209
methods for same type of deposit, as the individual resource estimator used different knowledge and experience to generate the classification requirements. This has proved that the
industry lacks standard procedure to be followed by all QPs. Although, all the QPs followed
the NI 43-101 guidelines, the different approaches used could result in misleading public
reports, since there was no right or wrong approach until mining production period. In
addition, a single judgement by a QP of a project has major influence on the prospect of
economic extraction. This makes QPs assumptions play important role in determining the
resource uncertainty associated with economic viability of deposits. To champion the cause
of addressing the inconsistency and misclassification problems, the industry needs to investigate into acceptable limits for assumptions made by different QPs in the estimation and
classification of mineral resources, particularly in terms of geology and deposit type.
REFERENCES
Deutsch, C.V., Leuangthong, O. & Ortiz, J.M. 2016. A case for geometric criteria in resources and
reserve classification. CCG Annual Report 08: Paper 301.
Ortiz, J.M., and Emery, X. 2006. Geostatistical estimation of mineral resources with soft boundaries:
a comparative study. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (ISI), 106(8):
577–584.
Shaw, W.J., Godoy, M.C., Muller G & Larrondo, P. 2006. An approach to more objective classification
of mineral resources. 6th International Mining Geology Conference, AusIMM. NT: 85–89.
Verly, G., Postolski, T. & Parker H.M. 2014. Assessing uncertainty with drill hole spacing studies:
applications to mineral resources. Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning symposium 2014,
AusIMM. Melbourne: 109–118.
methods for same type of deposit, as the individual resource estimator used different knowledge and experience to generate the classification requirements. This has proved that the
industry lacks standard procedure to be followed by all QPs. Although, all the QPs followed
the NI 43-101 guidelines, the different approaches used could result in misleading public
reports, since there was no right or wrong approach until mining production period. In
addition, a single judgement by a QP of a project has major influence on the prospect of
economic extraction. This makes QPs assumptions play important role in determining the
resource uncertainty associated with economic viability of deposits. To champion the cause
of addressing the inconsistency and misclassification problems, the industry needs to investigate into acceptable limits for assumptions made by different QPs in the estimation and
classification of mineral resources, particularly in terms of geology and deposit type.
REFERENCES
Deutsch, C.V., Leuangthong, O. & Ortiz, J.M. 2016. A case for geometric criteria in resources and
reserve classification. CCG Annual Report 08: Paper 301.
Ortiz, J.M., and Emery, X. 2006. Geostatistical estimation of mineral resources with soft boundaries:
a comparative study. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (ISI), 106(8):
577–584.
Shaw, W.J., Godoy, M.C., Muller G & Larrondo, P. 2006. An approach to more objective classification
of mineral resources. 6th International Mining Geology Conference, AusIMM. NT: 85–89.
Verly, G., Postolski, T. & Parker H.M. 2014. Assessing uncertainty with drill hole spacing studies:
applications to mineral resources. Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning symposium 2014,
AusIMM. Melbourne: 109–118.