Source : AUSIMM MONOGRAPH23
Classification of results
One of the major judgements the Competent Person or Persons
(as defined in the Code (JORC, 1999 and republished in this
volume)) has to make is how to classify the results (Stephenson
and Stoker, this volume). In Australasia, the JORC Code
provides definitions and guidelines; however, each situation is
unique and needs to be dealt with on its own merits. An important
point to bear in mind is that there is nothing in the JORC
Code which requires classification to be a complicated
process or to be based on a particular procedure such as the use
of statistical data available from a block model estimation
method (increasingly, industry appears to be becoming fixed
on the latter as if it were somehow mandatory). As long as it is
carried out by a Competent Person and takes into account inter
alia confidence in continuity of geology and metal values in
conjunction with the quality, quantity and distribution of the
data on which the Mineral Resource estimate is based, the
resulting classification should be in accordance with the JORC
Code.
It is also important to appreciate that the main reason for
tonnage and grade estimates being classified is to provide
company executives and others making mining investment
decisions with a basis for assessing relative risk. It is useful,
indeed essential, to bear this in mind when classifying Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves.
Both Resource/Reserve estimators and users of resource/
reserve estimates should appreciate that the category of
Measured does not imply 100 per cent knowledge of the
Mineral Resource or 100 per cent confidence in the estimate. It
is a category for which, inter alia, ‘.... any variation from the
estimate would not significantly affect potential economic
viability’ (JORC, 1999). Likewise, the category of Indicated is
one for which, inter alia, ‘Confidence in the estimate is sufficient
to allow the appropriate application of technical and
economic parameters and to enable an evaluation of economic
viability’.
Classification can be a demanding task which requires the
Competent Person(s) to consider many factors. A technique
which one of the authors has found useful in focusing the mind
when making classification decisions is to try to imagine the
effect which additional sampling data (usually infill drilling)
might have on the tonnage, grade, shape and location of the
mineralised bodies (Stephenson, 1994). Geostatistical estimation
variance studies can be a useful input to such a process,
because the impact of additional drilling on confidence in grade
estimation is then quantifiable (for a case study, see
Humphreys and Srivastava, 1997).
