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

Richard Strong (Oliver Iron Mining Div., U. S. Steel Corp.)—Mr. Waterman states (p. 59, Trans., January 1954): "Core-sludge combining factors have been calculaied for any combination of core-sludge recovery on the basis of several logical assumptions: 1—The sludge sample loses reliability geometrically as sludge recovery drops. 2—The sludge sample should not be used if the percentage of sludge return is less than the percentage of core recovered. 3—A core sample should receive a weighting at least equal to the percentage of core recovery." Assumptions 1 and 2 seem justified at Chuquicamata and most geologists would agree to the validity of assumption 3. However, contrary to the statement quoted above, the core sample does not in general receive a weighting at least equal to the percentage of core recovery when the Chuquicamata methgd is used. Furthermore, the basic Chuquicamata method is identical to the Longyear or relative volume core-sludge assay combining method. Finally, the Chuquicamata method does not, in its present form, reflect true geometric loss in sludge sample reliability according to the relationship L = AR (N-1) The basic equations representing the two steps of the Chuquicamata method can be combined algebraically as follows (using the symbology of the original article except as noted): Vol A + B Assay 2 = ASA = Assay 1 Vol A VolB Core Assay [I] Vol A CA.F + ASA (100 —F) Combined grade =[21 100 Pct where F and (100 — F) are the core and adjusted sludge assay factors from Fig. 3. Substituting Eqs. 1 and 2 and collecting terms Combined grade = Vol B Vol A + B CAF (100—-F) + Assay 1 (100-F) Vol A Vol A 100 pct Eq. 3 is a unified and general statement of the Chuquicamata method. The true core factor includes not only the factor F from Fig. 3 but also the quantity VolB ------------- (100 — F), which is implicit in the value of Vol A the adjusted sludge assay. This quantity is real and positive for all values of F and core recovery less than 100. Therefore the true core factor is always less than F except when F is equal to 100. If sludge recovery is 100 pct, Eq. 3 can be further simplified as follows: Let F = percentage of core recovered. Let Vol A = Vdh (100 Pct — Pct CR) where Vdh is the total volume of the sampled interval and let Vol B = (Vdh — Vc.) Pct CR where V, is the core volume in the sampled interval at 100 pct core recovery. Then combined grade = Vo V. CA Pct CR- + Assay 1, 100 Pct — Pct CR Vdh Vdh [4] 100 Pct Eq. 4 shows that when sludge recovery is 100 pct the laboratory sludge assay receives significant weight in the Chuquicamata method, even at 100 pct core recovery. The maximum weight assigned to the laboratory sludge assay depends on drillhole size, as follows: Eq. 4, with suitable changes in symbology, is identical to Royce's formula 8,' which is a statement of the Longyear or relative volume method of combining core and sludge assays. If Mr. Waterman's assumption 3 is of paramount concern to the geologist, the Royce method (for core recoveries of 60 pct and above) or a method employing the percentage of core recovered as a core weighting factor are the only recognized methods known to the writer which achieve the desired result. A modification of the latter method embodying Mr. Waterman's assumptions 1 and 2 would result from applying the factors from Fig. 3 directly to the laboratory core and sludge assays.