Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*G. J. Arseneau
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
1066-2200 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, Canada
(*Corresponding author:garseneau@srk.com)
well as void. The difference between in situ bulk density and dry bulk density is a measure of contained
moisture within the rock volume. The International System unit of density is gram per cubic centimetres
(g/cm3) or tonnes per cubic metres (t/m3) for most mining projects and resource statements.
= m/v
(1)
Specific gravity (SG) is the ratio of the density of a substance compared to the density of fresh
water at 4C. Because SG is a ratio, it has no unit of measure. It is common practice in the mining industry
to use the terms SG and density interchangeably; however the two can be very significantly different in
rocks with large voids or porosity (Lipton, 2000).
MEASURING BULK DENSITY
Bulk density can be measured in the field during the geological logging or in the laboratory and at
costs that are usually a fraction of the assaying cost. Several methods of measuring bulk density are
available depending on the properties of the material to be measured (Lipton, 2001). The most commonly
used field method of measuring bulk density follows Archimedes Principle of water displacement. The
method works well for competent material and involves weighing the sample in air (ma) and then weighing
the sample suspended in water (mw) (Figure 1). Bulk density is then calculated using the formula
expressed in equation 2.
(2)
Samples that are friable or clay rich may disintegrate in water and should be coated with wax prior
to water immersion. Ideally, the sample selected for bulk density measurement should be the same size as
the sample collected for assay. This is often not practical because of the difficulty of accurately weighing
one or two metre of drill core. For this reason, the bulk density sample is usually a subset of the assay
sample length, 10 or 15 centimetre of core is normally used. Selecting a subsample of the assay length can
introduce errors if the bulk density of the assay interval is not constant due to high variability of metal
content over the interval. In these circumstances, several bulk density measurements should be taken over
the assay interval so that a more representative density value can be estimated. A commonly used
alternative to field measurement of bulk density is the determination of density by pycnometer. The
pycnometer measures density on pulverized material. The method can be accurate and reliable if the rock
contains very low porosity but the method should be avoided for highly porous material.
DENSITY DOMAINING
Bulk density is a geologically controlled variable and should be modelled as any other geological
variable. Ideally, bulk density data should be treated with the same level of statistical analysis as the assay
data. The level of complexity of the bulk density model is dependent on the variability of bulk density
within the deposit volume to be estimated.
Simple Density Domains
For most vein hosted gold deposits, where only a small concentration of metal is present and no
correlation exists between grade and density, creating a bulk density domain can be as simple as averaging
the density data within the mineralised domain (Figure 2).
straight line because density is expressed in terms of volume whereas grades are expressed in weight
percent (Figure 4) (Lipton 2000).
Sub block
1
2
3
4
Parent Block
(3)
(g1*1+g2*2+g3*3+g4*4)/ = 10.93%
(4)
(10.93*3.5)*4 = 1.53 t
(5)
The impact of weighting by density as well as lengths will vary depending on the variance of the
data used to estimate the block grades. Deposits high in lead, uranium or tungsten will return more reliable
tonnage estimates if density weighting is incorporated as part of the resource estimation.
DISCUSSION
The modelling of bulk density for resource estimation can be complex and intricate and each
deposit type needs to be carefully evaluated to determine the most appropriate methodology to best model
bulk density. The authors survey of fifty publically filed technical reports on SEDAR, twenty-nine
precious metal, ten base metal, seven porphyry and four rare metal deposits seems to indicate that bulk
density is only marginally considered when preparing resource estimates (Table 2). The reports were
selected at random and included six pre-feasibility (PFS) reports, six preliminary economic assessment
(PEA) reports and thirty-eight mineral resource reports. Nine of the reports examined failed to mention
bulk density or to indicate how bulk density was assigned to the resource estimate, three of these were PFS
and one was a PEA. Of the reports that included a discussion of bulk density sampling, most used the
water displacement method for calculating bulk density. On average, bulk density was measured for less
than 20% of the assay data. Twenty-nine reports used a simple average value to estimate bulk density, one
was a PFS and three were PEA level reports. Of the 10 base metal deposits examined four used a simple
average and six estimated the bulk density by geostatistical method with two reports including bulk density
weighting in the estimation methodology. All reports indicated that multiple geological domains were
present yet most used the same bulk density value to estimate the resource tonnage for all domains
ignoring that multiple geological domains may indicate multiple bulk density domains.
Report
type
Resource
PEA
PFS
Resource
PEA
PFS
Resource
PEA
Resource
Precious metal
Precious metal
Precious metal
Base metal
Base metal
Base metal
Porphyry
Porphyry
Rare metal
4
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
14
2
1
3
1
0
4
0
4
4
0
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Density as
percentage
of assay
data
14
3
3
11
49
100
5
0
24
CONCLUSIONS
Bulk density is a significant and critical component of the resource estimate. Bulk density is used
to converts the estimated volume to tonnes which are reported in the mineral resource and mineral reserve
statements. For mineral deposits that have low metal content and simple mineralogy, estimating bulk
density by calculating an average of all bulk density measurements can be adequate if sufficient data has
been collected and a meaningful average can be estimated. However, each geological domain must be
examined individually and a separate bulk density value must be calculated for each geological domain.
For deposit with more complex mineralogy and where a relationship exists between density and
grade, a simple averaging of bulk density for each geological domain will undoubtedly result in errors in
local bulk density estimation and errors in the reported resource tonnage. A better approach is to estimate
bulk density in the model using similar interpolation parameters applied to grade estimation. For deposits
with high grade and density variability such as base metal or uranium deposit, weighting of grades by
density and estimation of grade times bulk density is preferable for a more accurate resource estimate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. for providing the
opportunity to prepare this paper and all my colleagues in the Vancouver office for providing stimulating
conversation on the topic of bulk density, specifically Marek Nowak for reviewing the document and
providing critical insights. The author also wishes to thank Catherine OReilly for the compilation of the
technical reports from SEDAR.
REFERENCES
Dias, P., Costa, J. F., Diedrich, and Koppe, V. (2012). The effect of considering density as weighting factor
when compositing assay grades and as accumulated variable on mining reconciliation. Ninth
International Geostatistics Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Dominy, S. C., Nopp, and Annels, A. E. (2004). Errors and uncertainty in mineral resource and ore
reserves estimation: The importance of getting it right. Exploration Mining Geology Vol. 11, No.
1-4, 77-98.
Lipton, T., (2000). Modelling bulk density: The importance of getting it right. Proceedings, Fourth
International Mining Geology Conference. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 291297.
Lipton, T., (2001). Measurement of bulk density for resource estimation. In A.C. Edwards (Ed.), Mineral
resource and ore reserves estimation The AusIMM guide to good practice Monograph 23 (pp.
57-66). Melbourne, Australia: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
The Northern Miner (1988). Updated Reserve Report in Progress for Ketza River. October 31 November
6, Volume 74, No. 34
Sinclair. A. J, and Blackwell, G. H. (2002). Applied mineral inventory estimation. Cambridge, United
Kingdom, Cambridge University Press