Hello
List,
Ok, I
have discovered the true source of the discrepancy in the total sulphide count.
I was able to do this after Bob Sandfurs reply prompted me to revisit the
database and look at the stoichiometry, and David Reids email confirmed Bobs
suggestions.
Firstly, I should point out that I was incorrect
about the Zn.Pb and Fe limiting values used in the estimation : these are
in fact high yield limits that apply to samples that lie outside a
nominated high yield search ellipsoid (different to the classic sample search
ellipsoid). So, if values greater than this limit occur, and they lie inside
that high yield ellipsoid, they will get used, and this is exactly what has
happened.
Now,
when examining the database, I have found that there are Fe assays that are
greater than 46.6%. ALL of these assays are located
in the areas where the total sulphide summation discrepancies occur. The high Fe
content here is due to the occurrence of several iron oxides (note oxides) such
as haematite and limonite, where the Fe content is greater than
46.6%.
Thus,
the real problem here is the way that the total sulphides are calculated -
nothing more. Remember that the the basic assumption is that all Fe comes
from pyrite - it is now clear that this assumption is flawed, and I need to
address it.
Thanks
for all the help,
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Badenhorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 August 2005 12:58
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ai-geostats] Sum of Estimates
From: Colin Badenhorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 August 2005 12:58
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ai-geostats] Sum of Estimates
Dear
List,
I have a rather
interesting problem with my Kriged estimates for a base metal mine. I am
estimating Zn, Pb and Fe, as percentage, the sum of which should total to
no more than 100% total sulphides.
All Zn comes from
sphalerite (ZnS) at 0.671 proportion. Sphalerite SG
= 3.80
All Pb comes from
galena (PbS) at 0.866 proportion. Galena SG = 7.40
All Fe comes from
pyrite (FeS2) at 0.466 proportion. Pyrite SG
= 4.80
Total Sulphides =
(Zn estimate x 1.4903) + (Pb estimate x 1.1547) + (Fe x
2.1459)
What I have
discovered is that I have areas in which the total sulphides are greater than
100% - with very few exceptions, the total is no more than 105% total
sulphide.
My
estimation domains for Zn and Pb are well constrained and
validated, and the variogram models and estimation parameters are
robust, and have been tested and validated to ensure they match the
geological expectations. My domains for Fe are less well constrained but
the variogram models are robust, as are the estimation parameters, and
these also match the geological expectation. So, at the time of the estimation,
there was very little I could do to improve on these. The estimation database
(composited drillhole samples) have upper data value limits (or cut-offs if you
wish to use that terminology) imposed on them such that :
Zn > 40% is never
used to estimate a block
Pb > 10% is never
used to estimate a block
Fe > 46.6% is
never used to estimate a block
Thus, there is no
combination of Zn, Pb and Fe in the estimation database that totals more
than 100% total sulphide
The areas with the
anomalous (erroneous?) total sulphide summation all correlate, without
fail, to areas of thick ore with very dominant pyrite content - there are
individual blocks scattered across the mine that buck this trend. This leads me
to suspect that the Fe estimates may be erroneous, or simply speaking, the Fe
content is being overestimated, hence the total sulphide count exceeds the
theoretical limit.
The only solution
to this problem is modifying the Fe variograms and estimation parameters,
but currently, in my judgment, there is nothing I can modify that would
lead to better variograms or estimation parameters. Of course there may be
blocks where the total sulphide is actually underestimated, but that is
impossible to determine, so the overestimates may balance the underestimates in
which case there is no bias, but that needs to be tested.
Has anyone heard of
similar issues on other base metal mines? In the absence of revisiting the
estimation parameters, is there anything I can do to realistically address this
issue?
Regards,
Colin
* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm )
* To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signoff ai-geostats
* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm ) * To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signoff ai-geostats
