Machine Translated by Google
Society of Economic Geologists
SP3, 2012, p. 061–069
Chapter IV
Geometry (Volume)
Introduction
ALTHOUGH it may seem like belaboring the obvious, any reserve
estimate begins with an assessment of the size and shape of the
orebody. This step is self-evident, but gross errors in reserve
estimation can often be traced to an erroneous view of the size or
shape of the deposit in question.
The overall volume of an orebody is defined by the outer limits of
economic mineralization—the contacts between ore and waste. As
discussed by Ristorcelli and Prenn (1994), there are essentially three
types of contact involved in resource and reserve estimation:
geological, mineralogical, and economic, all of which must be
considered in the evaluation of any given deposit. Depending on the
specific deposit, the three types may or may not coincide, and the
nature and predictability of each may vary considerably.
Types of Contacts
Geologic contacts
These contacts (the primary limits of Vallée, 1992) define rock
types, and are the contacts normally depicted on geo logic maps.
They include lithologic and formation bound aries, fault surfaces and
the like, and may or may not control or limit the mineralization of
interest. In general, geological contacts are fixed in space and do not
change with time.
mineralogic contacts
A mineralogical contact, as the name implies, defines the limit of
a mineral species or of a mineral domain consisting of a single,
distinct population of some characteristic mineral assemblage (ie, an
ore type), and in the context of resource and reserve estimation,
normally refers to the limit of the occurrence of significant
concentrations of the mineral(s) or metal(s) of interest. In general,
mineralogical contacts define the limits of the geological resource,
rather than those of an economic reserve. Note that a mineralogical
contact may or may not coincide with a geologic boundary, and may
or may not coincide with an economic cutoff. Min eralogic contacts
may be gradational, and the inferred position of a specific contact
may vary with different estimators.
Economic contacts
An economic cutoff represents the limit of economically profitable
material, and thus constitutes the outer limits of the orebody sensu
stricto (the assay wall or sec ondary limit of Vallée, 1992). As such,
it may not run spond to either the geologic or mineralogical contacts
within the area of the deposit, and quite frequently includes only a
portion of the volume of material defined by the miner
61
alogic contact. In many deposits, the economic contact may include
more than one mineralogical ore type, each of which has distinct
characteristics, and as previously discussed, must be estimated
separately. The position of an economic contact at any given instant
obviously depends on both commodity prices and operating costs,
and although fixed in space given a specific set of operational
parameters, will vary with time.
Figure IV-1, adapted from Ristorcelli and Prenn (1994) illustrates
the relationship of the three contact types within a single deposit. In
many instances, the projectability of each contact surface between
any two known points (and hence the definition of the enclosed
volume) becomes increasingly difficult as one proceeds from
geological to mining eralogic to economic boundaries.
With any of the three contact types, a critical feature in any reserve
estimate is an assessment of the continuity of that contact between
known data points, and many of the most spectacular errors in
reserve estimation arise through mistaken assumptions regarding
the continuity of mineralization, and hence a mistaken view of the
geometry of the deposit. The type of interpretation indicated in Figure
IV-2, taken from Noble (1992b) is, unfortunately, based on real life
examples (eg, Ristorcelli and Prenn, 1994).
A reserve estimate based on the geology as interpreted, would
not only be wildly optimistic, but would also lead to an inappropriate
mine plan. The interpreted deposit would be amenable to an open
pit operation. The actual deposit might not be economically mineable
at all.
The above may be an extreme example, but significant changes
in the volume of ore can result from such relatively simple errors as
an incorrect assumption regarding the attitude of the deposit. The
volume, and hence the tonnage and the overall gold content of the
Laurel Lake deposit was overestimated by a factor of 1.4 simply
because the strike of the veins was 45° rather than 90° to the
interpreted true thickness direction (Healey, 1992).
Geologic Control
Again quoting from King et al. (1982, p. 13):
…it is the geological factor that has impressed itself on
us more and more as being the key deficiency where
serious weaknesses in ore reserve estimation have
appeared.
In this context, the “geological factor” refers not to the subtleties
of genesis, but rather to what is seemingly the simplest geological
question of all—where are the limits of the orebody?
Machine Translated by Google

62 stone and dunn

FIG. IV-1. Geologic, mineralogic, and economic contacts.

Ore Zone
(Interpreted)

drill hole
Pray Intercept

HOLE 1 HOLE 2 HOLE 3 HOLE 4

Ore Zone
(Current) drill hole
Pray Intercept
HOLE 1 HOLE 2 HOLE 3 HOLE 4

FIG.. IV-2. Interpreted ore zones based on drill hole contacts (above); actual ore zones have less tonnage and less con
tinuous shapes (below).

The shape and size of an orebody are largely controlled
by the geological factors associated with the mineralizing
process, and these factors, in turn, dictate the amount of
data that may be required to establish the size and shape of
the deposit. Obviously, the overall size of an orebody with a
strong geological continuity is easier to estimate than are
the size and shape of a highly variable deposit with obscure
geological control. Because the geological, mineralogical and
economic contacts largely match, the size and shape of a
sedimentary taconite-type iron deposit can often be reason
ably well defined with drill holes a thousand feet or more
apart, while a saddle reef gold quartz deposit, a roll-front
uranium occurrence, or a disseminated deposit with multiple
ore types and varying intensities of mineralization may
require hole spacings on the order of a few tens of feet to
establish size and shape with the same degree of reliability.
Continuity of Mineralization
The size and shape problem is essentially one of continuity
and projectability of geological, mineralogical, or eco
Machine Translated by Google
ORE RESERVE ESTIMATES IN THE REAL WORLD
nomic zones between data points, and the assumption of
continuity is probably the single most important assumption
in the entire estimation process. Although the Securi ties
Exchange Commission requires that proven and probable
reserves demonstrate a degree of assurance adequate
to assume continuity between points of observation (SEC
Guide no. 7), this assumption is frequently one of the least
questioned. The geologist too often simply connects the
top and bottom of the mineralized zone or economic con tact
in each of the holes on a given cross section, and
accepts the result as the probable position of the outlines of
the orebody on that section without further geological analysis.
The contacts may be transferred to intersecting sections
or to plan maps in order to reconcile differences in projection
between the sections, but the continuity or projectability of the
contacts themselves is seldom verified.
Quite clearly, an assessment of the continuity of any of
the three types of contact mentioned above carries with it
the assumption that the continuity of the material defined
by that contact (rock type, mineralogical population, ore
zone, etc.) is likewise under review. Figure IV-3, modified
from Lee (1989), illustrates the general relationship
between predictability (ie, continuity) and the lateral persistence
of mineralization (or any other geologic variable)
as measured by the range of the variogram, and the internal
uniformity of the mineralization as measured by the
ratio between the nugget and the sill of the variogram.
Although such an analysis may provide a qualitative
measure of the predictability, and hence the reliability of an
assumption of continuity for a given deposit, it is far more
difficult to assign a quantitative degree of assurance to the
Fundamental assumptions regarding continuity. A preliminary
evaluation of the continuity of mineralization (and the
reliability of projection) may be made by simply comparing
the projections between alternate holes in the drill pattern
(for example A1-C1 in Fig. IV-4) with the known situation
in the intermediate hole (B1 in this instance). Given the 50-
1.0
PREDICTABILITY
Nugget:
Ratio
Sill
poor
Difficult
0
good
GOOD
(100 X LAG)
Continuity (Range)
FIG. IV-3. Generalized relationship between deposit continuity and
predictability.
63
m hole spacing, two holes 100 meters apart correctly predict
the existence (or nonexistence) of ore at the midpoint
56 percent of the time. Of the 85 possible pairs, 26, or 31
percent of the projections, are indeterminate at the mid point:
one of the pair is ore and the other waste. The exercise could
be repeated using diagonal pairs (± 140-m spacing) and in
that instance, the incidence of correct
predictions drops to 49 percent, and the incidence of
indeterminate predictions rises to 38 percent. Needless to say,
the same technique can be used to evaluate the relative
reliability of projections of grade, position of contacts, thickness
of ore zone, and the like.
Geometric Analysis
At the Society of Mining Engineers meeting in Denver in
March 1995, Alan Noble presented a simple geometric
method of directly analyzing the probable degree of continuity
of mineralization (or any other geological parameter)
from the drilling or sampling data. Noble's technique is
simple and easy to understand, and permits examination of
the continuity of mineralization as a function of both cutoff
grade and sample (or drill hole) spacing. Unfortunately,
This work has not yet been published, but Noble has kindly
allowed us to incorporate his ideas into this discussion.
As pointed out by Noble (1992a), use of the variogram to
predict continuity of mineralization encounters several pit falls:
the variogram is independent of cutoff grade, the var iogram
is an average which ignores local nonstationarities,
and a variogram may not reveal complex trends. fourth
“problem” is that the subtleties and implications of variog
raphy analysis are not readily explainable to management
personnel who may have little or no technical training.
Noble's approach to a quantitative analysis of continuity
consists in subdividing the drilling (or sampling) data into
a series of triangles, with the sample points at the apices,
and subsequently determining the proportions or tonnages
of material represented by triangles whose apices consist of
varying mixtures of ore and waste, however defined (Fig.
IV-5); i.e., the overall proportion and spatial relationship of
triangles all three of whose apices consist of ore-grade (or
minimum grade and thickness) intersections, the proportion
with two ore and one waste intersection, etc. That portion of
the reserve consisting of “continuous” and “very
continuous” triangles can be considered as proven ore; tri
angles containing isolated intersections of waste should be
considered as containing a proportion of probable ore,
especially if bordering an area of proven ore. Similarly, tri
angles indicating isolated ore intersections in areas consisting
predominantly of waste, can only be considered as con taining
possible ore of uncertain location.
Figure IV-6 illustrates the results of applying this type of
analysis to a portion of the Cerro Matoso deposit at
progressively higher cutoff grades. Several features are
POOR
immediately obvious.
(0)
1. At the 1.5 percent Ni cutoff, 28 of the 68 triangles in
the drilling grid are of Type 3, and furthermore these tri angles
form a generally continuous band trending north
Machine Translated by Google

64 stone and dunn

PREDICTED CURRENT

Pair Top Bottom Thick %Ni Hole Top Bottom Thick %Ni
AC 110.9 63.1 47.8 1.35 B. 114.9 72.7 42.2 1.38
DB --- --- --- --- C. --- --- ---

ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE

Top Bottom Thick %Ni Top Bottom Thick %Ni

4.0 9.6 5.6 0.03 -4.0 -9.6 5.6 0.03
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

MEAN 5.2 8.8 11.5 0.13

SUM OF DIFFERENCES 1.4 -0.49

FIG. IV-4. Drill hole analysis.

west-southeast across the sample area. At this cutoff, it is
therefore safe to assume that this area probably represents
an area of continuous (and hence mineable) mineralization.
2. The area characterized by Type 3 triangles is bordered
by a halo of Type 2 triangles. In other words, all of the
area beyond the last known ore intersections can only be
considered as probable; ie, no projection of ore beyond
this point can be considered as proven. Since most of the
standard definitions of proven or imply the existence of
ore “beyond reasonable doubt”, and may include a specific
mining plan for any given area, it seems logical not to
include a subjective projection beyond the last known point
at which ore actually occurs, and to classify any such
projection as probable (or even possible).
3. At the 2.5 percent Ni cutoff, the area of contiguous
Type 3 triangles is essentially confined to the NW corner of
the sample area. The isolated type 3 triangles in the east
central portion of the drill pattern may represent local patches
of mineralization that may or may not be recoverable.
4. At the 3.5 percent Ni cutoff, the deposit has fragmented
into a series of isolated intersections that in all probability do
not form a continuous (and hence mineable) orebody.
One of the most important aspects of this type of analysis
is well illustrated by this last feature. As the cutoff grade is
raised, the proportion of proven ore drops dramatically,
and at some point the deposit disintegrates into scattered
patches of discontinuous mineralization that in all likely hood
will prove to be unminable. By providing a visual display of
the cutoff grade at which this disintegration occurs,
the method avoids the misconceptions engendered by the
usual simplistic grade-tonnage curve. Figure IV-7 is a
conventional grade-tonnage curve for this test area. Notice that
the curve alone suggests that roughly a quarter of the total
tonnage above a 1.5 percent Ni cutoff is comprised of
material containing more that 3.5 percent Ni, but ignores the
fact that at a 3.5 percent Ni cutoff, the deposit is essentially
unminable.
Similarly, given a deposit of finite size, the proportion of
“Proven” triangles will decrease as the drill hole (or sample)
spacing increases, and that relatively more of the sampled
area will consist of triangles at least one of whose
apices consists of waste. Again, it seems logical that an
increase in drilling or sampling density will result in
progressively higher percentages of “proven” ore.
Machine Translated by Google

ORE RESERVE ESTIMATES IN THE REAL WORLD 65

3 3 3 two two 3
two 3 3 3 two two 3 two

3 3 two 3 two
3 two

3 3 3 two two
3
two
TYPE 0 TYPE 2
continuous waste Isolated Waste two 2 3 3 3 3 two

23 two 22 3 3 3 3 two

two
3 two two 3 two 2
2 3 two two

TYPE 1 TYPE 3 TYPE 4

Cutoff = 1.5% Ni
Isolated Ore Continually Pray Very Continuous Pray

Waste pray
3 3 3 two two

FIG. IV-5. Triangles showing various proportions of gold and waste. two 3 3 3 two two two

3 two two 3 two

3 two

3 two two two two

3
two

Projectability of Contacts 2 two 3 3 two

two

Unfortunately, mine planning depends on the premise that two 22 two 3 3 two

a block of ground developed with the expectation that it 2 two 2

contains a certain tonnage of ore of a given grade will, in fact, 2
contain that tonnage. Clearly, there is a certain amount of
leeway built into most mining methods, and the grade control
program envisioned for the operation is designed to compensate Cutoff = 2.5% Ni
for minor changes in the position of the ore body as
development data becomes available, but it is virtu ally
impossible for any operation to overcome the effects of gross
3 two
errors in the assumed size, shape, or position of the deposit two

two two two

without additional capital investment. Quite obviously, no
amount of additional capital can “fix” the basic geology. two
two

two two two two

A large, uniform deposit will obviously lend itself better to two 3 two

low cost mining than will a narrow erratic one. Development two two two 2 two
two

drilling and sampling, mine development, and operational

grade control will all be more difficult and costly in the latter
instance. In addition, the amount of waste rock (dilution) sent
to the processing facility depends in large measure on the
predictability of the ore/waste contact, a subject that will be
more fully explored in a later chapter.
One approach to the verification of the projectability of the
contacts is the construction of structure contour plans of the
various surfaces in question. The process is particularly helpful
when the deposit has been tested by angle holes drilled at
various orientations, or when many of the vertical drill holes
are some distance away from the plane of a section. The
technique is somewhat more difficult to use with folded bedded
deposits. Structure contours are probably best suited for the
display of geologic contacts, but in some instances can be
used to help define mineralogical or economic contacts as
well. Major fault offsets (or the lack thereof) are usually
detectable. However, even minor dis placement along small
faults can seriously disrupt mining operations in bedded
deposits, and with widely spaced data points, the technique
may give a false sense of continuity (see Fig. IV-2). If at all
possible, structure contour plans should be checked by other
means.
2
2
Cutoff = 3.5% Ni
FIG. IV-6. Triangle grids showing three grades of gold. a. Cutoff = 1.5% Ni.
b. Cutoff = 2.5% Ni. c. Cutoff = 3.5% Ni.
Phantom Drill Holes
In many instances, the projectability (or predictability) of any
of the three types of contact can be checked by preparing sets
of intersecting sections between drill holes (especially vertical
holes drilled on a regular pattern). Such sections should not
intersect at a drill hole, but rather serve to create a “phantom”
hole based solely on projections from known data (Fig. IV-8).
Clearly, if the contacts of the deposit are, in fact, reasonably
predictable over distances equal to the drill hole spacing, and
if the geometry of the deposit is correctly understood, the two
sections will agree fairly well at the point of mutual intersection.
Similarly, it
Machine Translated by Google

66 stone and dunn

700

600

500

400

Thousand
Tons
300

200

100

0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Percent Nickel

FIG. IV-7. Test area grade-tonnage curve.

may be instructive to draw intersecting sections between a

series of regular drill sections. For example, if a series of two

north-south drill sections are spaced 100 ft apart, northeast

and northwest sections could be drawn, connecting the
contact positions on adjacent sections, and intersecting 1 4
between the drill sections. As before, if the geometry of the
deposit is correctly understood, the two projections should
agree at the point of intersection. For purposes of this type of 3
Plan
analysis, the contact between known points should be drawn
as a straight line. Because the actual shape of the contact in
the unknown region between these points is unknown, a 1 4
straight line representation will result in the least average
error in interpolation. hole

The same technique can be used to evaluate the

applicability of interpolation techniques for the projection of
degrees or other types of data. As before, projections based
on each of the two sections should agree at the point of
mutual intersection, a procedure that might be termed
"phantom jackknifing."
With the availability of computer technology, machine
drawn sections have come into widespread use. Typically, “phantom
m”

Section 1 - 4
drill holes lying in a zone on either side of the section are
projected perpendicularly onto the plane of the section by the
computer, and the projected contacts connected to define two 3
the area to be measured (Fig. IV-9a). Unfortunately, unless
the section is perpendicular to the strike of the projected
contact, the position of the contact determined in this way will
be in error, with the result that the shape and volume of the
ore body will also be in error. Furthermore, mine workings
laid out on the basis of these sections may be in the wrong
places to find the expected ore. Fig. IV-9b illustrates the
effect that a true strike direction 30° to the section will have
on the computer-drawn interpretation.
Again, the preferred technique is to create short sections
between holes on either side of the primary section, and to Section 2-3
plot the projected ore contacts on the primary section at the
point of intersection. An obvious requirement of such an FIG. IV-8. Phantom drill hole at the intersection of two cross sections -
analysis is the necessity of drawing a great many short sec (1-4 and 2-3).
Machine Translated by Google
ORE RESERVE ESTIMATES IN THE REAL WORLD
tions, many of which may only contain two drill holes. Given hole
coordinates and elevations of the contact in question, the task
can be alleviated by a simple computer program, but even in the
absence of such technology, there is simply no excuse for not
carefully evaluating the projectability of each of the three types of
contact in any given situation.
A further value of this type of analysis is to elucidate possible
geological constraints on mining and metallurgical pro cessing
schemes proposed for the orebody in question. If, for example,
the proposed metallurgical treatment process requires the clean
separation of ore type A from ore type B, and a phantom hole
analysis indicates that the contact between the ore types is
predictable to within a few feet, it is likely that a mining plan can
be developed that will effect the required separation. If, however,
the location of the contact cannot be reliably predicted in advance,
and especially if it cannot be readily identified or followed in the
field, the required degree of separation may be impossible to
achieve in practice. Under such a scenario, a revision in the
proposed metallurgical process may be in order.
two
a entire orebody, the method will probably not be appropriate to
1 4
3
1 two 3 4
b
1=2 3=4
FIG. IV-9. Computer-drawn cross section 1-4: a. drill holes projected
perpendicularly onto the plane of the section; b. drill holes projected at true
strike (N 60° E) onto the plane of the section.
67
Measurement/Calculation
Assuming the geometry of the deposit is established, the
volume of mineralization can be measured from either plans or
sections, either manually or by use of any of the various computer
programs on the market. Although constituting a separate step in
the estimation procedure, the measurement of volume is usually
done in conjunction with projections of grade or other data, and
many of the same procedures apply. The various techniques are
covered in detail by Popoff (1966).
Measurements in plan
Area of influence: The thickness of ore in a given drill hole is
considered to extend half way to adjacent holes or for some
reasonable distance beyond the last hole in the pattern.
Average thickness: In some types of deposit (Ni laterites,
bauxites, some gold placers), the thickness of the orebody may
be so erratic that the thickness of ore in any given drill hole is
virtually meaningless, and the thicknesses in a group of holes
are averaged together to establish the volume of ore to be
expected in the block containing the holes. In principle, this
approach is identical to the triangular block method of grade
projection. Although this technique will average out over the
predict the thickness of ore to be expected in any given smaller
unit of a large block.
Contouring: An isopach map of the deposit is prepared and
the areas between isopach lines measured and multiplied by the
average of the two isopachs. Such maps can be drawn in the
plane of a vein deposit, and may be useful in determining the
existence of possible relationships between thickness and some
other variable (grade, etc.).
Since an isopach map is essentially the product of two structure
contour plans, the use of this technique may, as previously
mentioned, impart a false sense of continuity between data
points, and should be used only if a phantom hole analysis
indicates that both Hanging wall and footwall with tacts are in
fact predictable within fairly narrow limits. Similarly, the grade-
thickness maps frequently used to define geological anomalies
and to guide exploration drilling may be misleading for the
purposes of reserve calculation, particularly if the orebody is
erratic in detail.
Measurement in section
Areas of mineralization on a cross section can be mea sured
and projected half way to the adjacent section, or for some
reasonable distance beyond the last section in the set (assuming
that ore is indicated on this section). The process seems straight
forward, but is critically dependent on the projection of data
between holes on a given section, and, as discussed above, on
the projection of data from holes that may lie some distance off
section.
A variation of this technique is to measure the areas on two
adjacent sections, average the two, and multiply the average by
the distance between sections. Again, this is in effect a rolling
mean approach, since the area of any one
Machine Translated by Google
68 stone and dunn
section will figure in the volume calculations of the two
blocks on either side of the section.
block models
As previously mentioned, with the availability of com puter
technology, it is common practice to create a model
of the orebody consisting of numerous small blocks to
which grades are assigned by the use of any one of the avail able
procedures previously discussed. The volumes (or ton nages) of
blocks above the cutoff grade are then summed.
Block size is usually uniform, block boundaries are usually
set to correspond with uniform coordinates and elevations,
(regardless of the position of the ore contacts), and individual
assays are composited mathematically to give average ages for
each block. If the ore/waste contact falls within the
boundaries of a given block, the composite value will obvi
ously include both ore and waste samples. It may be argued
that such an approach tends to build into the estimate a
certain safety factor that takes mining dilution and ore
losses into account. Unfortunately, this “safety factor” is virtually
impossible to quantify, and may or may not reflect
mining reality.
Although convenient, such an approach will probably
not reflect the way in which the deposit will be mined. In
particular, mining operations will follow the ore/waste with tact if
at all possible, regardless of where it may fall in a
given block, and mining panels normally consist of several
individual reserve blocks (or portions thereof). Further more, as
previously discussed, the grade-tonnage curves typically produced
as part of such an exercise may be dangerously misleading.
Machine Translated by Google

ORE RESERVE ESTIMATES IN THE REAL WORLD 69

exercise #two

Given the adjacent plan map (Fig. IV-10) and the sum mary
logs of the four Casa Grande drill holes listed in Table
IV-A, prepare cross sections 1-3 and 2-4 (Fig. IV-11).

TABLE IV-A. Summary Drill Logs, Casa Grande West

#1 #3
Hole # From To % Cu Description

#1 0 1310 Tertiary gravels

1310 1680 Leached cap (granite)
1680 1780 0.02 Leached cap
1780 1840 1.25 Chalcocite
1840 1910 1.32 Cu oxides w/ minor cc
1910 2020 1.19cc
2020 2200 0.81 Cpy + minor cc
2200 2400 0.68 Cpy w/ trace cc
2400 3240 0.92 Cpy (bottom of
#4
pray 3240)
3240 3698 0.12 Cpy (trace)
500 feet
# two 0 tertiary 1423
gravels
1423 1472 0.23 Leached cap (granite)
FIG. IV-10. Big House plan map.
1472 1566 2.69 Cu oxides
1566 1807 0.01 Leached - don't pray
1807 1947 1.94 Cu oxides
1947 2084 0.63 Cu oxides + cc
#3 #two #4
2084 2143 0.57 Cc + cpy
#1 1000' 1000´
2143 2277 0.59 Cpy + cc
2277 2510 0.64 Cpy
2510 2908 0.95 Cpy (hole
bottomed in ear)
– 1310
#3 0 1776 Tertiary gravels
1776 1815 Leached cap (granite) – 1423
1815 1917 0.06 Leached cap (granite) – 1472
1917 2144 1.81 Cu oxides + minor cc – 1566
2144 2291 2.21 Cu oxides – 1585
2291 2357 0.31 Cu oxides + minor cc – 1680
2357 2571 0.80 Cc + Cu oxides – 1780 – 1776
2571 2733 0.99 Cpy + cc – 1815 – 1807 – 1816
– 1840
2733 3092 0.68 Cpy (bottom of – 1867
– 1910 – 1917
– 1947 – 1925
pray 3092) 2000´ 2000´
3092 3576 0.22 Cpy (trace) – 2020
– 2050
– 2084
#4 0 1585 Tertiary gravels – 2144 – 2143
– 2200 – 2173
1585 1816 0.10 Leached cap (granite)
1816 1867 0.55 Cu oxides – 2291 – 2277 – 2284
1867 1925 1.22 Cu oxides + cc – 2357 – 2355
– 2400
1925 2050 0.61 Cc + Cu oxides
2050 2173 0.75 Cc + minor cpy – 2510
2173 2284 1.06 Cc + Cu oxides – 2571
2284 2355 0.75 Cc + cpy
2355 3147 0.94 Cpy (hole – 2733
bottomed in ear)

– 2908
3000´ 3000´

– 3092
– 3147
– 3240

– 3698 – 3576

FIG. IV-11. Casa Grande cross section.

Machine Translated by Google
70 stone and dunn
discussion
The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate differ ences
in the predictability of geological, mineralogical and economic
contacts. The geologic contact at the base of the Tertiary
gravel, for example, is predictable to within a few feet,
while the mineralogical contacts separating oxides from sul
fide copper, or unaltered chalcopyrite from chalcopyrite
plus chalcocite are not predictable to within a hundred feet
or so, given data points 500 ft apart.
Either additional drilling must be done to better define
these contacts in advance of mining, or any metallurgical
processing scheme proposed for this deposit will have to be
able to handle varying (and probably unpredictable) proportions
of these minerals.