12-QAQC Insertion Rate-Is There An Industry Standard-V6.7

QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an
Industry Standard?
Dr. Armando Simn, P.Geo.
Geoexmin SpA
Sesin 12. Tasa de insercin de muestras de control:

existe un estndar de la industria?
Simn, A., 2007. QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an Industry Standard? The Association of Applied Geochemistry.
23rd International Applied Geochemistry Symposium (IAGS), Oviedo, Spain, 14-19 June 2007.
General Trends in QA/QC Programs
Before Bre-X
Usually lacking, or with insufficient coverage , even

when run by major companies
After Bre-X
Strict policies implemented by regulatory bodies

Increasing interest from exploration and mining
companies
Reaction of Companies to Actual
Implementation
From Management
Shock, or even anger, for proportional increase in

handling, preparation and analytical costs
From Geologists
Reluctance in implementation due to increased

organizational requirements
3
NI 43-101 Quality Requirements
All written information of scientific or technical nature,

related to mining projects, should:
Specify whether a Qualified Person verified the data on

which this information is based, including sampling,
analysis and tests
Describe the QA/QC program
Describe the nature and limitation of the verification
Explain any problem encountered during data
verification
4
JORC Code Quality Requirements
A Competent Person report should:
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
5
Control Sample Insertion Rate
Not clearly defined by regulatory bodies
Best Practice left to the latitude of Qualified or

Competent Persons
Hence: frequent source of argument between QA/QC

specialists and project management/geologists
6
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 (1998)
Is There an Industry Standard for Control
Sample Insertion?
AMEC inquired four sources:
International QA/QC consultants

SEDAR-filed technical reports
Information published by exploration and mining
companies
Documents from regulatory organizations
International QA/QC Consultants (1)
Source Details Suggested

Proportion of
Control Samples
Rogers (1998) Duplicates, standards, blanks: one in twenty; external Approx. 20%
checks: 5%
Valle (1998) 10% duplicate plus standards, a somewhat lower Approx. 15% (?)
figure for rock sampling (?)
Neuss (1998) 2%-5% field duplicates, 2%-5% coarse duplicates, Approx. 19% to 25%
5%-10% internal pulp duplicates, 5%-10%
external pulp duplicates, plus one standard and
one blank in every submission
Long (1998, 2000) 5% coarse reject duplicates, 5% pulp duplicates, 5% Approx. 21%
standards, one blank per batch (approx. 3%),
check assays, a portion of the pulp duplicates
(3%)
International QA/QC Consultants (2)
Source Details Suggested

Proportion of
Control Samples
Sketchley (1999) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one Approx. 20%

standard, one duplicate; in addition, all
pulp duplicates should be re-assayed at
check lab
Bloom (1999) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one Approx. 20%
standard; in addition, sending one in ten
sample pulps to an umpire lab
Lomas (2004) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one Approx. 25%
standard, one coarse duplicate and one
pulp duplicate; in addition, 5% of the
pulps should be re-assayed at check lab
(including SRM)
SEDAR-Filed Technical Reports (1)
Porcupine Project, Canada (GoldCorp): Coarse rejects: 5%;

coarse blanks: 5%: pulp duplicates: 5%; standards, 5%; check
samples: 5% (Total: 25%)
Modder East Load Project, South Africa (sxr Uranium One Inc.
and Aflease Gold Ltd.): Coarse blanks: 2%; standards, 9%; pulp
duplicates: 11%; check samples: 2% (Total: 23%)
Perama Hill Project, Greece (Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation):
Duplicates, 10%; other control samples: 9% (Total, approx.
19%)
Nuestra Seora, Mexico (Scorpio Mining 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%)
Mirador Project, Ecuador (Corriente Resources): Coarse

duplicates: 5%; pulp duplicates: 5%; standards: 5% (Total:
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
General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
assays)
In most cases, particular sample subtypes are ignored
Insertion 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)
Carpathian Gold (Colnic, Romania): Coarse blanks, 5%;

standards, 4%; Check samples, 20% (before AMECs
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% ?)
GlobeStar Mining. Regular practice: Duplicates: 4%;

standards, 4%; blanks, 4%; check samples, 4% (Total:
16%)
Cambridge Mineral Resources: blanks, 5%; duplicates,
5%; standards; 5% (Total: 15%)
Scorpio Mining Corporation (Nuestra Seora, Mexico):
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)
General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

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
Setting New Standards (TSE-OSC, 1999):
A sample batch of 20 samples should include a duplicate

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)
In 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
Sample Type Label Insertion Sample Type

Frequency
Twin Samples* TS 2%
Coarse CD 2%
Duplicates (6%)
Duplicates*
Pulp Duplicates* PD 2%
Standards* STD 6% Standards (6%)
Coarse Blanks* CB 2%
Blanks (4%)
Pulp Blanks* PB 2%
Check Samples** CS 4% Check Samples (4%)
*To be assayed at the primary laboratory

** To be assayed at the secondary laboratory
Conclusions (1)
A general agreement appears to exist between the

consulted sources (international consultants, SEDAR-filed
technical reports, published company information and
documents from regulatory bodies) about an average
recommended insertion rate of control samples of
approximately 20%
Most 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 QA/QC program
Conclusions (2)
In many of the studied examples, only one standard was

included in the QA/QC program; when various standards
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 QA/QC program
would represent, in average, an increase of 1% to 2% of
the total exploration costs
Recommendations
It is essential that QA/QC 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.
The QA/QC 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 QA/QC
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 obtaining high quality

data is negligible when compared to the
value impact of using low quality data

12-QAQC Insertion Rate-Is There An Industry Standard-V6.7

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

12-QAQC Insertion Rate-Is There An Industry Standard-V6.7

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an

Sesin 12. Tasa de insercin de muestras de control:

Usually lacking, or with insufficient coverage , even

Strict policies implemented by regulatory bodies

Shock, or even anger, for proportional increase in

Reluctance in implementation due to increased

All written information of scientific or technical nature,

Specify whether a Qualified Person verified the data on

A Competent Person report should:

Describe the nature, quality and appropriate selection

Not clearly defined by regulatory bodies

Best Practice left to the latitude of Qualified or

Hence: frequent source of argument between QA/QC

So-called widely accepted or industry standards

AMEC inquired four sources:

International QA/QC consultants

Source Details Suggested

Source Details Suggested

Sketchley (1999) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one Approx. 20%

Porcupine Project, Canada (GoldCorp): Coarse rejects: 5%;

Mirador Project, Ecuador (Corriente Resources): Coarse

HC Property, Nevada (J-Pacific Gold): 5% twin samples, 5%;

Pueblo Viejo, Dominican Republic (Placer Dome): 10% of

General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

Carpathian Gold (Colnic, Romania): Coarse blanks, 5%;

GlobeStar Mining. Regular practice: Duplicates: 4%;

General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

Setting New Standards (TSE-OSC, 1999):

A sample batch of 20 samples should include a duplicate

Sample Type Label Insertion Sample Type

Check Samples** CS 4% Check Samples (4%)

*To be assayed at the primary laboratory

A general agreement appears to exist between the

In many of the studied examples, only one standard was

It is essential that QA/QC programs are comprehensive, including

The cost impact of obtaining high quality

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen