QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an

Industry Standard?
Dr. Armando Simn
AMEC International Ingeniera y Construccin Ltda.

General Trends in QA/QC Programs

Before Bre-X

Usually lacking, or with insufficient coverage , even

when run by major companies

After Bre-X

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Strict policies implemented by regulatory bodies

Increasing interest from exploration and mining
companies

Reaction of Companies to Actual

Implementation

From Management

Shock, or even anger, for proportional increase in

handling, preparation and analytical costs

From Geologists

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Reluctance in implementation due to increased

organizational requirements

NI 43-101 Quality Requirements

All written information of scientific or technical nature,

related to mining projects, should:

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Specify whether a Qualified Person verified the data on

which this information is based, including sampling,
analysis and tests
Describe the QA/QC program
Describe the nature and limitation of the verification
Explain any problem encountered during data
verification

JORC Code Quality Requirements

A Competent Person report should:

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Describe the nature, quality and appropriate selection

of sampling and analytical procedures
Describe the quality control procedures, including the
insertion of standards, blanks, duplicates and external
checks
Assess the accuracy and precision levels attained
during the project

Control Sample Insertion Rate

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Not clearly defined by regulatory bodies

Best Practice left to the latitude of Qualified or

Competent Persons

Hence: frequent source of argument between QA/QC

specialists and project management/geologists

What an Industry Standard is?

So-called widely accepted or industry standards

practices most neither be confused with best

practices nor with standards. There are many
procedures widely accepted by the mining industry
that are adequate in some situations but inadequate in
others. Moreover, such acceptance is not universal.
Rogers (1998)

Taller de ACC - AMEC

Is There an Industry Standard for Control

Sample Insertion?

AMEC inquired four sources:

International QA/QC consultants
SEDAR-filed technical reports
Information published by exploration and mining
companies
Documents from regulatory organizations

Taller de ACC - AMEC

International QA/QC Consultants (1)

Source

Details

Suggested
Proportion of
Control Samples

Rogers (1998)

Duplicates, standards, blanks: one in twenty; external

checks: 5%

Approx. 20%

Valle (1998)

10% duplicate plus standards, a somewhat lower

figure for rock sampling (?)

Approx. 15% (?)

Neuss (1998)

2%-5% field duplicates, 2%-5% coarse duplicates,

5%-10% internal pulp duplicates, 5%-10%
external pulp duplicates, plus one standard and
one blank in every submission

Approx. 19% to 25%

Long (1998, 2000)

5% coarse reject duplicates, 5% pulp duplicates, 5%

standards, one blank per batch (approx. 3%),
check assays, a portion of the pulp duplicates
(3%)

Approx. 21%

Taller de ACC - AMEC

International QA/QC Consultants (2)

Source

Details

Suggested
Proportion of
Control Samples

Sketchley (1999)

In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one

standard, one duplicate; in addition, all
pulp duplicates should be re-assayed at
check lab

Approx. 20%

Bloom (1999)

In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one

standard; in addition, sending one in ten
sample pulps to an umpire lab

Approx. 20%

Lomas (2004)

In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one

standard, one coarse duplicate and one
pulp duplicate; in addition, 5% of the
pulps should be re-assayed at check lab
(including SRM)

Approx. 25%

Taller de ACC - AMEC

10

SEDAR-Filed Technical Reports (1)

Porcupine Project, Canada (GoldCorp): Coarse rejects: 5%;

coarse blanks: 5%: pulp duplicates: 5%; standards, 5%; check
samples: 5% (Total: 25%)
Modder East Load Project, South Africa (sxr Uranium One Inc.
and Aflease Gold Ltd.): Coarse blanks: 2%; standards, 9%; pulp
duplicates: 11%; check samples: 2% (Total: 23%)
Perama Hill Project, Greece (Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation):
Duplicates, 10%; other control samples: 9% (Total, approx.
19%)
Nuestra Seora, Mexico (Scorpio Mining Corporation): Coarse
duplicates, 2.5%; standards+blanks, 2.5%; pulp duplicates, 5%;
pulp check samples, 5%; coarse reject check samples, 2.5%
(Total: 17.5%)

Taller de ACC - AMEC

11

SEDAR-Filed Technical Reports (2)

Mirador Project, Ecuador (Corriente Resources): Coarse

duplicates: 5%; pulp duplicates: 5%; standards: 5% (Total:
15%)
HC Property, Nevada (J-Pacific Gold): 5% twin samples, 5%;
coarse duplicates, 5%; pulp duplicates, 5% (Total: 15%)
Pueblo Viejo, Dominican Republic (Placer Dome): 10% of
standards and blanks

Taller de ACC - AMEC

12

SEDAR-Filed Technical Reports (3)

General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
assays)
In most cases, particular sample subtypes are ignored
Insertion rate less than 17% only when check assays are
not included
An acceptable average is approximately 18%, with minor
differences in some particular types of samples

Taller de ACC - AMEC

13

Exploration and Mining Companies (1)

Carpathian Gold (Colnic, Romania): Coarse blanks, 5%;

standards, 4%; Check samples, 20% (before AMECs
Technical Report in 2006) (Total: 29%)
African Copper (Dukwe Project, Botswana): approx. 20%
control samples
Aurelian Resources, FDN epithermal Au-Ag: Standards,
duplicates and blanks, 15%; in addition, samples from
significant drill intercepts are sent to two reference
laboratories (Total: 18% ?)

Taller de ACC - AMEC

14

Exploration and Mining Companies (2)

GlobeStar Mining. Regular practice: Duplicates: 4%;

standards, 4%; blanks, 4%; check samples, 4% (Total:
16%)
Cambridge Mineral Resources: blanks, 5%; duplicates,
5%; standards; 5% (Total: 15%)
Scorpio Mining Corporation (Nuestra Seora, Mexico):
coarse duplicates, 2.5%; standards, 2.5%; check assays:
5% pulps, 2.5% coarse rejects (Total: 12.5%)
Belvedere Resources: 12% control samples (only
standards, blanks and duplicates)

Taller de ACC - AMEC

15

Exploration and Mining Companies (3)

General trend: 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of

control samples (blanks, duplicates, standards, check
assays)
With the exception of Scorpio, the insertion rate is less
than 16% only when check assays are not included
An acceptable average is approximately 20%, with minor
differences in some particular types of samples

Taller de ACC - AMEC

16

Regulatory Bodies
Setting New Standards (TSE-OSC, 1999):
A sample batch of 20 samples should include a duplicate
sample, a coarse blank, and a standard
Previously assayed pulps should be re-submitted to the
same lab (rate not stated) and to another lab as check
assays (rate not stated)
In conclusion: the first three control samples represent an
overall 15% insertion rate; additional pulp re-assays
(internal and external to the primary lab), probably add
5%, to a total close to 20%

Taller de ACC - AMEC

17

A Typical Example

Sample Type

Label

Insertion
Frequency

Twin Samples*

TS

2%

Coarse
Duplicates*

CD

2%

Pulp Duplicates*

PD

2%

Standards*

STD

6%

Coarse Blanks*

CB

2%

Pulp Blanks*

PB

2%

Check Samples**

CS

4%

Sample Type

Duplicates (6%)

Standards (6%)
Blanks (4%)
Check Samples (4%)

*To be assayed at the primary laboratory

** To be assayed at the secondary laboratory

Taller de ACC - AMEC

18

Conclusions (1)

A general agreement appears to exist between the

consulted sources (international consultants, SEDAR-filed
technical reports, published company information and
documents from regulatory bodies) about an average
recommended insertion rate of control samples of
approximately 20%
Most companies do not differentiate the duplicate subtypes
(twin samples, coarse and pulp duplicates) or blank
subtypes (coarse and pulp blanks), all of them with
different functions in a comprehensive QA/QC program

Taller de ACC - AMEC

19

Conclusions (2)

In many of the studied examples, only one standard was

included in the QA/QC program; when various standards
were considered, sometimes there was no correlation
between the grade levels of the standards and the actual
sample grades, or between their sample matrices. A
common situation was using standards with below-cut-off
values, or even with close-to-detection-limit levels
The implementation of a comprehensive QA/QC program
would represent, in average, an increase of 1% to 2% of
the total exploration costs

Taller de ACC - AMEC

20

Recommendations

It is essential that QA/QC programs are comprehensive, including

all types and subtypes of control samples, so that precision,
accuracy and possible contamination at the various points in the
sampling-preparation-assaying sequence are properly assessed.
The QA/QC program should be tailored to the specific needs of
the project. Whereas an overall insertion rate of 20% can be in
principle recommended, the individual proportions of the various
types of control samples should reflect the problems with higher
probability of occurrence. With the advance of the QA/QC
program and the identification and correction of those problems,
the amounts and relative proportions of control samples can be
adjusted accordingly.

Taller de ACC - AMEC

21

Final Reflection

The cost impact of obtaining high quality

data is negligible when compared to the
value impact of using low quality data

Taller de ACC - AMEC

22