The guide to the evaluation of gold deposits: Integrating deposit evaluation and reserve inventory practices (34faf259-b4ae-4451-8b9d-98da22422cac)

"As a mining engineer with over 50 years' experience in underground operations and mine planning, I appreciate the enormous amount of work that went into the paper; and despite an imbalance between geology-geostatistics and the profit-earning actions of mining and treating (possibly because of sponsorship only by the Geological Society), I agree with probably 85% of the detail. But the paper fails to build on its own sound foundations and, like many predecessors, drifts instead into idealism. Even the starting quotation from the US SEC Form S-18 is little more than a platitude. An American consultant (l) has observed: ""an evaluation that accepts ore reserves as guaranteed because their definition meets SEC criteria is an invitation to disaster"".Idealism enshrines at least two myths that have bedevilled definition over the last several decades. The first is that the only purpose of 'ore reserves' is to promise successful new mines, and that 'ore reserves' must necessarily follow feasibility studies.In practice, the identification of what is likely to be mined if a mine is started must often be done on broad economics long before the feasibility study, and there may be only little later flexibility. The second myth is that there can be a perfect deposit with a simple exploration-appraisal-development sequence (the paper's Figure 2) against which all inferiors can be matched. If the field of definition be regarded as a pyramid, the quest for perfection and the imposition of rigid promises upon the terms 'ore' and 'reserves' drive definitions so near the apex (or the bottom right corner of Figure I, if preferred) that little is left to define. The process is reminiscent of the legendary super-medicine, the one so powerful that the patient had to be in perfect health to take it!"