The economic assessment of mining projects includes many factors and resource classification is critical at any stage of mining. The quality of resource classification is a key requirement for accurate economic and environmental risk evaluation. The results of economic assessment are usually reported by companies in order to attract investors. Mineral resource classification standards were created in order to define rules for public disclosure of mineral projects, providing investors with reliable information to assist in making investment decisions. The key idea behind classification standards is to provide a general definition of different categories based on a quantified level of geological confidence so that a qualified/competent person can judge the uncertainty based on their past experience with similar deposits. The estimation of quality/geological confidence depends not only on the quantity of available data, but also on its quality. A number of different quality parameters are discussed by Yeates and Hodson (2006), Postle et al. (2000), and Dominy et al. (2002). According to the CIM standards on mineral resources and reserves, the classification of mineral resources is dependent on ‘... nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data...’ (Postle et al., 2000). Often companies adopt high standards of quality control in the early stages of projects in order to be able to support Measured resources; therefore, data quality is not considered in this work, all data is assumed to be error-free. A number of techniques exist for the evaluation of mineable resources based on the quantity and distribution of data. Based on a survey of 120 recent NI 43-101 technical reports, geometric techniques are the most common and typically include drill-hole spacing and search neighbourhood. Techniques based on geostatistics are not as popular, but there are a number of proposals for resource classification, mostly based on ordinary kriging variance. Typically, the kriging variance is used as a classification criterion by applying thresholds based on the variogram. The application of these thresholds to the kriging variance in order to define the categories was recommended by Royle (1977), Sabourin (1984), and Froidevaux et al. (1986) (as cited in Sinclair and Blackwell, 2002). More sophisticated techniques based on kriging variance were proposed by a number of authors. The relative kriging standard deviation, defined as the ratio between kriging standard deviation and the estimated value of a block, can be used (David, 1988). Arik (1999) proposed a classification based on a combination of the ordinary kriging variance and the weighted average of the squared difference between the estimated value of a block and the data values Mineral resource classification: a comparison of new and existing techniques
[1]
M. David.
Handbook of Applied Advanced Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation
,
1987
.
[2]
J. Yamamoto.
An Alternative Measure of the Reliability of Ordinary Kriging Estimates
,
2000
.
[3]
Snowden,et al.
Practical interpretation of resource classification guidelines
,
1996
.
[4]
A. E. Annels,et al.
Errors and Uncertainty in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation: The Importance of Getting it Right
,
2002
.
[5]
Alastair J. Sinclair,et al.
Applied Mineral Inventory Estimation: OUTLIERS
,
2002
.
[6]
Tomasz M. Wawruch,et al.
Mineral Resource Classification Through Conditional Simulation
,
2005
.
[7]
Christina Dohm.
QUANTIFIABLE MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION: A LOGICAL APPROACH
,
2005
.