RESOURCES and RESERVES

UNFC CLASSIFICATION
Problems and case histories

Marek NIEĆ
UNECE Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Harmonization of
Fossil Energy and Mineral Resources Terminology
Fifth Session, 15-16 April 2008

Mineral and Energy Economy Research Insitute

Polish Academy of Science
 Presented proposals are based on
experience and the best practise of
resources/reserves evaluation of deposits
of varied size and geological setting:
135 coal and 76 lignite
82 oil and 258 gas
14 Cu , 21 Zn-Pb, 4 Ni ores
12 sulphur
19 rock salt
> 1000 varied industrial rocks
T UNFC as universal “umbrella system” to other
resources and reserves classification systems
should :
− consider the application of resources and
reserves data for different purposes,
− be compatible with the procedure of
• resources and reserve evaluation and allow to
classify estimated amounts at any step of
valuation process,
− allow clear presentation of data on
amounts in place or as recoverable, if such
data are required.
The main problems of UNFC utilization:

1. Presentation of amounts in place and

recoverable

2. Subdivision of E axis

3. Subdivsion of G axis
 The use of terms:
“resources” and “reserves”
is not applicable as two separate in some
languages

In the case of solid mineral commodities

reserves as recoverable amounts are
evaluated at prefeasibility study and
opportunit sudy stages as expected
 the use of E1 for reserves
E2 for resources

can make confusion and

misunderstanding of presented data
and make them uncompatible.
 Such inconvenience could be removed by
introduction of additional symbol to each code of
particular resources and reserves classes denoting if
they represent ammounts in place or recoverable.
It may be additional letter e.g.
P- in place, R –recoverable.

121(P) – amounts in place,

121(R) - amounts recoverable.
 Subdivision of E axis

The term “economic” is used in very narrow

sense, when economic value of reserves is
confirmed or can be anticipated with the high
certainty.
It is possible at feasibility study stage only.
 At prefeasibility study and opportunity study stages
the probable or supposed economic value of
resources/reserves may be forecasted as opposing to
the marginal economic or evidently subeconomic
resources.
At the opportunity study stage such forecasts may be
based on natural features of deposit and evaluation of
its technical mineability.

The definitions of E2 category is not sufficient and

clear enough in such case.
We propose changes of definitions on E axis:

general definition of E 1 and E2 remain

unchanged

subdefinitions of E 2.2 move to E 3

change definition of E 3
E3 – Extraction and sale is not economic on the basis
of realistic assumption on future market
or enivronmental restraints
E 3.1 Extraction and sale is not economic on the basis of
realistic assumption on future market conditions
and eventual economic extraction would require
substantial improvement in market conditions
E 3.2 Extraction and sale is not economic or impossible
due to environmental limitations or economic
viability has not yet been determined
 Subdivision of G axis
Degree of knowledge of deposit features is
expressed by subdivision to
prospecting/exploration stages

admissible error limits

for resources/ reserves
(at 0,9 confidence level)

G4 – („reconaissance”) >40 %
G3 – („prospecting”) 30 – 40 %
G2- („general exploration”) 20 – 30 %
G1- („detailed exploration”) 10 – 20 %
 CONFIDENCE OF ESIMATES

Depends on:

1. not measurable factors such as data on

geological structure of deposit, its
boundaries, hydrogeological, geotechnical
features etc.
2. accuracy of resources/reserves evaluation
quantity

.
The both
criteria of subdivision should be combined i.e.
the prospecting/exploration stages and
confidence (accuracy) of resources/reserves
quantity estimates at each stage
Accuracy of resources/reserves data are
expressed as possible error limits of its
estimates
(calculated with the use of simple probabilistic,
geostatistic or Monte Carlo method).

It is presented as “low” (proved),

“best” (probable) or “high” (possible)
resources/reserves quantity
 Proposed subdivision of G axis:
G1 –Quantities associated with a known deposit which
geological features are recognized with the high level
of confidence
G 1.1 proved amounts estimated so, that is at least 90 %
probability that quantities existing will equal or
exceed this estimate
G 1.2 probable amounts estimated so, that is at least 50%
probability that quantities existing will equal or
exceed this estimate
G1.3 possible amounts estimated so, that is at least 10 %
probability that quantities existing will equal or
exceed this estimate
 G2 - Quantities associated with a known deposit which
geological features are recognized with the moderate
level of confidence
can be subdivided to
G2.1, G2.2 and G2.3
(low, best and high respectively)

Subdivision of G3 and G4 to G 3.1, G 3.2, G 3.3

and G 4.1, G4.2 and G 4.3 is possible in some cases
but could be not recommended

In the case of solid minerals the “best” estimates is commonly

used.
 Case histories

DB – Coal deposit
(Upper Silesia, Poland)

24 coal seams
DB
 Reserves (in place and recoverable) are estimated in
four steps:

1. delineation of resources supposed economic that

are technically mineable with the proposed mining
method,
2. delineation of resources technically mineable and
economically feasible,
− 3. estimation of resources that could be transformed
to reserves (reserves in place),
− 4. estimation of reserves.
BITUMINOUS (BLACK) COAL DEPOSIT
(Upper Carboniferous)
 Resources and reserves are valuated with the use of uniform
criteria for their delineation
Coal deposit feature Parameter value
Resources Reserves
1 Maximum depth [m] 1400 1400
2 Minimum coal seam thickness 1 1,5
[m] (subeconomic
0,6- 1)
3 Minimum coal calorific value 15 23
in seam with barren interlayers
[MJ/kg]
4 Maximum total sulphur content 2 2
[%] (>2
subecomic)
 213

313

312 112

212

Coal seam 404/9

Thickness 0,8 – 1,9
av. 1,45
Coal seam 404/9
Resources/reserves [t.t]
in place recoverable losted
112 low(90) 9236 8151
best(50) 11545 10189 1056
high(10) 13854 12227
212 best 14960
213 best 2206
312+313 best 2392

Relative possible error of estimate at 0,9 confidence level:

nn2 20 %
nn3 29 %
 Resources –reserves relationship

1. Faults, 2 – boundary of mining field, 3 – adit, 4- designed longwall

field- recoverable reserves 5 –lost resources
 213 313

112 212

Coal seam 409/3

Thickness 0,7 – 2,4
av. 1,43
Coal seam 409/3
Resources/reserves [t.t]
in place recoverable losted
112 low(90) 5074 1731
best(50) 6343 2438 3905
high(10) 7612 3145
212 low 2158
best 3039
high 3920
213 low 1872
best 2340
high 2808
313 low 7810
best 11000
high 14190
 212

112

212

112 Coal seam 405

thickness 1,9 – 7,8
av. 3.6
„DB” – Coal deposit
Resources/reserves [t.t]
in place recoverable losted
112 low 132520 88065
best 165651 110082 55569
high 198781 132098
113 low 4211 1752
best 5931 2468 3463
high 7651 3184
212 low 264529
best 330662
high 396794
213 low 18545
best 26120
high 33695
 L-M-G Oil and gas deposit

in Upper Permian reef dolomites

SW NE

water saturation

porosity
 222

112
+212 +212

112
233
Recoverable resources/reserves
L deposit oil [t.t] gas [m.m3]

112 low(90) 3485,71 1988,2

best(50) 4357,1 2485,2
high(10) 5228,52 2982,2
212 low 832,63
best 1040,79
high 1248,95
 M deposit oil [t.t] gas [m.m3]
112 low 1921,27
best 2401,59
high 2881,91
212 Low 1699,18
best 2124,02
high 2548,24

G deposit
222 low(90) 1321,59 709,61
best(50) 1826,48 958,93
high(10) 230136 1208,25