Jim, I may be intolerant in this, but I do not accept software limitations as justification for making policy decisions. There should be no reason why you cannot flag the 'dummy' blocks as inferred.
> Related to this, is what I term the 'salt& pepper' > problem. If blocks are > assigned a classification based on individual > parameters, it can result in > a mosaic of Inferred, Indicated and Measured blocks. It is possible to classify your resources on the basis of larger units than those used to (say) optimise an open pit. Anglo-American, for example, generally use the forst two or three year's production as a single unit and classify that as proven/probable etc reserves. A mosaic of differently classified blocks is, surely, an indication that the overall sampling is inadequate to characterise the deposit. > I am very pleased to see this topic raised as some > guidelines are long overdue. I'm sure we all welcome this extension to the current debate. Perhaps it should be pointed out that Steve Henley has been running a 'chat' facility for almost two years on the same topic and getting little response. Isobel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- * To post a message to the list, send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * As a general service to the users, please remember to post a summary of any useful responses to your questions. * To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with no subject and "unsubscribe ai-geostats" followed by "end" on the next line in the message body. DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list * Support to the list is provided at http://www.ai-geostats.org
