MD Geology Pty Ltd

456 460 Hunter St Newcastle

www.mdgeology.com.au






Conference Paper

Solutions to common problems
encountered in Minex resource
reporting using SQL


Date 12 September 2013
Prepared for Gemcom Community Conference
Author M Davis






Page 2

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
Introduction
Solutions are presented to four common problems encountered in Minex complex
resource reporting using grid and borehole SQL. These four common problems
include:
Quantifying linear core recovery where coreloss is only recorded through lithology
variables, rather than in sample intervals.
Defining a point of observation with multiple criteria
Setting a meaningful minimum thickness for resource estimation in a ply model
(where plies have coalesced), without the need to generate a working section.
Setting resource limits with multiple dependant conditions to meet reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction
Examples of improvements to reliability of resource estimation using these tools are
presented. These solutions were found to be very effective in large multiseam
deposits, generally focussed on opencut mining.

1 Quantifying linear recovery
The 2003 Aust Coal Guidelines defines a point of observation (PoO) for use in resource
classification as allowing the presence of coal to be unambiguously determined. A Point of
Observation for coal quality evaluation is normally obtained by testing samples obtained from
surface or underground exposures, or from bore core samples having an acceptable level of
recovery (normally >95 per cent linear recovery).
The linear recovery of a coal seam is a key factor in determining whether the data can
be used as a valid point of observation or not. Core loss is frequently (incorrectly) only
recorded in the lithology codes, rather than between sample intervals. In Minex
software linear recovery is assessed by comparing the sample intervals and seam
intervals. A minimum sample percentage is set in the borehole database settings; and
seams with less than the defined sample percentage for a given variable will not
allocate a weighted value of that variable for the seam.

Page 3

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013

Figure 1 Typical borehole with core loss recorded only as lithology, rather than through
sample intervals
If core loss is recorded through lithology only, rather than sample intervals, it will be
ignored by the software, and the linear recovery of a seam may be overestimated.
Whilst other software packages (such as Minescape) have built in functionality to deal
with this recording of core loss, Minex does not. A method for quantifying core loss
logged only through lithology codes (instead of sample intervals) using borehole SQL
is outlined below:
1. A new SQL variable is created in the lithology datatype
2. A borehole SQL will allocate a value of 0 for all rocktypes representing core loss (eg
KL, NR etc), and all other rocktypes are assigned the value 1.
3. A weighted average of the values is then calculated for the seam using the default
seam weighting function. The weighted sum for the seam will show the linear core
recovery. Care should be taken if an RD weighting is also assigned, as this may impact
the composited seam value
4. Compare the linear recovery to borehole profiles and sample intervals to further
support the numerical analysis
Care should be taken if an RD weighting is also assigned, as this may impact the
composited seam value.

Page 4

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013

Figure 2 Linear recovery calculated using Minex default and LINREC borehole SQL
This technique was applied to a Hunter Valley dataset comprising 549 boreholes with
coal quality samples. The minimum sample percentage in the borehole database
properties for this dataset was set to 90%. The table below summarises the sample
data for the dataset, including samples excluded through the use of min sample
percentage setting (104 samples) and the further samples identified through the use
of the SQL (a further 102 samples).
Table 1 Summary of use of coreloss SQL
Use
Number
of seams
Comment
Excluded through
use of min sample
percentage setting
74
Less than 90% of the seam was sampled (due to
heat affected coal or intrusions), but no core loss
30
More than 10% core loss, recorded in sample
intervals

Page 5

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
Excluded through
use of SQL, but not
min sample
percentage setting
102
More than 10% core loss, recorded in lithology,
but no sample intervals

2 Point of observation with multiple criteria
An Indonesian project has a dedicated Competent Person who has derived hierarchy
of points of observation to classify confidence in the resource estimation based upon
borehole type, linear core recovery, presence of geophysical logging (Table 2). The
combination of the points then form the basis of the resource classification.
Table 2 Criteria for classes of points of observation
Class Description
A
Coal Quality with < 10%
core loss and valid
geophysics

B
Coal Quality with >10%
core loss with valid
geophysics
Open hole with
valid geophysics
Cored hole with 100%
recovery and no valid
geophysics
C
Coal quality with >10%
core loss with no valid
geophysics
Open hole with no
valid geophysics


The original method of applying the point of observation class included:
Assignment of the PoO class by the field geologist and database manager;
The modelling geologist running numerous borehole selection parameters to create
distance grids based on the PoO class.
In addition to the process being tedious, issues in the system arose in circumstances:

Page 6

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
Where the top of a borehole was geophysically logged, but the base was not (most
likely due to blockage of the tool down the borehole).
If a seam had been sampled, and indicated as sampled by the geologist, but the assay
data had not been returned from the laboratory.
Seams that had previously been uncorrelated had not been assigned a classification.
A borehole SQL was written to account for the complex system of PoO definition,
using the criteria in the table above. Results of the SQL showed that 11% of the seam
intervals had incorrectly been assigned Class A status in the original classification (for
the reasons outlined above). The total number of intervals classified increased by 2%
(Figure 3).

Figure 3 Change in the number of points of observation in each class with Borehole SQL
method
The criteria for the use of a point of observation in the resource classification for the
project is defined in Table 3. Circles were drawn around the points of observation,
using the distances based upon the recommendations of the 2003 Aust Coal
Guidelines. The circles were then rationalised at the discretion of the competent
person, with further reference to the geological interpretation. Figure 4 shows an

Page 7

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
example where Class B points of observation were used to support continuity of
quality and thickness between Class A points of observation for an Indicated
classification.
Table 3 General principles of resource classification based upon a hierarchy of points of
observation


Figure 4 Distances around points of obervation class A and class B

Page 8

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
The benefits of using this method include: increased confidence in resource
classification by using more than one criteria; the ability to utilise data that may not
meet Class A criteria as supporting data for resource classification, and the potential
to improve indicated and inferred resources through this.

3 Meaningful minimum thicknesses
Ply models are constructed to represent geological variations through a coal seam in
a stratified model. Significant value can be added to a model when plies are defined
well, with appropriate samples and parting bands identified. Working sections can
then be compiled from the ply model when careful consideration is paid to potential
mining methodology and coal quality. But often at the resource stage (especially for
fledgling projects), the ply model is not converted to working sections, which presents
an issue for using a minimum thickness cut-off for resource estimation.
Setting a minimum thickness cut-off using the Minex detailed resource reporter
function will look at the thickness of the ply in isolation, which can lead in an
underestimate of the total coal tonnages if individual plies are thin, but the
combination of coalesced plies is greater than the desired minimum thickness cut-off.
A common work-around for this issue is to use no minimum thickness setting, which
can also lead to an overestimate of the volume of coal. A method that assesses seam
thickness in the context of the ply relationship to other coal units is required.

Figure 5 Example of typical habit of a coal seam with ply splitting and coalesced.

Page 9

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
The solution is presented by using an SQL to create a recovery grid, which is then
used in the detailer resource reporter function in the place of a Mine Recovery grid.
The SQL to calculate the recovery grid uses the following steps:
Recovery SQL
1. Determine maximum parting thickness for plies to be considered coalesced or split
(Max Parting)
2. Test whether the ply interburden (IB) and underburden (UB) is greater than or less
than Max Parting
3. If IB and UB is greater than Max Parting, the ply is assumed to be isolated and a
minimum thickness test is applied
4. If the IB or UB is less than Max Parting, the ply is assumed to be coalesced with the
plies above or below, and no minimum thickness test is applied.
5. If the Min Thickness test is passed, the Recovery grid is set to 100%, otherwise,
recovery is set to 0%.
Seam specific criteria or further conditions, such as seam/interburden ratio, can be
included in the script if required. For plies where the coalesced unit is known to be
less than Min Thickness, a further individual seam group condition should be applied.
This method is highly effective in large multi-seam deposits with complex splitting,
such as open cut mines exploiting the Whittingham Coal Measures. An example is
presented of a Hunter Valley mine with three coalesced plies that form one seam
group. Three estimates were run, using minimum thickness settings of:
no minimum thickness,
minimum thickness of 0.3 m, and
minimum thickness using a recovery grid.
The no minimum thickness option obviously recorded the largest estimate, and this
formed a basis for comparison for the other two estimates. When a minimum thickness
of 0.3 m was applied, the estimate was reduced by 4.6 Mt. Using a recovery grid to
define minimum thickness based on the plies proximity to other seams resulted in a
reduction in the estimate of only 0.4 Mt.
This difference of 4.2 Mt difference between the two methods of defining limits of
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction may have a significant impact
upon the overall assessment of a resource, especially when compiled for many seam
groups.


Page 10

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013

Figure 6 Comparison of tonnes reporting for three coalesced plies using different Min
Thickness methods
The use of a recovery grid will not only increase the accuracy and efficiency of the
resource estimation, it also provides a grid which clearly shows the areas excluded
from the estimate. This grid can be rationalised to remove isolated points of exclusion,
and provide a more sensible resource estimation.

4 Resource limits based on multiple dependant criteria
The recovery grid method can be extended further to potentially complex conditions
to meet the JORC requirement of reasonable prospects of eventual economic
extraction. If a limit utilises more than one variable, or uses dependant variables,
simple SQL IF statements can be written to adjust the recovery grid. For example, a
greater strip ratio may be feasible in domains of lower (Figure 7), or a resource limit
may be set on a combination of coal quality parameters.
This recovery grid method can also be used for seam specific areas of exclusion,
without the need to generate exclusion polygons for each seam, and calculate seams
individually. Examples of individual seam cut-offs may include areas of heat affected
coal, or off-sets from fault zones.

Page 11

Gemcom Community Conference | September 2013
Again, the recovery grid method provides a transparent record of areas of exclusion
and a grid that can be rationalised to a sensible area of resource estimation.

Figure 7 Ash content % ad with strip ratio