QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an

Industry Standard? Industry Standard? Industry Standard? Industry Standard?

Armando Simn
AMEC International (Chile) S.A.
Before Bre-X
Usually lacking, or with insufficient coverage , even
General Trends in QAJQC Programs
Usually lacking, or with insufficient coverage , even
when run by major companies
After Bre-X
Strict policies implemented by regulatory bodies
!ncreasing interest from exploration and mining
companies
Slide 1
From Management
Reaction of Companies to Actual
Implementation
Shock, or even anger, for proportional increase in
handling, preparation and analytical costs
From Geologists
Reluctance in implementation due to increased
organizational requirements
Slide 2
All written information of scientific or technical nature,
related to mining projects, should:
NI 43-101 Quality Requirements
Specify whether a Qualified Person verified the data on
which this information is based, including sampling,
analysis and tests
Describe the QAfQC program
Describe the nature and limitation of the verification
Explain any problem encountered during data
verification
Slide 3
A Competent Person report should:
Describe the nature, quality and appropriate selection
JORC Code Quality Requirements
Describe the nature, quality and appropriate selection
of sampling and analytical procedures
Describe the quality control procedures, including the
insertion of standards, blanks, duplicates and external
checks
Assess the accuracy and precision levels attained
during the project
Slide +
Control Sample Insertion Rate Control Sample Insertion Rate
Not clearly defined by regulatory bodies
Slide 5
Best Practice left to the latitude of Qualified or
Competent Persons
Hence: frequent source of argument between QAfQC
specialists and project managementfgeologists
"So-called 'widely accepted' or 'industry standards'
What an Industry Standard is? What an Industry Standard is?
"So-called 'widely accepted' or 'industry standards'
practices most neither be confused with 'best
practices' nor with standards. There are many
procedures widely accepted by the mining industry
that are adequate in some situations but inadequate in
others. Moreover, such acceptance is not universal."
Rogers {199S)
Slide 6
AMEC inquired four sources:
Is There an Industry Standard for Control Is There an Industry Standard for Control
Sample Insertion? Sample Insertion?
!nternational QAfQC consultants
SEDAR-filed technical reports
!nformation published by exploration and mining
companies
Documents from regulatory organizations
Slide 7
International QAJQC Consultants International QAJQC Consultants {1) {1)
Source Details Suggested
Proportion of
Control Samples
Rogers (1998) Duplicates, standards, blanks: one in twenty; external
checks: 5
Approx. 20
checks: 5
valle (1998) 10 duplicate plus standards, a `somewhat lower
figure' for rock sampling (?)
Approx. 15 (?)
Neuss (1998) 2-5 field duplicates, 2-5 coarse duplicates,
5-10 internal pulp duplicates, 5-10
external pulp duplicates, plus one standard and
one blank in every submission
Approx. 19 to 25
Long (1998, 2000) 5 coarse reject duplicates, 5 pulp duplicates, 5
standards, one blank per batch (approx. 3),
check assays, a portion of the pulp duplicates
(3)
Approx. 21
Slide 8
International QAJQC Consultants {2) International QAJQC Consultants {2)
Source Details Suggested
Proportion of
Control Samples
Sketchley (1999) !n a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one Approx. 20 Sketchley (1999) !n a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one
standard, one duplicate; in addition, all
pulp duplicates should be re-assayed at
check lab
Approx. 20
Bloom (1999) !n a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one
standard; in addition, sending one in ten
sample pulps to an umpire lab
Approx. 20
Lomas (200+) !n a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one
standard, one coarse duplicate and one
pulp duplicate; in addition, 5 of the
pulps should be re-assayed at check lab
(including SRN)
Approx. 25
Slide 9
SEDAR SEDAR- -Filed Technical Reports {1) Filed Technical Reports {1)
Porcupine Project, Canada (GoldCorp): Coarse rejects: 5;
coarse blanks: 5: pulp duplicates: 5; standards, 5; check
samples: 5 (Total: 25)
Nodder East Load Project, South Africa (sxr Uranium One !nc.
Slide 10
Nodder East Load Project, South Africa (sxr Uranium One !nc.
and Aflease Gold Ltd.): Coarse blanks: 2; standards, 9; pulp
duplicates: 11; check samples: 2 (Total: 23)
Perama Hill Project, Greece (Frontier Pacific Nining Corporation):
Duplicates, 10; other control samples: 9 (Total, approx.
19)
Nuestra Senora, Nexico (Scorpio Nining Corporation): Coarse
duplicates, 2.5; standards+blanks, 2.5; pulp duplicates, 5;
pulp check samples, 5; coarse reject check samples, 2.5
(Total: 17.5)
SEDAR SEDAR- -Filed Technical Reports {2) Filed Technical Reports {2)
Nirador Project, Ecuador (Corriente Resources): Coarse
duplicates: 5; pulp duplicates: 5; standards: 5 (Total:
15)
Slide 11
15)
HC Property, Nevada (J-Pacific Gold): 5 twin samples, 5;
coarse duplicates, 5; pulp duplicates, 5 (Total: 15)
Pueblo viejo, Dominican Republic (Placer Dome): 10 of
standards and blanks
SEDAR SEDAR- -Filed Technical Reports {3) Filed Technical Reports {3)
General trend: + to 5 insertion rate for each type of
control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
Slide 12
control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
assays)
!n most cases, particular sample subtypes are ignored
!nsertion rate less than 17 only when check assays are
not included
An acceptable average is approximately 18, with minor
differences in some particular types of samples
Exploration and Mining Companies {1) Exploration and Mining Companies {1)
Carpathian Gold (Colnic, Romania): Coarse blanks, 5;
standards, +; Check samples, 20 (before ANEC's
Technical Report in 2006) (Total: 29)
Slide 13
Technical Report in 2006) (Total: 29)
African Copper (Dukwe Project, Botswana): approx. 20
control samples
Aurelian Resources, FDN epithermal Au-Ag: Standards,
duplicates and blanks, 15; in addition, samples from
significant drill intercepts are sent to two reference
laboratories (Total: 18 ?)
Exploration and Mining Companies {2) Exploration and Mining Companies {2)
GlobeStar Nining. Regular practice: Duplicates: +;
standards, +; blanks, +; check samples, + (Total:
16)
Cambridge Nineral Resources: blanks, 5; duplicates,
Slide 1+
Cambridge Nineral Resources: blanks, 5; duplicates,
5; standards; 5 (Total: 15)
Scorpio Nining Corporation (Nuestra Senora, Nexico):
coarse duplicates, 2.5; standards, 2.5; check assays:
5 pulps, 2.5 coarse rejects (Total: 12.5)
Belvedere Resources: 12 control samples (only
standards, blanks and duplicates)
Exploration and Mining Companies {3) Exploration and Mining Companies {3)
General trend: + to 5 insertion rate for each type of
control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
Slide 15
control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
assays)
With the exception of Scorpio, the insertion rate is less
than 16 only when check assays are not included
An acceptable average is approximately 20, with minor
differences in some particular types of samples
Regulatory Bodies Regulatory Bodies
Setting New Standards {TSE-OSC, 1999):
A sample batch of 20 samples should include a duplicate
sample, a coarse blank, and a standard
Slide 16
sample, a coarse blank, and a standard
Previously assayed pulps should be re-submitted to the
same lab (rate not stated) and to another lab as check
assays (rate not stated)
!n conclusion: the first three control samples represent an
overall 15 insertion rate; additional pulp re-assays
(internal and external to the primary lab), probably add
5, to a total close to 20
A Typical Example A Typical Example
Sample Type Label Insertion
Frequency
Sample Type
Twin Samples* TS 2
Coarse CD 2
Slide 21
Duplicates {6%)
Coarse
Duplicates*
CD 2
Pulp Duplicates* PD 2
Standards* STD 6
Standards {6%)
Coarse Blanks* CB 2
Blanks {4%)
Pulp Blanks* PB 2
Check Samples** CS +
Check Samples {4%)
*To be assayed at the primary laboratory
** To be assayed at the secondary laboratory
Conclusions {1) Conclusions {1)
A general agreement appears to exist between the
consulted sources (international consultants, SEDAR-filed
technical reports, published company information and
Slide 17
technical reports, published company information and
documents from regulatory bodies) about an average
recommended insertion rate of control samples of
approximately 20
Nost companies do not differentiate the duplicate subtypes
(twin samples, coarse and pulp duplicates) or blank
subtypes (coarse and pulp blanks), all of them with
different functions in a comprehensive QAfQC program
Conclusions {2) Conclusions {2)
!n many of the studied examples, only one standard was
included in the QAfQC program; when various standards
were considered, sometimes there was no correlation
Slide 18
were considered, sometimes there was no correlation
between the grade levels of the standards and the actual
sample grades, or between their sample matrices. A
common situation was using standards with below-cut-off
values, or even with close-to-detection-limit levels
The implementation of a comprehensive QAfQC program
would represent, in average, an increase of 1 to 2 of
the total exploration costs
Recommendations Recommendations
!t is essential that QAfQC programs are comprehensive, including
all types and subtypes of control samples, so that precision,
accuracy and possible contamination at the various points in the
sampling-preparation-assaying sequence are properly assessed.
Slide 19
sampling-preparation-assaying sequence are properly assessed.
The QAfQC program should be tailored to the specific needs of
the project. Whereas an overall insertion rate of 20 can be in
principle recommended, the individual proportions of the various
types of control samples should reflect the problems with higher
probability of occurrence. With the advance of the QAfQC
program and the identification and correction of those problems,
the amounts and relative proportions of control samples can be
adjusted accordingly.
Final Reflection
The cost impact of The cost impact of obtaining high quality obtaining high quality
data data is negligible when compared to the is negligible when compared to the
value impact of value impact of using low quality data using low quality data
Slide 20