The Risks in Fundamentals of Recoverable Resource Models

Sampling and geological models are the basis of recoverable resources models. They are pillars of mineral resources and reserves estimation, and what geostatistical methods for grade estimation should rely upon. The resource model is best estimated if geostatistical methods make good use of sound geologic models. Data collection from the original drill holes, including field procedures and the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of those samples are pillar one of a resource model. The second pillar of the model is the good use of the logged geological information, resulting robust geological interpretations, and the corresponding three-dimensional models of those interpretations. These models are partly subjective and mostly conditioned by the quality of logging and the geologist’s experience. They are also conditioned by the quality of the three-dimensional models built, regardless of the modeling method employed, traditional or implicit. Grade estimation is more commonly done by applying some geostatistical method and using the two basic sources of information, data and geologic model. Multiple stages are involved in this process, and in all of them there are uncertainties and risks that have to be dealt with. Knowledge, understanding, interpretation, and management of the model’s fundamentals are critical, given that they directly affect its accuracy and predictive quality. The mitigation of related risks allows for the creation of opportunities, generating value and reducing the project’s uncertainty. This paper discusses some of the key variables, uncertainties, and risks involved in the resource modeling process, illustrating with specific examples; discusses possible risk mitigation alternatives, and proposes best practices to avoid or mitigate those uncertainties. Emphasis is placed on taking advantage of technological advances without ignoring fundamentals. INTRODUCTION In the area of mineral resource estimation, one alarming trend that these authors have observed in the past 20 years or so is that the care and diligence in checking the work as it progresses has generally diminished. This is, perhaps, an unintended consequence of the availability of new technologies and tools that attempt simplify and speed up the work involved. This has led to a more casual attitude towards checks and balances that have to be in place at any given stage of the process before proceeding to subsequent stages, as best practices dictate. To some extent, some of these aspects are covered in international standards for resource estimates reporting (JORC, 2012; CIM, 2010). But these are broad, and do not specifically recommend best practices to a level of detail that would have an impact on certain aspects of the process. There are numerous references in the geology and mining journals and conferences that discuss the consequences of poor recoverable resource models (Baker and Giacomo, 1998; Vaughan, 1997).