockwork zone. The global reserve grade was
5.7gt− 1 Au. There was minimal coarse gold present, though
the deposit was nuggety due to the pod-like nature of the
sulphide mineralisation within the veins. The resource had
been diamond drilled on a relatively fine grid and had some
underground development in it. An estimate by the owner
defined Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources
in accordance with the 2004 JORC Code.
During an independent review, it was found that there was
poor documentation with regard to QAQC and that the (total)
core recovery was generally between 44 and 71% with a mean
of 61%. The owner had drilled a number of confirmatory
diamond holes, whose recovery improved, but were still rel-
atively low between 65 and 83%.
The low recoveries indicated that there was a large amount
of core (sample) loss, and that the actual sample collection
process was prone to a high EE. Further investigation showed
that core loss was principally related to the sheared and altered

nature of much of the mineralisation and to some extent drill-
ing quality. The remaining half core was highly fragmented
and friable, testifying to the difficulty in cutting the original
sample. Where such a core problem exists, it is strongly rec-
ommended that after detailed logging and photography, the
entire core composite be crushed and then split for labora-
tory submission (Annels and Dominy 2003). A mineralogical
and assay investigation should be undertaken to ascertain the
impact of the core loss on the mineralisation.
These issues were of obvious concern and as a result,
the Measured blocks were reallocated to the Indicated and
Inferred categories, and Indicated Resources to the Inferred
category. Some previously Inferred blocks became unclassi-
fied. As a result of the resource downgrade, the company was
unable to raise the finance required for project development.
They had to fund additional diamond drilling to confirm their
expectations of the deposit, revise the feasibility study, and
undertake an investor relation programme to avoid loss of
confidence in the project.
Proper consideration of core quality early on would have
saved the operator both money and reputation. The additional
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
drilling used a triple tube core barrel and driller with improved
expertise in poor ground. In zones of poor core recovery, the
entire sample was crushed, split in half and one-half submitted
to the laboratory.
Case study 2: Incorrect compositing
The deposit was located in North America, where a new vein
system had been located between two former underground
operations. A steeply-dipping 3m to 5m wide vein had been
defined using diamond drilling on a 20m by 20m grid. All
drill cores were logged and 1m half-core lengths submitted
for 1-kg SFA. Coarse, often visible gold was known from the
previously mined veins and was confirmed in the new vein
by core logging and SFA.
A resource estimate yielded a global grade of 6.5gt− 1 Au,
which was lower than the expected 10–15gt− 1 Au required
to support a small underground mine. The project was put
on hold.
A later review found that in the drive to collect 1m core
samples, any core samples on the footwall of the vein that
were < 0.5m were bagged and not sent for assay. Geological
studies revealed that the footwall of the structure contained
a discrete high-grade vein bearing visible gold. This entire
mineralisation stage had been virtually excluded from the
estimate with a loss of 50–60% of the gold inventory.
The remaining footwall (half) core was collected, assayed
by SFA and the resource re-estimated. The new global grade
was 12.9gt− 1 Au, much closer to expectation.
This example shows the clear need for proper training
of staff and communication between all parties. The project
geologists were focused with fixed core lengths, with no con-
sideration that a geologically based sample regime was more
appropriate. In essence, this was an EE, where the mineralised
zone was not sampled fully. From a project perspective, this
error led a good project to be put on hold for 9months. The
project subsequently went into production, yielding a ROM
grade of 14gt− 1 Au over 4.5years.
Case study 3: What coarse gold?
A pseudo-coarse gold problem may be present in some gold
deposits, due to the presence of gold particle clusters that
give the effect of individual coarse-gold particles (Dominy
 Mining Technology   2016   5
Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
and Platten 2007). These clusters, which may be distributed
on the centimetre-scale or greater, give rise to high assay
variability in field samples. However, once a sub-sample is
pulverised, the effect of the clusters is removed if the individ-
ual gold particles making up the clusters are liberated. Thus,
any resulting pulp will tend to have lower variability, unless
‘true’ coarse-gold particles exist.
An Australian greenstone-hosted vein deposit was found
to have a coarse-gold problem. The vein had a mean width of
2.5m and a global reserve grade of 11gt− 1 Au. High variability
was found for the first 12months of reconciliation, where the
annual ROM grade was 7.5gt− 1 Au.
Checks of diamond half (NQ) core and laboratory pulp
duplicates indicated a very high variability, where 90% of the
data were ± 60% (half absolute relative difference: HARD) or
worse. The issue had been ignored, as there was apparently
no indication of visible gold within drill core. Assays were
based on a 30-g sub-sample for fire assay (FA) scooped from
the pulveriser bowl.
An initial review of metallurgical data indicated that a
gravity recoverable gold (GRG) yield of 55% was achievable,
suggesting that coarse gold was present. A number of samples
were taken from low- to high-grade intersections, where min-
eralogical studies revealed the presence of gold particles up
to 1mm in size, with many in the 150–500μm range.
A series of 50 half-core samples were taken for whole-sam-
ple SFA and it was found that between 15 and 75% of the gold
in the samples reported to the screen (mean 40%). A compar-
ison was made between the new SFA grades and the original
30g FA, and it was found that the SFA were generally higher
than the original FA by about 20%.
Drill holes were re-logged and it was found that visible
gold was common. In addition, it was found that clusters
of visible gold particles extended over 2cm. This cluster-
ing resulted in increased heterogeneity within both half and
crushed core.
In this case, there was adequate QA, but no QC follow-up
since the pulp duplicate data were ignored. An inappropriate
sampling protocol in a clustered-coarse-gold environment
resulted in a high FSE. Furthermore, the pulps were prone
to a high GSE, as not all the coarse gold was reduced in size
during pulverisation. Scooping from the bowl was in effect
grab sampling with an inherent high DE and EE. Given the
presence of coarse gold, there was also the potential for con-
tamination (PE) and the need for cleaning the pulveriser bowl
with a barren flush between samples.
Timely identification of visible gold in core should have
been achieved and acted upon. The original sample proto-
col was replaced by a half-core LeachWELL and effective
QC follow-up. Reconciliation improved over the following
6months, with grade and tonnes within ± 11% of expectation.
Case study 4: Gold segregation in pulps
An underground vein operation in North America was known
to contain coarse-gold particles up to 1.2mm in size, and
rarely up to 4mm. The plant recovered between 40 and 60%
of gold via a gravity circuit. The vein had an average width
of 2.5m and a global reserve grade of 17.8gt− 1 Au. Monthly
reconciliations were up to ± 50% on grade and up to ± 15%
on tonnes.
From drill core and underground chip samples, a 2-kg sam-
ple was pulverised and a 30-g FA undertaken. There was no
formal sampling protocol or laboratory QAQC system. With
new owners, systems were introduced into the pre-existing
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
laboratory. It was identified that the pulp duplicates dis-
played a very poor precision; where 90% of the data were
± 55% HARD. In addition, the pulverisers were not cleaned
between samples and there was evidence of gold contamina-
tion between some samples.
A number of exhaustive tests were undertaken on 2kg pulp
lots, where the pile was mixed, flattened and 40 consecutive
50g sub-samples taken for FA. The variability was very high,
and in one instance, the range between the minimum and
maximum values was 250gt− 1 Au.
These findings confirmed that the pulps were heteroge-
neous due to the poor comminution of gold particles dur-
ing pulverisation and the excessive GSE within the pulps.
Different pulp sub-sampling techniques further augmented
the level of GSE. One laboratory technician homogenised
the pulp by ‘mat rolling’ then simply scooped off 30g from
the top of the pile, thereby missing gold that had segregated
to the bottom of the pile. Another technician placed the pulp
on the mat, shook it rigorously, flattened the pile and cut a
series of sample lines through the pile with a greater chance
of picking up segregated gold at the pile base.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
An additional issue of sample contamination was identi-
fied. Where very high-grade samples (>30gt− 1 Au) usually
bearing visible gold were present, the following sample or
two samples were often contaminated. Tests were undertaken,
where it was found up to 10% of the high grade was smeared
into the following samples. At the time, no barren flushes were
undertaken in the laboratory and equipment hygiene was poor.
In essence, the ‘mat roll’ method understated, while the
‘shake, flatten and cut’ technique overstated the gold grade.
The recent mine records were revisited and it was found that
during a leave of absence by the ‘overstating’ technician, a
number of stope blocks had been abandoned due to the low
sample grades achieved. The stope-bounding drives and raises
were subsequently re-sampled and assayed using the new
protocol. They were found to be of ore grade and were sub-
sequently mined out recovering 11000oz Au.
The key issue was that coarse gold needs to be treated
differently. Pulps-bearing liberated gold cannot be homoge-
nised; GSE can be highly problematic; and proper protocols
and procedures must be set up both in the mine and labo-
ratory. An SFA was introduced to account for coarse gold,
along with improved laboratory procedures and staff training.
Full QAQC protocols were introduced, particularly covering
equipment cleaning and contamination monitoring. Barren
flushes between samples were introduced and were assayed
at a rate of 1 in 20. Where visible gold was observed or high
grades expected, additional barren samples were introduced
and subjected to FA.
Case study 5: Grab sampling for grade control
Grab sampling has been used as a grade control tool in many
gold operations globally (Dominy 2010). A shear-zone hosted
underground operation in Australia consistently had reconcil-
iation problems. Mineralisation did bear some coarse gold,
though this was not dominant. Most gold was sulphide-hosted
and below 150μm in size. This was manifested as a general
under-call with respect to the reserve grade (7.4gt− 1 Au) of
around 25%. The decision to send material from the stockpile
to the plant was based solely on grab sampling.
Each stock pile represented approximately 500t of sup-
posed ore. Twenty 3kg samples were taken from around
the edge of the stockpile, at a fragment size of generally
6  Mining Technology   2016  
< 12cm. Each sample was sent to the laboratory for a 500g
LeachWELL-based pulverise-and-leach (PAL) assay.
A test study was undertaken based on 200 3-kg grab sam-
ples collected from a chosen stockpile. For the total popu-
lation, the mean grade was 12.8gt− 1 Au, the minimum grade
0.01gt− 1 Au and the maximum grade 79.7gt− 1 Au. There are
a number of grade permutations possible if an exhaustive
20 set sample batches are drawn. Out of 200 samples, the
lowest grade combination of 20 samples was 0.1gt− 1 Au,
and the highest grade combination 49.1gt− 1 Au. The mean
was 10.6gt− 1 Au. The test stockpile was fed to the plant and
autosampler after secondary crushing, where a batch mean
head grade of 4.2gt− 1 Au determined. The mean of the first
20 samples taken was 8.2gt− 1 Au, which implies under nor-
mal circumstances that the lot would have been sent to the
plant as ore. At the time, a mine cutoff grade of 4.6gt− 1 Au
was applied.
The operation was battling reconciliation problems and
achieving a lower head grade. The reserve model was based
on diamond drill data on a 20–30m by 20–30m pattern. Face
chip sample data were ignored, as it was considered to be
biased and only represented around 50% of mine faces due
to operational constraints. As a result, all material dumped
on the surface stockpiles, which included mineralised waste,
and marginal, medium and high-grade ore, was grab sampled
prior to being sent to the waste tip or plant. Given the biased
nature of grab sampling, most of the mineralised waste and
marginal ore were sent to the plant diluting the ore feed. Grab
sampling was considered the key issue. The grade estimate
was also considered to be suboptimal.
This study showed that the use of grab samples to assess
grade is problematic. The majority of stockpiles were sent to
the mill as ore. This was in part related to a higher proportion
of gold in the fine ( < 1cm) fraction, thus biasing grab samples
high. An important point to note is that each grab sample or
group of 20 grab samples did not represent the stockpile. Grab
sampling is prone to chronic FSE, GSE, DE and EE (Dominy
2010; Pitard 2009). Fundamental sampling error calculations
indicated that a 25-t sample was required from the stockpile
to achieve an acceptable level of FSE.
Grade control subsequently re-focused to use the dia-
mond drilling, which was closed to a 15m by 15m spacing.
LeachWELL (1–2kg) was used for all samples and grab sam-
pling was stopped. The resource model was also improved
via the use of an optimised kriged block model. A managed
low-grade stockpile was introduced. Reconciliation improved
to ± 12% for grade and tonnes in 6 months.
Case study 6: Reverse circulation and blast
hole sampling
In many open pit gold projects, blast hole (BH) drilling has
been used as the principal grade control sampling method.
More recently, BH has been replaced with reverse circulation
(RC) drilling in an attempt to improve sample quality and
grade control outputs (Pitard 2008; Chieregati, El Hajj, Imoto
and Pignatari 2015).
This case study is based on an African open pit gold oper-
ation, working for a large tonnage low-grade (1.9gt− 1 Au)
greenstone-hosted shear-zone type deposit. Gold was princi-
pally distributed in quartz veins, though some local wallrock
disseminations were observed. The gold was quartz and/or
pyrite hosted, with minimal visible gold. About 20% of the
gold was gravity recoverable and mineralogical studies iden-
tified a maximum gold particle size of around 350μm.

During the first few years of operation, all grade control
was undertaken as part of the BH drilling pattern, and sam-
ples were taken from the cuttings. Such a methodology is
known to be problematic with issues relating to DE, EE and
GSE, namely, hole-wall caving, sample loss into cavities,
contamination and particle segregation within the drill hole.
Delimitation error also existed where the hole was drilled
below the current bench – the so-called ‘sub-drill’. In addition,
the collection of sample material from the surface ‘cone’ was
fraught with problems relating to high FSE, pile segregation
(GSE) and sample delimitation and extraction (DE and EE).
In this case, BH samples were collected with a sectorial
or pie tray (approx. 10kg from 200kg, representing 2.5m),
providing an acceptable DE in some cases, though the EE can
be high due to overfilling resulting in sample loss. However,
half of the 10kg sample (e.g. 5kg) was poured (no splitter
used) into a bag for laboratory submission. After crushing
to P80 −2mm, a 1kg sub-sample was taken and pulverised to
P90 −75μm and a 200g sub-sample riffle split and a 30g FA
undertaken. This protocol yielded an FSE of ± 92%.
Subsequently, RC drilling with a face hammer bit was
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
introduced for grade control. Reverse circulation has many
improvements over BH drilling through the air propelled
recovery of the drill chippings up the centre of the drill rod,
which leads to a reduction in contamination and improved
mass recoveries. It also provides improvements in grade and
geological resolution (a closer spacing than BH and capabil-
ity for angled holes to reflect the mineralisation trend) and
reduced overall sampling error (reduced FSE, EE, DE and
GSE). The key issue with taking a sub-sample from a 200kg
lot of chippings is that the FSE can only be lowered by either
reducing the entire nominal fragment size of the entire lot or
by taking a bigger sample. The RC drilling produced a finer
product and the run length was reduced to 0.7m to decrease
the primary sample size. A 10kg RC sample was collected via
a cone splitter at the rig. At the laboratory, this was crushed to
P80 −1.5mm, 5kg riffle split for pulverisation, and 1kg taken
for a LeachWELL assay. The overall FSE for this protocol
was ± 29%, a clear improvement over the old BH protocol.
This was still not an optimal figure, but an overall improve-
ment was achieved. At the time of introduction, it was possi-
ble to compare the drilling and assay results of both the BH
and RC samples for a number of benches. It was found that the
RC drilling protocol yielded a nugget effect of 44%, whereas
the BH samples gave a value of 62%.
An improvement supporting the use of RC versus BH drill-
ing for grade control was seen. However, a level of compromise
had to be accepted, even with the sampling protocols for RC
where a large field sample can be required to minimise the FSE.
Case study 7: Uncertainty in heterogeneity
testing in coarse-gold ores
The HT is a common approach to determine the value of K for
FSE equation use. The method consists of extracting a number
of fragments at random from different size fractions of the lot.
Table 2 Fifty, 100 and 200 piece experiments for a coarse-gold ore deposit in North America. All fragments were approximately
1.5kg (equivalent particle size diameter 16cm) and where pulverised in their entirety and subsequently screen fire assayed
Test no. No of test fragments Grade of lot (gt− 1 Au)
01 50 3 180
02 100 7 230
03 100 16
04 100 270
05 200 46
 Mining Technology   2016   7
Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
The number of individual fragments should generally be as
large as possible, but for practical purposes is suggested to be
around 50 (Gy 1982; François-Bongarçon 1993; Pitard 1993).
Table 2 shows variability in HT results from North
American coarse-gold-bearing mineralisation. The mine oper-
ator aimed to optimise sampling protocols and undertook a
HT on ore fragments from a stockpile. The initial test (Test
#01 in Table 2) yielded a relatively low K value. Sampling
protocols were optimised for this figure.
A later review noted that the K value was below expec-
tation given that the mine recovered some 65% of its gold
via gravity and that visible gold was common in both drill
core and underground exposure. Three additional tests were
undertaken, this time with 100 fragments in each test lot (Tests
#02-04; Table 2). The K values defined displayed strong var-
iability ranging from 230 to 2600gcm− 1.5. Test #04 yielded
a particularly high value for both K and dλ, being related to
two very high grades. A fifth test was undertaken using 200
fragments of 1kg weight.
A study was undertaken of gold particle size and distri-
bution based upon mineralogical observation, inspection of
gravity concentrates and metallurgical screening and assay
tests. It concluded that for ROM grade ore of 15gt− 1 Au, the
dλ value was 3mm.
The original sample protocol was based on half HQ core
sampling, pulverising of the entire sample, and sub-sampling
500g for a later sub-sample of 30g for FA. Duplicate pulp FA
were rarely undertaken, but those undertaken showed high
variability (90% within ± 70% HARD). Test work also iden-
tified coarse-gold contamination between samples preceded
by high-grade material. Two barren flushes were introduced
after any sample-bearing visible gold or expected to be high
grade. Protocols were adjusted to take into account the coarse
nature of mineralisation through the total SFA of all half core
or face samples.
In many cases where coarse-gold particles are relatively
sparsely distributed, the picking of 100 test fragments is likely
to only represent low-grade fine-gold background population
(Dominy 2014a). This example shows that the calibration of
the FSE equation using HT can be problematic in the coarse-
gold environment (Dominy and Xie 2016). It is generally
found that a direct approach to dλdetermination is more
appropriate (Dominy et al. 2011; Pitard 2015).
Case study 8: Case of QA with no QC
A greenstone-hosted disseminated gold deposit in Central
Africa had been drilled out by three NQ diamond drill cam-
paigns. Spatially, the three sets of drilling broadly covered the
same mineralised zones. The gold is fine-grained, hosted in
pyrite and/or arsenopyrite and generally below 50μm in size.
The largest campaign contained 60% of the assay database
that was used for resource estimation.
During an independent review of the resource, it was found
that the key drill programme had problematic QAQC data. In
particular, the results for the CRMs, inserted at a rate of about
K value (gcm1.5) Calculated liberation diameter (μm)
40
90
290 160
2600 4300
1300 900
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
1 in 30, were consistently high. The results of inter-labora-
tory check pulp samples, submitted at a rate of 1 in 50 were
overall biased low.
The sample collection and preparation protocols were
found to be acceptable. Despite the high bias indications of the
CRM data, the implications were ignored in the resource esti-
mate. Detailed review showed that the entire batch of assays
was about 36% higher with respect to grade. This error was
shown to relate to the laboratory, where poor maintenance
and calibration of AAS equipment led to high AE. This is an
example of clear QA with no supporting QC.
The remaining half core was assayed using the same pro-
tocol at a different laboratory. CRMs were inserted at a rate
of 1 in 20. The resource was re-estimated, which led to the
deposit grade reducing from 1.8 to 1.5gt− 1 Au. This resulted
in project suspension and withdrawal of funding.
Case study 9: Poor mill balance sampling
An underground operation in South America was extract-
ing 100000t per annum at 15gt− 1 Au. Much of the gold was
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
coarse (up to 2mm in size), with the processing plant based
on a 13th− 1 gravity-only circuit to extract around 80–85% of
the gold. On an annual basis, the operation was expected to
produce around 40000oz Au. By the end of the first year of
production, the operation had produced 31000oz Au. Based
on the mill balance, a recovery of 94% was calculated from a
head grade of 10.3gt− 1 Au and mean tailings grade of 0.6gt− 1
Au.
A review of all aspects of grade control and reconcilia-
tion was undertaken. It was found that the tailings grades
were based on a single 1kg hand sample collected via a small
bucket once per hour, and this was sometimes missed. Thus
13t of ore was represented by a 1kg tailings sample. A series
of 250kg bulk samples of tails were collected and tested in
a metallurgical laboratory. It was found that the grade of
these averaged around 2.5gt− 1 Au and that gold particles up
to 0.75mm were contained. An autosampler was fitted to the
tails outflow, which was initially set to collect a 2.5kg sample
every 5min. Over a period of 1month, this revealed grades
averaging 3gt− 1 Au and on a shift basis up to 6.5gt− 1 Au. These
high grades were linked back to the gravity circuit, which was
not optimised and thus coarse gold was being lost.
The initial tailings sample yielded an FSE of ± 51%,
together with increased DE and EE using a manual sampler.
The revised test protocol dropped the FSE to ± 9% and impor-
tantly took multiple increments over an hour thus having a
higher probability of collecting a coarse-gold particle(s). By
collecting multiple samples, the periodic fluctuation error was
also reduced (Pitard 1993). An autosampler was also intro-
duced. In the original protocol, the small hourly samples did
not resolve periodic pulses of gold lost to the tails stream,
which represented higher feed grades to the gravity circuit.
The incorrect tails sampling was understating the actual gold
content by 6700oz, which was effectively unaccounted for in
the mill balance and hence a high recovery was calculated.
The study led to a number of changes in the plant to
improve recovery, including modifications to the grinding
circuit to grind finer and improvements to the gravity circuit.
The post-modification tailings sample protocol was reduced to
1kg sample per 20min, which given the removal of the coarse
gold yielded an FSE of ± 7%. Six months after modifications,
plant recovery had increased to 89%, based on a 13.5gt− 1 Au
head grade.
8  Mining Technology   2016  
Case study 10: Poor metallurgical sampling
strategy
A South American project was being evaluated with the intent
to re-commence underground operations. Mineralisation is
dominated by quartz-sulphide reefs generally 1m in width
hosted in granodiorite. Economic grades are related to ore
shoots, which extended around 75m along strike and >300m
down plunge. The central 25m core of the Main Reef ore shoot
contains a high-grade zone at 15–30gt− 1 Au, compared to the
4–8gt− 1 Au in peripheral zones. Gold mineralisation contained
coarse gold up to 2.5mm in size, particularly in the core zone.
Finer gold ( < 0.15mm) was common in the peripheral zones.
Historical mining had previously used simple gravity and
amalgamation methods to extract gold, yielding recovered
head grades in the 15–25gt− 1 Au range. As part of the evalu-
ation programme, HQ diamond core drilling was undertaken.
Core recovery and quality was good.
During re-evaluation, two 100kg diamond half-core com-
posites (H#1 and H#2) were taken for metallurgical recovery
testing based on the standard GRG test. The two samples
were crushed to P80 −3mm and 25kg split off for GRG testing.
Composite head grades were 36 and 47gt− 1 Au for H#1 and
H#2 respectively, yielding GRG values of 90 and 96%. A sin-
gle 100kg half-core composite was taken from the low-grade
peripheral zone (L#1), the sample was crushed to P80 −3mm
and 25kg split off for GRG testing. This yielded a head grade
of 16gt− 1 Au and a GRG value of 81%.
Based on these results, a 75000t per annum gravity plant
was built, with a recovery expectation of 70%. The expected
head grades of 15gt− 1 Au were not being achieved, yielding
around 5gt− 1 Au and a gold recovery of 30–40%.
A number of issues related to geological interpretation and
metallurgical sampling were identified. The original metallur-
gical samples H#1 and H#2 were from very high-grade core
mineralisation, and were not representative of that domain.
Only two samples were collected. Sample L#1 was unrep-
resentative of the low-grade zone, and was biased by one
intersection of relatively high-grade material that was present
in the low-grade zone. Only one sample was collected.
During sample preparation, the crushing and splitting of
the 100kg samples down to 25kg test masses yields a high
FSE (up to ± 38% at 90% confidence), where less than ± 15%
would be preferable. In addition, the splitting process after
crushing was based on shovelling 25kg directly into buck-
ets from a pile. The splitting of metallurgical test sub-sam-
ples from a primary composite is a key issue, where the
split process is not representative (Dominy 2014b). This is
further compounded when the primary sample is not repre-
sentative either. In this case, the sub-sampling process was
non-equiprobable with high risk of DE, EE and GSE.
Geological interpretation of the high-grade zone focused
on a ‘continuous’ zone down the centre of the shoot (consid-
ered to be 35% of the shoot). This was not the case, where in
reality there was a high-grade core but it comprised a series
of en-echelon sub-shoots, which only accounted for about
15% of the shoot. The high-grade zone contains a high-level
of GRG, whereas the low-grade zones contain substantially
less. This lead to a reserve grade bias (15 versus 5gt− 1 Au)
and over-reliance on GRG gold for plant design.
Subsequent metallurgical testing of the low-grade shoot
indicated that an achievable GRG was in the range of 20–25%
with most of the gold (>70–80%) being sub-100μm, sul-
phide-hosted and requiring 24h leaching to achieve a 75–85%
recovery.
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice

Table 3 Summary of case study conclusions. Sampling errors defined in Table 1

Case Dominant sampling errors
1 EE and DE
2 EE
3 FSE, GSE, DE, EE and PE
4 FSE, GSE, DE, EE and PE
5 FSE, GSE, DE, EE and PE
6 FSE, GSE, DE and EE
7 FSE, GSE, DE, EE and PE
8 AE
9 FSE, GSE, DE and EE
10 FSE, GSE, DE and EE
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
Stage of sampling issue
Core drilling and sampling
Core sampling
Core sampling, sample prepa-
ration and assay method
Sample preparation and assay
method
Sampling method, sample
preparation and assay method
Sampling method, sample
preparation and assay method
Sample preparation and assay
method
Analytical method
Sampling method
Sample selection strategy and
sample preparation
Key sampling issues
Core loss led to poor core sample quality. Poor QAQC
Poor geological understanding and compositing strategy
led to sections of drill core not being submitted for assay
Whole-sample pulping, pulp splitting and fire assay
inappropriate
Poor laboratory practice led to massive bias via inap-
propriate pulp splitting and fire assay inappropriate. No
QAQC
Grade control process over-reliant on grab sampling from
stockpiles, followed by fire assay
Grade control process over-reliant on reverse circulation
(RC) drilling, followed by fire assay
In the coarse-gold environment the application of the
heterogeneity tests often provide misleading results. Pulp
splitting and fire assay inappropriate
Poor AAS maintenance and calibration led to elevated
grades
Small samples taken at irregular intervals by hand
Original metallurgical samples taken from very high-grade
unrepresentative material. Primary samples were poorly
sub-sampled for testing

A further metallurgical testing programme for the low-
grade domain was instigated (25 75–100kg samples), which
ultimately led to the commissioning of a CIL plant at the
mine. After further controls on mining were applied and the
operation of the new CIL circuit, head grades were increased
to 13gt− 1 Au, with recoveries between 90 and 95%.
Discussion
The sampling issues reported in the case studies relate to the
full range of TOS errors (Table 3), that resulted in monetary
and intangible losses (Table 4). These errors were reduced
through the implementation of new protocols, often supported
by new or additional ore characterisation (Table 5).
Quality assurance/quality control issues in Case 1 relate to
poor QA and lack of QC implementation. Accepted QAQC
procedures are well-documented and require appropriate
training and implementation (Abzalov 2008; DS3077 2013;
Sketchley 1998; Vallée 1998). Full and timely analysis of QA
data is required and must lead to investigation if required.
Inappropriate sample type is exemplified in Cases 5 and
6, where grab samples are used for underground grade con-
trol and BHs for open pit grade control. Both methods have
well-documented issues, and their use is discredited in many
circumstances. Alternatives for underground grade control
include better use of geology and geological mapping, and
closer-spaced diamond drilling. For open pit grade control,
the application of RC drilling is recommended. Reverse cir-
culation drilling has also been applied in the underground
environment with some success (Clark and Carswell 2014).
Inappropriate coarse-gold sampling protocols for resource
estimation and grade control led to problems in Cases 4 and
7. Protocols may involve pulverisation of an entire sample,

Table 4 Estimated monetary and intangible loss estimates for case studies. Monetary loss includes estimate of correction
cost. For operations, includes loss in revenue from poor reconcilation (i.e. gold loss from actual versus planned). Monetary
loss is on an annual basis for operations and over the delay period for development projects. For development projects in-
cludes sustaining cost over delay period

Estimated US$
Case study Project status loss (M, million) Intangible loss
1 OD/UD $3–4 Project delay 18months. Company and management reputation.
Delays in capital investment
2 UD $2–3 Project delay 9months. Company and management reputation. Delays
in capital investment
3 UO $8–10 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
4 UO $8–10 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
5 UO $2–3 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
6 OO $2–3 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
7 UO $3–4 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
8 OD $3–4 Project delay 18months. Company and management reputation.
Delays in capital investment
9 UO $5–6 Management reputation. Fraught internal relationships. Time to imple-
ment improvements
10 UD $2–3 Project delay 9months. Company and management reputation. Delays
in capital investment

Key: OD: open pit in development; UD: underground in development; OP: open pit in production; UP: underground in production.

 Mining Technology   2016   9

 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice

Table 5 Summary of original and revised sampling protocols

Case study Original sample protocol Revised sample protocol

1 a) Half diamond core
b) Crush and pulverise all sample
c) Split 200g for 30g fire assay
Poor QAQC
2 a) Fixed 1m sample length
b) Total sample SFA
3 a) Diamond core and RC
b) Crush and pulverise entire sample
c) Split 200g for 30g fire assay
No QC
4 a) Half diamond core and face samples
b) Crush and pulverise entire sample
c) Split 250g for 30g fire assay
d) Poor laboratory consistency on pulp splitting
No QAQC
5 a) Grab sampling, approx. 3kg (stockpiles)
b) Crush entire sample to P90 –2mm
c) Riffle split 0.5kg for LeachWELL pulverise
and leach (PAL)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
a) Half diamond core (triple tube)
b) Crush to P80 −2.5mm and riffle split 50%
c) Pulverise and riffle split 150g for 30g fire assay
For poor recovery zones, crush entire interval and riffle split half.
Implement full QAQC programme
a) Sample to geology
b) Total sample SFA
a) Half diamond core
b) Crush and pulverise all sample
c) Total sample LeachWELL
Improved QAQC programme
a) Half diamond core and face samples
b) Crush and pulverise entire sample
c) Total screen fire assay
d) Removed need for pulp splitting. Implement full QAQC pro-
gramme, including barren flushes between high-grade sample
a) Half diamond core and face samples
b) Samples crushed to P80 −2mm and riffle split 50%
c) Total sample LeachWELL

Grab sampling ceased. Drill spacing reduced. Better use of geology

6 a) Blasthole (1m composites)
b) Split approx. 5kg from pile
c) Crush (P80 –3mm) and pulverise entire
sample
d) Split 200g for 30g fire assay
7 a) Half diamond core
b) Crush and pulverise entire sample
c) Split 500g for 30g fire assay
8 Minimal AAS maintenance and incorrect cali-
bration of AAS. Poor QC
9 a) Manually collected tails sample (1kg/h)
b) Pulverise and split for 30g fire assay
10 Poor sampling strategy
Splitting of 25kg test sample from 100kg
primary sample in low-grade ore
a) Reverse circulation (0.7m composites)
b) Split approx. 10kg at rig
c) Crush to P80 −1.5mm and riffle split 1kg
d) Pulverise
e) Total sample LeachWELL
a) Half diamond core
b) Crush and pulverise entire sample
c) Total screen fire assay
Introduce barren flushes between high-grade sample
Full/regular AAS maintenance programme. Per shift calibration of
AAS, with mid-shift check. Improved QAQC programme
a) Tails autosampler (5kg/h)
b) Pulverise and split for 30g fire assay
Considered sampling strategy based on grade control sampling of
underground development along high-grade and low-grade zones.
Entire GRG samples tested (75–100kg)

Table 6 Key stages in the design and implementation of a new or revised sampling protocol

Stage Aim Actions

1 Business case
2 Characterise
3 Design
4 Implement
5 Monitor
6 Update
Stakeholder engagement
Define aim(s) of protocol and set data quality objectives
Preliminary review and design of characterisation programme
Undertake characterisation programme
Review and interpret from Stage 2
Design sampling protocols within framework of theory of sampling (TOS)
Cost benefit analysis
Set-up systems and written codes of practice
Training of staff
On-going QAQC
Annual internal and/or external peer review of systems
Annual internal and/or external peer review of individuals
On-going training/re-fresher
Revision of protocols if deemed necessary in Stage 5 – return to Stage 2 or 3 as appropriate

which results in gold liberation. In such a case, sample split-
ting is problematic other than with a rotary sample splitter.
Any homogenisation attempt will be useless and merely pro-
mote GSE. Mat mixing and scooping from a pile of pulp
should be avoided at all costs. A large sample assay method,
such as SFA or LeachWELL, is optimal. Good preparation
equipment hygiene is required. Barren flushes of the pulver-
ising equipment should be undertaken between each sample.
Poor core recovery (Case 1) typically reflects poor drilling
and/or ground conditions (Annels and Dominy 2003). Where
this is unavoidable, there will be a strong bias in assay grade
due to mineral loss. From a sampling perspective, the best
option is to either (a) assay the entire sample length or (b) to
crush it and split off a proportion for laboratory submission.
Poor laboratory practice in Cases 3 and 8 led to bias.
One case study (3) shows a common issue of handling pulps

10  Mining Technology   2016  


containing liberated gold. Scooping from the pile in any
fashion will be affected by the segregation of liberated gold
particles. The incorrect calibration of analytical equipment
is careless.
An inappropriate sampling strategy for the plant balance
led to erroneous reconciliation in Case 9. The flawed protocol
was poorly executed. Manual samplers cannot be considered
as best practice. In addition, the protocol was not optimised
for the coarse-gold ore type.
Poor sampling strategy is shown in Cases 2 and 10, where
grade distribution and/or geology were ignored. Effective
understanding of the ore zone and likely geometallurgical
domains are critical to designing grade and metallurgical
sampling programmes.
Conclusions
(1) Sampling errors across the entire mine value chain
generate both monetary and intangible losses. At the
project development stage, these losses can relate to
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
biased resource/reserve estimates, potential project
delay and/or wasted/misused capital. During mine
operation, issues principally relate to ore/waste mis-
classification and poor reconciliation. In all cases,
there are monetary costs in correcting protocols.
Intangible costs relate to people and company rep-
utation, poor relationships between technical disci-
plines, and wasted time enforcing poor protocols and
implementing new ones.
(2) In many cases, project teams are more interested in the
effects of poor sampling than dealing with the cause.
For example, during poor reconciliation, disciplines
often spend more time trying to apply correction fac-
tors and/or apportioning blame. Management and
practitioners often consider sampling to be of min-
imal importance, which reflects a lack of knowledge
and understanding of its proper application across the
mine value chain.
(3) Design of an optimised sampling protocol must con-
sider its aim and objective (s) in context of ore type
and position in the mine value chain. In most cases,
a dedicated ore characterisation programme will be
required to support application of TOS and final pro-
tocol design. An approach to protocol design is pre-
sented in Table 6.
(4) The optimisation process should consider:
• geological/mineralogical nature of ore type(s) and
likely geometallurgical domains and relationship to
grade. Characterisation with respect to gold particle
sizing, mineralogy and heterogeneity is critical
• whole core sampling followed by full sample assay
via SFA or LeachWELL effectively yields FSE and
GSE values of zero. With good laboratory practice,
the PE and AE can be minimised. Arguments against
whole core sampling revolve around no reference
core remaining, though this author contends that
with modern digital photography and detailed log-
ging, this should not be an issue
• alternatively, RC drilling may be considered given
that it provides a larger field sample size than core,
though there is a loss of geological information and
extreme care must be taken during sample splitting
and assaying
• application of TOS and FSE equation to optimise
protocols
 Mining Technology   2016   11
Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
• avoiding gold liberation, except during pulverisation
of the final assay charge sub-sample and test for pos-
sible contamination in coarse-gold ores
• using effective large assay charge techniques, such
as SFA or LeachWELL, if coarse gold is present; or
whole-sample processing via a laboratory-scale system
• ensuring that separate splitters, crushers and pulver-
isers are used where coarse gold is present and that
equipment is effectively cleaned between samples
and blanks are used
• in the plant, autosamplers taking multiple increments
should be used supported by appropriate sample
preparation and assay protocols
• carrying out systematic QAQC programmes to
measure the reliability of each of the sampling,
preparation and assaying steps, and then optimising
the process and
• proper documentation, staff training and periodic
review.
(5) Throughout any sampling and assaying or test work
programme, QAQC must be a primary feature.
Metallurgical sampling and test work programmes
frequently have minimal to zero QAQC. Protocols
must be set up with judicious consideration to cover
field collection and security, laboratory preparation
and analysis/testing to minimise sampling errors.
(6) The overall conclusion of this discourse is that cor-
rect sampling and assaying practices are critical to a
profitable gold mining industry. Management, tech-
nical and field staff should be educated to ‘sample
better’ throughout the mine value chain. A project or
operation should appoint an appropriately trained TOS
champion to drive best practice. Good resources now
exist to service this need, both in the form of consult-
ants and educators, and a new international sampling
standard (DS3077 2013). It is now time for TOS to
be integrated into international reporting codes (e.g.
JORC Code 2012).
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the companies
who have consented to the presentation of the case studies
under confidentiality agreements. The late Dr Allen Royle
(University of Leeds, UK), Professor Yuling Xie (University
of Science and Technology Beijing, PRC), Professor Richard
Minnitt (University of Witwatersrand, RSA) and Professor
Kim Esbensen (GEUS, Denmark) are thanked for helpful dis-
cussions. Mining Technology reviewers are acknowledged for
their constructive comments on the manuscript.
References
Abzalov, M. Z. 2008. Quality control of assay data: a review of procedures
for measuring and monitoring precision and accuracy, Exploration and
Mining Geology, 17, 131–144.
Afewu, K. I. and Lewis, G. O. 1998. Sampling a run-of-mine mill feed – a
practical approach, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 98, 299–304.
Annels, A. E. and Dominy, S. C. 2003. Core recovery and quality: important
factors in mineral resource estimation, Applied Earth Sciences Transactions
of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, 112, 305–311.
Bazin, C., Hodouin, D. and Blondin, R. M. 2013. Estimation of the variance
of the fundamental error associated to the sampling of low grade ores,
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 124, 117–123.
Carrasco, P. C. 2009. Nugget effect – artificial or natural?Proceedings of World
Conference on Sampling and Blending, 211–217, Johannesburg, Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
 Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
Carrasco, P. C., Carrasco, P. and Jara, E. 2004. The economic impact of
incorrect sampling and analysis practices in the copper mining industry,
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 74, 209–214.
Chieregati, A. C., El Hajj, T. M., Imoto, C. F. and Pignatari, L. E. C. 2015.
Validation of reverse circulation drilling rig for reconciliation purposes,
TOS Forum, 5, 105–110.
Cintra, E. C., Scabora, J. A., Viegas, E. P., Barata, R. and Maia, G. F. 2007.
Coarse gold sampling at Sao Francisco mine, Brazil, in Proceedings of
World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 187–197, Porto Alegro,
Fundacao Luiz Englert.
Clark, F. and Carswell, J. T. 2014. Using RC drilling to improve sampling in
a complex underground gold operation – approach to underground grade
control at the Sunrise Dam mine, WA, in Proceedings of International
Mining Geology Conference, 143–152, Melbourne, Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy.
Cossio, S., Noyola, J. -L., Gonzalez, P. and Espinosa, R. 2004. Sampling and
assaying of coarse gold at La Herradura, Mexico, CIM Bulletin, 1084, 1–5.
Dominy, S. C. 2010. Grab sampling for underground gold mine grade control,
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 110,
(2010), 277–287.
Dominy, S. C. and Petersen, J. S. 2005. Sampling coarse gold-bearing
mineralisation – developing effective protocols and a case study from the
Nalunaq mine, southern Greenland, in Proceedings of World Conference
on Sampling and Blending, 151–165, Melbourne, Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy.
Dominy, S. C. 2014a. Predicting the unpredictable – evaluating high-nugget
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
effect gold deposits, in Mineral resource and ore reserve estimation,
659–678, Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Dominy, S. C. 2014b. Effects of sample mass on gravity recoverable gold
test results in low grade ores, Applied Earth Sciences Transactions of the
Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, 123, 234–242.
Dominy, S. C. and Platten, I. M. 2007. Gold particle clustering – a new
consideration in sampling applications, Applied Earth Sciences
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, 116, 130–142.
Dominy, S. C. and Xie, Y. 2016. Optimising sampling protocols via the
heterogeneity test: challenges in coarse gold mineralisation, Mining
Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy,
in press.
Dominy, S. C., Johansen, G. F., Annels, A. E. and Cuffley, B. W. 2000. General
considerations of sampling and assaying in a coarse gold environment,
Applied Earth Sciences Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and
Metallurgy, 109, 145–167.
Dominy, S. C., Noppé, M. A. and Annels, A. E. 2004. Errors and uncertainty
in mineral resource and ore reserve estimation: the importance of getting
it right, Exploration and Mining Geology, 11, 77–98.
Dominy, S. C., Platten, I. M., Howard, L. E., Bell, R-M., Xie, Y. and Minnitt,
R. C. A. 2012. Determination of the sampling liberation diameter in a high-
grade coarse gold ore by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, in
Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 161–169, Melbourne, Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Dominy, S. C., Platten, I. M., Xie, Y. and Minnitt, R. C. A. 2011. Underground
grade control protocol design: case study from the Liphichi gold project,
Larecaja, Bolivia, Applied Earth Sciences Transactions of the Institutions
of Mining and Metallurgy, 119, 205–219.
Dominy, S. C., Xie, Y. and Platten, I. M. 2008. Gold particle characteristics
in narrow vein deposits: implications for evaluation and metallurgy, in
Proceedings of Narrow Vein Mining Conference, 91–104, Melbourne,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
DS3077. 2013. Representative sampling – horizontal standard, Copenhagen,
Danish Standards Foundation.
Esbensen, K. H. and Paasch-Mortensen, P. 2010. Process sampling: theory of
sampling – the missing link in process analytical technologies, in process
analytical technology. 37–80, Chichester, Wiley.
Fallon, M., Rowley, M., Du Plessis, E., Golenya, F., Robertson, I. and
Swanson, R. 2012. Confirming the sampling, sample preparation and
assaying protocols used at two Yilgarn gold deposits, in Proceedings of
Sampling Conference, 47–62, Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 1993. The practice of the sampling theory of
broken ores, CIM Bulletin, 86, 75–81.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 1998. Extensions to the demonstration of Gy's
formula, Exploration and Mining Geology, 7, 149–154.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 2004. Theory of sampling and geostatistics: an
intimate link, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 74,
143–148.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 2008. A brief history of Pierre Gy's sampling
theory and current trends in its acceptance in the mining world, in
Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 13–14, Melbourne, Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
12  Mining Technology   2016  
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 2014. State of affairs and current research trends
in theory of sampling fundamentals, including segregation and correctness,
in Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 11–15, Melbourne, Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. 2015. Future challenges and research: theory of
sampling (TOS), TOS Forum, 3, 4–5.
François-Bongarçon, D. M. and Gy, P. M. 2002. The most common error in
applying Gy's formula in the theory of mineral sampling and the history
of the liberation factor, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 102, 475–479.
Geelhoed, B. 2011. Is Gy's formula for the fundamental sampling error
accurate?, Experimental evidence, Minerals Engineering, 24, 169–173.
Giblett, A., Dunne, R. and McCaffery, K. 2012. Defining practical metallurgical
accounting discrepancy limits for gold operations, in Proceedings of Mill
Operators Conference, 3–9, Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy.
Gonzales, P. and Cossio, S. 2007. A review of sampling protocol for a gold
ore based on liberation study, in Proceedings of World Conference on
Sampling and Blending, 163–174, Porto Alegre, Fundacao Luiz Englert.
Guresin, N., Lorenzen, L., Dominy, S. C., Muller, H. and Cooper, A. 2012.
Importance of effective sampling and test work protocols for process plant
design, in Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 95–107, Melbourne,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Gy, P. M. 1982. Sampling of particulate materials, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Gy, P. M. 2004. Sampling of discrete minerals – a new introduction to the
theory of sampling I: qualitative approach, Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, 74, 7–24.
Holmes, R. J. 2004. Correct sampling and measurement – the foundation
of metallurgical accounting, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory
Systems, 74, 71–83.
Holmes, R. J. 2015. Sample station design and operation, TOS Forum, 5,
119–128.
JORC. 2012. Australasian code for reporting of exploration results, mineral
resources and ore reserves, the JORC code. Joint Ore Reserves Committee
of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute
of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia.
Lyman, G. J. and Schouwstra, R. 2011. Use of scanning electron microscope
to determine the sampling constant and liberation factor for fine materials,
in Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 89–103,
Santiago, Gecamin.
Magri, E. J. 2007. Some experiences in heterogeneity tests and mine sampling,
in Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 329–348,
Porto Alegre, Fundacao Luiz Englert.
Minnitt, R. C. A. 2007. Sampling: the impact on costs and decision making,
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 107,
451–462.
Minnitt, R. C. A. 2013. Sampling in the South African minerals industry, in
Proceedings of Sampling and Analysis Conference, 1–28, Johannesburg,
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Minnitt, R. C. A. and Assibey-Bonsu, W. 2010. A comparison between
the duplicate series method and the heterogeneity test as methods for
calculating the sampling constants, Journal of the Southern African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 110, 251–268.
Minnitt, R. C. A., Rice, P. M. and Spangenbeg, C. 2007. Part 2: experimental
calibration of sampling parameters K and alpha for Gy's formula by the
sampling tree method, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 107, 513–518.
Morrison, R. and Powell, M. 2006. Design for sampling – preliminary
exploration, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 106, 697–706.
Petersen, L., Dahl, C. K. and Esbensen, K. H. 2004. Representative mass
reduction in sampling – a critical survey of techniques and hardware,
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 74, 95–114.
Pitard, F. F. 1993. Pierre Gy's sampling theory and sampling practice, Boca
Raton, CRC Press.
Pitard, F. F. 2004. Effects of residual variances on the estimation of the
variance of the fundamental error, Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, 74, 149–164.
Pitard, F. F. 2007. The in-situ nugget effect: a major component of the random
term of a variogram, in Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and
Blending, 91–110, Porto Alegre, Fundacao Luiz Englert.
Pitard, F. F. 2008. Blasthole sampling for grade control – the many problems
and solutions, in Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 15–21, Melbourne,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Pitard, F. F. 2009. Pierre Gy's theory of sampling and C.O. ingamells poisson
process approach: pathways to representative sampling and appropriate
industry standards. Doctoral Thesis, Esberg, Aalborg University.
Pitard, F. F. 2013. Guidelines for acceptable allotted sampling uncertainty,
in Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 89–98,
Santiago, Gecamin.

Pitard, F. F. 2015. The advantages and pitfalls of conventional heterogeneity
tests and a suggest alternative, TOS Forum, 5, 13–18.
Pitard, F. F. and François-Bongarçon, D. M. 2011. Demystifying the
fundamental and grouping and segregation error for practitioners, in
Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 39–55,
Santiago, Gecamin.
Pitard, F. F. and Lyman, G. 2013. Single and multi-stage Poisson
processes: a case study for gold exploration, in Proceedings of
World Conference on Sampling and Blending, 371–385, Santiago,
Gecamin.
Pitard, F. F., Esbensen, K. H. and Paoletti, C. 2015. TOS: progress through
continuity and community, TOS Forum, 4, 25–27.
Platten, I. M. and Dominy, S. C. 2003. The occurrence of high-grade gold
pockets in quartz reefs at the Gwynfynydd mine, Wales, United Kingdom:
a geological explanation of the nugget effect, Exploration and Mining
Geology, 10, 249–272.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:07 14 June 2016
 Mining Technology   2016   13
Dominy  Importance of good sampling practice
Royle, A. G. 1989. Splitting gold assay pulps containing coarse gold particles,
Leeds University Mining Association Journal, 63–68.
Royle, A. G. 1991. Safe sampling formulae for gold deposits, Mining
Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy,
100, 84–86.
Simon, A. and Gosson, G. 2010. Considerations on QAQC and sampling
security, in Proceedings of Sampling Conference, 135–140, Melbourne,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Sketchley, D. A. 1998. Gold deposits: establishing sampling protocols
and monitoring quality control, Exploration and Mining Geology, 7,
129–138.
Spangenberg, C. 2011. The status of sampling practice in the gold mining
industry of Africa, in Proceedings of World Conference on Sampling and
Blending, 105–112, Santiago, Gecamin.
Vallée, M. A. 1998. Sampling quality control, Exploration and Mining
Geology, 7, 107–116.