Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A
I
1
r
Fig. 1 -Various spatial characteristics of ore bodies that affect the drilling patterns; each grid node represents a possible drillhole location in
a regular grid drilling pattern.
Basic concepts
Instead ofrushing into thecomplexity of methodology, an
introduction of some basic concepts related to continuity,
favorability and resource should serve as useful eye-openers.
An appropriate classification of resource potentials provides
a solid ground on which local potentials arejudged in light of
infill drilling. Continuity is also crucial, because most infill
drillingprograms attempt to confirm the spatial variability of
ore grade. The use of favorability analysis is predicated upon
the need for defining favorable geological environments of
blocks as being permissible for additional drilling.
Continuity is an important concept in reserve and resource
calculations (Isaak and Srivastava, 1989;Sinclair and Vallee,
1994; Pan, 1995). Variogram modeling has been widely
TRANSACTIONS VOL. 298 1944
Theoretical development
For a given set of drill holes, sample assays, together with
geological log information, form the data base for infill
drilling designs. In this analysis, three attributes are fundamental:
grade assay Z(x),
indicator lo(x; zo) (for ore or mineralization depending
on the definition of zo), and
geological favorability function G(x).
Here, zo is either a cutoff for ore and waste, or a threshold
for mineralization and barren, depending on the purpose of
infill drilling. The former may be derived from mine plans,
based on expected economic and engineering conditions,
whereas the later is determined exclusively through geological and statistical interpretation. Function G, called the
favorability of geology function, is constructed from a set of
selected geological attributes relevant to the mineralization
of interest.
The first step necessary for infill drilling designs is to
establish favorable geological envelopes, within which the
potentials of blocks are classified. Therefore, G(x) is used to
filter out nonpotential blocks in infill drilling programs. Io(x;
zo) is used to define ore or mineralization envelopes inside
favorable geological environments. A necessary condition
for the resource potentials of a block is that the block must be
located inside a mineralization envelope. Similarly, a necessary condition for a block tocontain reserves is that the block
must be located inside an ore envelope.
Hence, the postcrior probability ol'mineralization. condilional upon the presence ofthe gcological indicator, is given
by
In practice. the followingposteriorprohabilitics arc calculated
Finally. calculate the quantity
where c(iolj) is the contrast of' the posterior probabilities.
Based on this quantity, the importance ot' gcological
binary attributes can be ranked with respect to indicator I().
For each category of gcological data (e.g.. lithology), the
attributes (e.g.. rock types) are ranked by their posterior
probabilities. Take lithology as an example. 1x1J, (k = 1 , 2.
... m) be the n~ lithological binary indicators anti their
postcrior contrasts are CLdefined in Eq. (3). Assume that the
rank sequcncc isC, >C,> ... >C,,,. A subset ofthc Iithological
indicators arc selected by the criterion that the posterior
probabilities cxcccd a prcselccted probability threshold. For
convcnicncc, assurllc that thc first s indicators are selected. A
combined lithology indicator is then created as:
(4)
whcrc
(6)
n n n
n n n n
I
I
Influence Range
Fig. 3 - Sectional view of the influence ranges of drillholes and potential infill drillhole locations.
FuFc=A
where Fc is the complementary set of F.
Furthermore, dcfine a set containing the blocks with
resource potentials bascd on the geological fiivorability estimates:
F C}
(10)
Then, define a subset of Y h r the blocks with the potcntials of indicated or possible resources:
E
Y)
(11)
Moreover, define a subsel of 'nofor the blocks containing
the indicated resources:
E
Case demonstration
A case study is given to demonstrate the use of the
methodology for the in fill drill ing-design proposed in this
paper. The method was applied to a gold deposit of the
Carlin-type in northern Nevada. The deposit was delineated
by a previous drilling program, including 54 holes with
approximately 230 ft of averaged drill hole spacing. The task
is to design an infill drilling program that determines the
measured resources for the subsequent detailed mine development.
D
Processing
Input Data
Elrn
Indicator Fav.
Geological
A ftributes
Geological
Envelopes
Analysis
Mineralization
Indicator
Envelopes
Resource
Classification
,,,,I,
Target Reserves
& Resources
Kriging
Ranges of Major
& Minor Axes
Ore Indicator
n,
Ordinary
Kriglng
Gold Grade
Fig, 4 -The
Average Grade
& Est. Variance
work-flow diagram showing major components of the methodology for the optimal design of infill drilling patterns.
Table 1 - Posterior probability contrasts for rock types and alteration types.
Rock type
RK1
RK2
RK3
RK4
RK5
Alteration type
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AL5
Meaning
Upper Plate formation
Robert Mountain formation
Intrusives, e.g. dikes
Hanson Creek formation i - iii
Breciated lower plate rocks
Meaning
Oxidation
Carbonaceous alteration
Silification
Decalcification
Clay
Prior
0.145
0.145
0.145
0.145
0.145
Prior
0.145
0.145
0.145
0.145
0.145
Wt. (+)
0.105
-0.422
-0.315
-0.315
-0.01 1
-0.012
0.691
0.510
0.510
0.091
Wt. (+)
0.1 12
0.605
0.789
0.573
0.101
Wt. (-)
Wt. (-)
-0.008
-0.521
-0.902
-0.266
0.101
Post.
contrast
-0.031
0.386
0.252
0.252
0.027
Post.
contrast
0.032
0.399
0.522
0.281
-0.048
K, = max{a13,al, al,]
Variables K , and K re resent, respectively, a combined
2.P
binary favorable geolog~calfactor and a combined binary
favorable alteration factor. Structural data were not available
in quantitative forms. Therefore, modeling of the favorable
TRANSACTIONS VOL. 298 1949
Fig. 5 -Two consecutive EW section maps showing classified block types and proposed infill drillhole locations (3=measured, 2=indicated,
l=possible and O=barren).
1 pi-p
-
--
0.25
0.21
0.95
0.89
150
120
R2
R3
CL
1%
100
80
80
70
90
90
-15
-15
0
0
S O C I E ~ YFOR MINING.
METALLURGY.
AND EXPLORATION. INC
Original Holes
lnfill Holes
200 Feet
Fig. 6 - Plan map showing proposed infill drillhole locations together with the existing drillholes.
Concluding remarks
3 for measured;
2 for indicated:
1 for possible; and
0 for barren.
Sometimes, variogram modeling may not yield desirable
results for the range of influence. because of sparse drilling.
If so, a qualitative judgment based on the deposit characteristics is necessary for the selection of do and d,. The major
axis in this deposit is in the EW direction with the range
approximately equal to do = 70 ft. The minor axis in the
direction of NS has a range of d , = 55 ft.
The infill drilling was designed by sectional maps along
the EW direction. The blocks within 70 ft of the existing holes
were not considered for infill drilling. Infill holes were not
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY. AND EXPLORATION. INC
References
.
Oxford
WorldMinrng, February,
Royle. A C 1977, "How to use geostatlstlcs In ore class~f~cation,"
pp 52-55
S ~ m s J.R
,
, and Goodwln. J C 1992. 'Eflic~ency of ore zone delineation by exploratlon
d r ~ l l ~ nMercur
g,
gold d~strict,Mercur, UT." SME, preprtnl 92-192.
S~ncla~r.
A J , and Vallee, M , 1994, "Rev~ew~ng
continuity: An essential element of qualtty
conlrol for depos!?and reserve est~mat~on,"
Explor. Mining Geol, Vol. 3. pp. 95-108
Taylor, H K.. 1994, "Ore reserves, mlnlng and profit.' CIM Bulletin, September, Vol 87.
38-46
USGS. 1980, '"Princtples of a resourcelreserve classil~cationfor minerals," US Geologtcal
Survey Clr 831, 5 pp.
Wober. H.H., and Morgan, P.J.. 1993. "Classlficat~onof ore reserves based on geostatst~caland economic parameters." CIM Bulletrn. Jan.. Vol, 86. pp. 73-76
Barnes, R J , 1989, "A geostatlsttcal approach to operattonal sample deslgn lor orelwaste
selecton In surface gold mlnlng." Proc 21st APCOM. Las Veyas, NV, pp 262-274
Blrak, D J 1986, "Exploration and geologtc development 01 the Jerrilt Canyon gold
deposits. Elko Counly, NV," Proceed of Gold '86 Symposium, Toronto. Canada. pp
488-496