Mining - Chuquicamata Develops Better Method to Evaluate Core Drill Sludge Samples

THE diamond drill is a very important tool in exploration and development testing and its use is increasing. In almost all cases results of diamond drilling are analyzed on the basis of grade and tons. A proper evaluation of core and sludge assays is important if drilling results are to be acceptable as a basis for geologic and engineering appraisal. The relatively wide variation in assay averages as calculated by various well-known combining methods indicates that the engineering choice of a method may affect the outcome of the drilling in terms of ore and waste. The problem of combining assay results from core and sludge samples has been discussed many times in conference and in the literature.'-' Most writers agree that the field of disagreement in methods is large and that the engineer on the job must consider features unique to his drilling, pick one of several combining methods, and depart from the rules when abnormal results come in. All the discussion to date can be summed up by the admission that as yet there is no fairly simple, generally acceptable combining method that is practicable over a wide range of drilling conditions, ground conditions, and ore occurrence. The combining problem is important in evaluating drilling results at Chuquicamata. Recently a reappraisal has been made of recovery variables and their effect on assays, with the result that a new combining method is offered which fits average drilling conditions and is mathematically reasonable. It is simple in application, fundamentally correct, and an improvement over most combining methods. At Chuquicamata diamond drillholes are used to outline the grade and position of blocks of normal and marginal grade oxide, mixed, and sulphide ore. Most holes penetrate all classes of material (and waste), and it is important for mining programs as well as ore reserves to know almost precisely the soluble and insoluble copper content of mineralized ground. At present three classes of ore are mined and treated differently. For an orderly sequence of mining operations which can provide regular daily tonnages of all three ore types and keep grade at certain levels with minimum variation, ore type and its grade must be predicted. Diamond drilling plus geologic mapping and bench sampling are tools for prediction. And drilling data are largely used to calculate grade of material more than a few meters away from bench faces. The orebody at Chuquicamata" is criss-crossed by millions of barren or mineralized weak to fairly strong slips and fault fissures. Mineralization is diverse and encompasses many quartz and oxide or sulphide-bearing copper veins, as well as seams and disseminated grains. Copper occurs in oxide or sulphide minerals or mixtures of these two mineral types. Rock conditions vary from intensely seri-citized (soft and porous) through clay-altered ground to almost fresh granodiorite. The result is an orebody which offers many obstacles to good and consistent core recovery in diamond drilling. Recovery varies considerably in the several alteration zones, the various types of oxide and sulphide ores, and the position and inclination of the drillhole within the complex fracture pattern. As core recovery drops sludge samples must be used with core samples to calculate grade. Many years of drilling at Chuquicamata indicate that in good grade oxide zones and in the sulphide areas core recovery is good and the ground uniformly mineralized. Moderate loss of core, therefore, does not markedly affect grade calculations based on core assays. An early core-sludge combining method used core assays at face value as indicating grade down to 50 pct core recovery, but below this recovery percentage sludge samples were used and weighted according to the standard Longyear chart. This method apparently did not introduce serious errors, but it abruptly used sludge assays with high weighting factors representing 100 pct return irrespective of actual percentage of sludge recovered. Recent drilling activities have been directed toward outlining the marginal ore areas. The non-uniform mineralization and generally poorer core recovery in such ground indicated that a more exact core-sludge combining method was required to equate wide differences between core and sludge assays and recovery. In fringe ore areas at Chuquicamata core recovery averages about 50 pct, from a minimum of 10 to 15 pct to a maximum of 100 pct. Sludge recovery is likewise variable and averages perhaps 80 pct even though holes are cemented as water return falls off. In a homogeneously mineralized area cut by many slips and faults, with hard and soft ribs, loss of core is loss of ground which has a grade similar to that of core recovered, and core assays approximate true grade. In this case sludge samples need not be used. However, it would be unusual to know beforehand that an area is uniformly mineralized, and in fact this condition is probably uncommon. Generally the distribution of valuable minerals in the ground does not exactly compare with their recoverability in core. Thus, in the usual case, loss of core decreases the