volume 117 no. 12 december 2017 - saimm · 2018-01-16 · iso 9001 iso 18001 iso 14001 postal...

VOLUME 117 NO. 12 DECEMBER 2017

ISO 9001 ISO 18001 ISO 14001

Postal Address: P.O. Box 296, Isando,1600, Gauteng, South AfricaPhysical Address: 18 Industry Road, Isando, Kempton Park, Gauteng, South AfricaTelephone: +27 (0) 11 570-4300Facsimile: +27 (0) 11 974-2075 Email: [email protected]

Mining contractors providing innovative full-service quality mining solutions through our global family of highly-qualified personnel that have an unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest safety standards.

�

ii

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Mxolis Donald Mbuyisa MgojoPresident, Chamber of Mines of South Africa

Mosebenzi Joseph ZwaneMinister of Mineral Resources, South Africa

Rob DaviesMinister of Trade and Industry, South Africa

Naledi PandorMinister of Science and Technology, South Africa

S. Ndlovu

A.S. Macfarlane

M.I. Mthenjane

Z. Botha

C. Musingwini

J.L. Porter

V.G. Duke G. NjowaI.J. Geldenhuys S.M RupprechtM.F. Handley A.G. SmithW.C. Joughin M.H. SolomonE. Matinde D. TudorM. Motuku D.J. van NiekerkD.D. Munro A.T. van Zyl

N.A. Barcza R.G.B. PickeringR.D. Beck S.J. RamokgopaJ.R. Dixon M.H. RogersM. Dworzanowski D.A.J. Ross-WattH.E. James G.L. SmithR.T. Jones W.H. van NiekerkG.V.R. Landman R.P.H. Willis

G.R. Lane–TPC Mining ChairpersonZ. Botha–TPC Metallurgy Chairperson

A.S. Nhleko–YPC ChairpersonK.M. Letsoalo–YPC Vice-Chairperson

Botswana L.E. DimbunguDRC S. MalebaJohannesburg J.A. LuckmannNamibia N.M. NamateNorthern Cape W.J. MansPretoria R.J. MostertWestern Cape R.D. BeckZambia D. MumaZimbabwe S. MatutuZululand C.W. Mienie

Australia: I.J. Corrans, R.J. Dippenaar, A. Croll, C. Workman-Davies

Austria: H. WagnerBotswana: S.D. WilliamsUnited Kingdom: J.J.L. Cilliers, N.A. BarczaUSA: J-M.M. Rendu, P.C. Pistorius

*Deceased

* W. Bettel (1894–1895)* A.F. Crosse (1895–1896)* W.R. Feldtmann (1896–1897)* C. Butters (1897–1898)* J. Loevy (1898–1899)* J.R. Williams (1899–1903)* S.H. Pearce (1903–1904)* W.A. Caldecott (1904–1905)* W. Cullen (1905–1906)* E.H. Johnson (1906–1907)* J. Yates (1907–1908)* R.G. Bevington (1908–1909)* A. McA. Johnston (1909–1910)* J. Moir (1910–1911)* C.B. Saner (1911–1912)* W.R. Dowling (1912–1913)* A. Richardson (1913–1914)* G.H. Stanley (1914–1915)* J.E. Thomas (1915–1916)* J.A. Wilkinson (1916–1917)* G. Hildick-Smith (1917–1918)* H.S. Meyer (1918–1919)* J. Gray (1919–1920)* J. Chilton (1920–1921)* F. Wartenweiler (1921–1922)* G.A. Watermeyer (1922–1923)* F.W. Watson (1923–1924)* C.J. Gray (1924–1925)* H.A. White (1925–1926)* H.R. Adam (1926–1927)* Sir Robert Kotze (1927–1928)* J.A. Woodburn (1928–1929)* H. Pirow (1929–1930)* J. Henderson (1930–1931)* A. King (1931–1932)* V. Nimmo-Dewar (1932–1933)* P.N. Lategan (1933–1934)* E.C. Ranson (1934–1935)* R.A. Flugge-De-Smidt

(1935–1936)* T.K. Prentice (1936–1937)* R.S.G. Stokes (1937–1938)* P.E. Hall (1938–1939)* E.H.A. Joseph (1939–1940)* J.H. Dobson (1940–1941)* Theo Meyer (1941–1942)* John V. Muller (1942–1943)* C. Biccard Jeppe (1943–1944)* P.J. Louis Bok (1944–1945)* J.T. McIntyre (1945–1946)* M. Falcon (1946–1947)* A. Clemens (1947–1948)* F.G. Hill (1948–1949)* O.A.E. Jackson (1949–1950)* W.E. Gooday (1950–1951)* C.J. Irving (1951–1952)* D.D. Stitt (1952–1953)* M.C.G. Meyer (1953–1954)* L.A. Bushell (1954–1955)* H. Britten (1955–1956)* Wm. Bleloch (1956–1957)

* H. Simon (1957–1958)* M. Barcza (1958–1959)* R.J. Adamson (1959–1960)* W.S. Findlay (1960–1961)* D.G. Maxwell (1961–1962)* J. de V. Lambrechts (1962–1963)* J.F. Reid (1963–1964)* D.M. Jamieson (1964–1965)* H.E. Cross (1965–1966)* D. Gordon Jones (1966–1967)* P. Lambooy (1967–1968)* R.C.J. Goode (1968–1969)* J.K.E. Douglas (1969–1970)* V.C. Robinson (1970–1971)* D.D. Howat (1971–1972)* J.P. Hugo (1972–1973)* P.W.J. van Rensburg

(1973–1974)* R.P. Plewman (1974–1975)* R.E. Robinson (1975–1976)* M.D.G. Salamon (1976–1977)* P.A. Von Wielligh (1977–1978)* M.G. Atmore (1978–1979)* D.A. Viljoen (1979–1980)* P.R. Jochens (1980–1981)

G.Y. Nisbet (1981–1982)A.N. Brown (1982–1983)

* R.P. King (1983–1984)J.D. Austin (1984–1985)H.E. James (1985–1986)H. Wagner (1986–1987)

* B.C. Alberts (1987–1988)C.E. Fivaz (1988–1989)O.K.H. Steffen (1989–1990)

* H.G. Mosenthal (1990–1991)R.D. Beck (1991–1992)

* J.P. Hoffman (1992–1993)* H. Scott-Russell (1993–1994)

J.A. Cruise (1994–1995)D.A.J. Ross-Watt (1995–1996)N.A. Barcza (1996–1997)

* R.P. Mohring (1997–1998)J.R. Dixon (1998–1999)M.H. Rogers (1999–2000)L.A. Cramer (2000–2001)

* A.A.B. Douglas (2001–2002)S.J. Ramokgopa (2002-2003)T.R. Stacey (2003–2004)F.M.G. Egerton (2004–2005)W.H. van Niekerk (2005–2006)R.P.H. Willis (2006–2007)R.G.B. Pickering (2007–2008)A.M. Garbers-Craig (2008–2009)J.C. Ngoma (2009–2010)G.V.R. Landman (2010–2011)J.N. van der Merwe (2011–2012)G.L. Smith (2012–2013)M. Dworzanowski (2013–2014)J.L. Porter (2014–2015)R.T. Jones (2015–2016)C. Musingwini (2016–2017)

Scop Incorporated

Genesis Chartered Accountants

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Fifth Floor, Chamber of Mines Building

5 Hollard Street, Johannesburg 2001 • P.O. Box 61127, Marshalltown 2107

Telephone (011) 834-1273/7 • Fax (011) 838-5923 or (011) 833-8156

E-mail: [email protected]

�iii

ContentsJournal Comment: The SAMREC/SAMVAL Companion Volume Conferenceby K. Lomberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

President’s Corner: A Christmas gift for the Instituteby S. Ndlovu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Naming of the Peter King Minerals Processing Laboratoryby H. Potgieter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Gold Fields, Wits R6 m boost for mechanized mining in South Africaby S. Braham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Mining research and development reborn – the Mining Precinctby A. Macfarlane and N. Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix–x

The 2016 SAMREC Codeby K. Lomberg and S.M. Rupprecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095The objective of this paper is to inform the reader of the changes to the 2016 SAMREC Code and to re-emphasis best practice for the declaration of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governance and reporting for AngloGold Ashantiby R. Peattie, V. Chamberlain, and T. Flitton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101This paper describes the steps that AngloGold Ashanti has put in place to ensure that the Executive Committee and the Board have line of sight to the annual Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve public reporting, as well as the findings from a stringent internal and external review programme.

Good reporting practicesby S.M. Rupprecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105Compliance of Public Reports and some of the common compliance issues currently being experienced are investigated. The paper also discusses methodologies to improve compliance and Public Reporting, such as self-regulation, coaching and training, and other means to promote good reporting practice.

The new SANS 10320:2016 versus the 2014 Australian guidelines for the estimation and classification of coal resources—what are the implications for southern African coal resource estimators?by J. Hancox and H. Pinheiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113The authors discuss the recent updates of the South African SANS 10320:2016 and the Australian Guidelines for the Estimation and Classification of Coal Resources, 2014. Unlike their respective parent codes (SAMREC and JORC), which have become increasingly similar, these guidelines have diverged and are different in a number of significant ways, which will have an impact on coal resource estimators working in the coalfields of south-central Africa.

R. Dimitrakopoulos, McGill University, CanadaD. Dreisinger, University of British Columbia, CanadaE. Esterhuizen, NIOSH Research Organization, USAH. Mitri, McGill University, CanadaM.J. Nicol, Murdoch University, AustraliaE. Topal, Curtin University, Australia


R.D. BeckP. den Hoed

M. DworzanowskiB. Genc

M.F. HandleyR.T. Jones

W.C. JoughinJ.A. LuckmannC. Musingwini

S. NdlovuJ.H. PotgieterT.R. Stacey

M. Tlala

D. Tudor

The Southern African Institute ofMining and MetallurgyP.O. Box 61127Marshalltown 2107Telephone (011) 834-1273/7Fax (011) 838-5923E-mail: [email protected]

Camera Press, Johannesburg

Barbara SpenceAvenue AdvertisingTelephone (011) 463-7940E-mail: [email protected]

The SecretariatThe Southern African Instituteof Mining and Metallurgy

ISSN 2225-6253 (print)ISSN 2411-9717 (online)

THE INSTITUTE, AS A BODY, ISNOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THESTATEMENTS AND OPINIONSADVANCED IN ANY OF ITSPUBLICATIONS.

Copyright© 2017 by The Southern AfricanInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy. All rightsreserved. Multiple copying of the contents ofthis publication or parts thereof withoutpermission is in breach of copyright, butpermission is hereby given for the copying oftitles and abstracts of papers and names ofauthors. Permission to copy illustrations andshort extracts from the text of individualcontributions is usually given upon writtenapplication to the Institute, provided that thesource (and where appropriate, the copyright)is acknowledged. Apart from any fair dealingfor the purposes of review or criticism under

,of the Republic of South Africa, a single copy ofan article may be supplied by a library for thepurposes of research or private study. No partof this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form orby any means without the prior permission ofthe publishers.

U.S. Copyright Law applicable to users In theU.S.A.The appearance of the statement of copyrightat the bottom of the first page of an articleappearing in this journal indicates that thecopyright holder consents to the making ofcopies of the article for personal or internaluse. This consent is given on condition that thecopier pays the stated fee for each copy of apaper beyond that permitted by Section 107 or108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The fee is to bepaid through the Copyright Clearance Center,Inc., Operations Center, P.O. Box 765,Schenectady, New York 12301, U.S.A. Thisconsent does not extend to other kinds ofcopying, such as copying for generaldistribution, for advertising or promotionalpurposes, for creating new collective works, orfor resale.

SAMREC/SAMVAL COMPANION VOLUME CONFERENCE

VVOLUME 117 N O. 12 DECEMBER 2 017

�

iv

Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, and Mineralisationby T.R. Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121This paper seeks to clarify the concepts and definitions of Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, and Mineralisation and to assist in clearing misconceptions. A number of case-study examples are presented in order to illustrate the differences between Exploration Targets that are purely conceptual and those which may be identified as Mineralisation.

Development of a best-practice mineral resource classification system for the De Beers group of companiesby S. Duggan, A. Grills, J. Stiefenhofer, and M. Thurston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127The authors present a review of a best-practice Mineral Resource classification system that takes into account the complexity and variability of diamond deposits, and which includes the ability to take cognisance of new data obtained during mining and production performance.

Development of a technology to prevent spontaneous combustion of coal in underground coal miningby A. Tosun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133The aim of this study was to develop cheap materials with very low oxygen permeability and high mechanical resistance for coating the walls of the coal mine galleries in order to prevent spontaneous combustion. Epoxy/fibreglass was identified as the material with the least oxygen permeability, and also has other desirable properties.

An improved method of testing tendon straps and weld meshby B.P. Watson, D. van Niekerk, and M. Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139A more representative test than the purely tensile test for tendon straps and weld mesh, which caters for a worst-case loading condition due to block rotation, is presented, together with an improved design of tendon strap to better cope with the actual underground loading environment.

A stochastic mathematical model for determination of transition time in the non-simultaneous case of surface andunderground miningby E. Bakhtavar, J. Abdollahisharif, and A. Aminzadeh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145This research introduces a stochastic mathematical model that uses open pit long-term production planning on an integrated open pit and underground block model to determine the optimal time for transition from open pit to underground mining.

Near-surface wave attenuation (kappa) of an earthquake near Durban, South Africaby M.B.C. Brandt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155The near-surface wave attenuation factor (kappa), which describes the attenuation of seismic waves over distance in the top 1–3 km of the Earth’s crust, was determined for eastern South Africa using data from a magnitude 3.8 earthquake that occurred off the coast near Durban.

Contents (continued)


SAMREC/SAMVAL COMPANION VOLUME CONFERENCE

PAPERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

�v

This edition of the Journal features papers that were presented at the SAMREC/SAMVALCompanion Volume Conference held on 17 and 18 May 2016 and attended by some 100

people. The intention of the conference was to provide Competent Persons and CompetentValuators with the opportunity to prepare and present details of recognized standards andindustry benchmarks in all aspects of the SAMREC and SAMVAL Codes. These contributionswere collated into a Companion Volume to provide a guideline for the declaration of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, and the Valuation of Mineral Projects forSouth Africa.

The purpose of international mineral reporting codes such as the SAMREC Code and thevaluation codes such as the SAMVAL Code is to ensure that misleading, erroneous, or fraudulent information relatingto mineral properties and mineral asset valuations is not published or promoted to investors on the stock exchanges.

In preparing Public Reports for Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves (SAMREC) andMineral Asset Valuations (SAMVAL) the practitioner must satisfy the requirements of the SAMREC and SAMVALCodes. The intention of the Companion Volume is to aid the Competent Person (CP) and Competent Mineral AssetValuator (CV) when making these declarations. The objective of this conference and the Companion Volume was toprovide a record of current industry benchmarks and best practice to be used or referenced when making a declaration.A best practice consistently yields superior results to those achieved with other means or techniques, and is used as abenchmark.

Reporting in accordance with the guidelines of the Codes alone does not guarantee good reporting, as the nature ofthe mining industry changes over time due to developments in the economic, social, political, and technicalenvironments. The Codes also cover a very broad spectrum in terms of commodities, geographies, and mineraldeposit/mineralization types. It was therefore felt that more guidance was required for the CP/CV to assist withreporting and promote good reporting.

It is acknowledged that no single document could cover all the accepted industry practices or assist with allpossible situations. However, the aim of the Companion Volume is to represent the best current knowledge. A keystrategic talent is still required when applying best practice as the Competent Person or Competent Mineral AssetValuator must balance the unique situation with the practices that it has in common with others.

The Codes are guidelines to assist Competent Persons and Competent Mineral Asset Valuators when declaringExploration Results, Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves and their valuations. The purpose of the CompanionVolume is also to provide information that will be useful to mentor-less or inexperienced mineral industryprofessionals. Despite having these industry practices available, the Competent Person or Competent Mineral AssetValuator is still required to be prepared to defend themselves to their peers and take responsibly for their work.

In addition to the technical presentations, the recently developed and released guidelines for environmental, social,and governance reporting (SAMESG) were distributed at the conference. An aspect that also came out of the SAMRECCode update was the need for comprehensive guidelines for the reporting of diamonds resources and reserves. To thisend, diamond reporting guidelines were also presented and distributed. Both the Diamond guidelines and the SAMESGguidelines are supplementary to the SAMREC Code.

The Conference included three plenary addresses, a panel discussion, 29 papers about the SAMREC Code includingthree keynote addresses, and eight papers under the SAMVAL section with one keynote address. This edition of theJournal represents a selection of those papers presented.

The SAMREC and SAMVAL Codes were officially launched at the opening bell of the JSE on the 17–18 May 2016.A period was allowed in which the previous Codes (SAMREC 2007 as amended in 2009) and SAMVAL (2008) wereused in parallel to the Codes launched in 2016. The updated Codes became the prevailing Codes on 1 January 2017.

We encourage CPs and CVs to review the papers presented so that they can be up to speed with the newdevelopments in reporting and in the declaration of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources, and Mineral Reserves aswell as when making a declaration of A Mineral Asset Valuation.

K. LombergChairperson Organizing Committee

Journal

Comment

The SAMREC/SAMVAL Companion Volume

Conference

Naming of the Peter King Minerals ProcessingLaboratory

The School of Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering at Wits held a

ceremony on 7 November 2017 to mark the naming of the Peter

King Minerals Processing Laboratory in recognition of Peter King’s

contribution to the f ield of minerals processing.

A Wits alumnus, Peter King was an accomplished metallurgist

who served as the head of the Department of Metallurgy and

Materials Engineering for over a decade from 1976 to 1990 before

accepting an appointment at the University of Utah.

The ceremony was attended by industry, King’s former

students, and guests of honour, his wife, Ellen and son, Andrew.

Wits Professor of Hydrometallurgy and Sustainable

Development, Prof. Sehliselo Ndlovu, also the current President

of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy said the

laboratory would ensure the continuation of King’s vision, who was

passionate about capacity building and world-renowned for

developing useful techniques to quantify mineral liberation.

Metallurgy is key to our economy. For more than 100 years, metallurgy at Wits has been inextricably linked to that of

the mining industry, said Ndlovu. ‘Extractive metallurgy plays a critical role in maximising returns from the

processing of mineral resources such as gold, platinum, and coal.’A well-equipped laboratory for teaching and research is essential to continue producing experts in minerals

processing. Former students described Prof. King as a great teacher who instilled confidence and a desire for

continual progress. Some Wits graduates, who hold key positions in industry, reflected on Peter King’s flair with

technology. Prof. King was among the first to incorporate technology in his teaching methods and provide online

courses in response to the demands of the modern world. An all-rounder, professional staff also praised Peter

King for his hands-on approach and open door policy.

Bruce Mothibedi, a senior technician at Wits, recalls many moments when King would don an overall to lend a hand

in some of the messy pilot plant projects. ‘Rarely do you find a man of Prof. King’s calibre sacrificing his time to lend a

hand in plant processes, but he gladly did it. Staff development across different grades was also important to him and

he would arrange appropriate training for his team, be it at industry, the mines or related fields, so that one could gain

more understanding and passion for their work,’ says Mothibedi.

King, who was born in Springs in 1938, left Wits and South Africa in 1990 to take up the post in Utah. His

involvement with Wits continued across the seas. ‘Peter was very proud of the accomplishments of the department and

took great interest in the progress of the students once they graduated,’ said Mrs King, who continued to give guests a

glimpse into personal joys and loves of her husband. Ballroom dancing, which he took up in the 1960s

during a sabbatical, and book-binding were his other passions.

Head of School Professor Herman Potgieter said the lab was a fitting tribute to a ‘world-renowned member of

our family’.

The laboratory will be dedicated to technology-intensive extractive metallurgy that serves to meet the needs of

industry locally and internationally, through training of undergraduate and postgraduate students by providing

the tools necessary for high-level, applied research.

The King family has donated R500 000 towards the fitting out of the laboratory. Alumni of the School and industry are

encouraged to follow this sterling example. To make a donation, please contact the Wits Development and Fundraising

Office.

Prof. Peter King published more than 150 scholarly papers on fundamental

aspects of mineral processing during his long and distinguished career. He authored or

co-authored five books, the most recent of which are Introduction to Practical Fluid Flow (Elsevier, 2002) and Modeling and Simulation of Mineral Process Systems(Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001). Peter King sadly died at the age of 68 on

11 September 2006. At the time of his death, he was a professor of metallurgical

engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. His accomplishments over

his lifetime were truly remarkable.

(Extracts from a memorial tribute published in Vol 11: National Academy of Engineering,National Academies (2007).Peter King

Mrs Ellen King and Andrew King,respectively widow and son of the late Prof.King unveiling the R. Peter King MineralsProcessing Laboratory name plate in theSchool of Chemical and MetallurgicalEngineering at Wits

�

vi

The Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 117 DECEMbEr 2017 svii

I t is the end of the year and Christmas is in sight. We have all had a busy year and thus lookforward to a restful break, which we will fill with new memories with our families and friends.Above all, we all look forward to receiving that well-chosen wonderful gift from loved ones. A gift is

always treasured. It might be something that we did not ask for but somehow our loved ones alwaysmanage to surprise us by recognizing our need or yearning for that particular item. The fact that theyunderstand us, love and care enough to go out of their way to give us that special something is a gift initself. They make a sacrifice for a greater return; our happiness.

A gift does not have to be expensive, it does not have to be wrapped up in an expensive wrappingpaper and tied with a costly ribbon. For most of us there is one gift that is more valuable than anything

bought in a shop; more appreciated by its recipient than anything wrapped in pretty colourful paper; and sure to beremembered for years to come. This is the gift of time. Time is the most valuable gift because it is a portion of your life thatyou can never get back. Time freely given is truly priceless to those who receive it.

As you tick your Christmas gift list, I ask that as a SAIMM member, you also think of the gift you could give to theInstitute that you love this coming year. The SAIMM is a voluntary organization and as such, it depends mostly on volunteerswho freely give of their time in order to advance the Institute’s missions and goals. There are quite a number of ways in whichyou could give your time. One way is by actively participating in your local branch activities. Branches usually organizedifferent events aimed at benefiting all members. These include technical presentations on topics of interest, technical visits tomining operations, or even non-technical events such as wine tasting, hiking, or birdwatching. Lack of time is always thereason given by members for their absence from such events. Think about giving your time to branch events this coming yearas your gift to the Institute.

You could also become involved in organizing conferences through the Technical Programme Committees (TPCs). TPCsplay a significant role in providing platforms for the dissemination of information in technological developments in the miningand metallurgical industries. They are also a platform for members in these sectors to meet and share experiences. The SAIMMhas two TPCs, TPC Metallurgy and TPC Mining, which focus on organizing metallurgical- and mining-related eventsrespectively. These committees are always in need of dedicated and committed members to identify relevant topics of interestin the industry and actively participate in translating these ideas into a conference, a school, a workshop, seminar or any othermeans of disseminating value. Alternatively, you could offer your services as a reviewer for the numerous papers submittedfor conference proceedings and the SAIMM Journal. The SAIMM member database boasts members who have varied technical,operational, and academic expertise which ensures the high quality of SAIMM publications. And to top it all, your gift of timespent reading and reviewing these articles is acknowledged through the publication of your name as a reviewer in the specialAGM issue every year.

As a SAIMM member, you can also participate in the SAIMM mentoring programme. This programme is particularlyvaluable to the young professionals of the Institute. Give back by helping younger SAIMM members to set important life-goalsand develop the skills they need to guide them to a successful career.

You could also go big and run for the SAIMM Council. The Council serves as the heart of the SAIMM and as a Councilmember you have the opportunity to become actively involved in the management and administration of the Institute’s affairs.This is a major commitment which requires dedication and would be a commendable gift for the Institute. For the youngermembers of SAIMM, i.e. younger than 35 years, you could run for the Young Professionals Council and add value on issuesthat are pertinent to the younger members of the Institute.

If, however, you still feel that you are time-constrained, that the gift of time is something you truly cannot provide thiscoming year, and you need a bit more time to think about it or to reorganize yourself, you could still give an alternative gift. Adonation to the SAIMM Scholarship Trust fund is a precious and important gift. The Scholarship Trust fund was established in2003 with the goal of ensuring that no deserving student registered for a Mining or Metallurgical Engineering degreeprogramme at a South African tertiary institute is denied the opportunity of having a career in the minerals and metalsindustry as a technically qualified graduate because of financial challenges. The Fund provides assistance to a huge number ofneedy students who depend on personal or family funds for their educational needs. Your gift can be a donation to this worthycause.

As we enjoy the festive season celebrating Christmas and preparing for the New 2018 Year, let us remember that thegreatest gift we can ever give is our time and our presence. It is a gift that leads to the most magnificent and truly pricelessmemories. A very merry and restful Christmas and a joyful New Year to you all!

S. NdlovuPresident, SAIMM

A Christmas gift for the InstitutePresident’s

Corner

�

viii

Gold Fields, Wits R6 m boost formechanized mining in South Africa

Gold Fields is pleased to announce a R6-million, three-yearpartnership with the University of the Witwatersrand (WitsUniversity) to further the academic knowledge of

mechanized mining and rock engineering in South Africa.

The partnership agreement with Wits University’s School ofMining Engineering and the Wits Mining Institute was signed byGold Fields CEO Nick Holland and Wits Vice-Chancellor andPrincipal, Professor Adam Habib, 22 November.

Gold Fields’ funding seeks to fill the gap of mechanizedmining skills in South Africa, with the company managing thecountry’s largest and deepest underground mechanized goldmine, South Deep. The skills and expertise required to bring themine, with an expected life of over 70 years, to full productionare not in abundant supply in South Africa.

‘With the Mining School’s long history of research-intensivehigher education and the more recently launched Wits MiningInstitute, with its focus on digital mining, it made for a naturalpartnership,’ says Holland.

‘Both Gold Fields and Wits University want to collaborate indeveloping young professionals with the knowledge and skillsrequired to support mechanized, deep level gold mining.Through this we can undoubtedly assist the mining industry ingeneral and play our part in bringing South Deep to fullproduction,’ adds Habib.

A number of projects have already been identified forfunding by Gold Fields during the three-year period. They are:

• Three postgraduate research projects linked to the Chair ofRock Engineering at the School

• Two Geological Resource Modelling postgraduate researchprojects

• Two postgraduate Drill and Blast improvement and otherproductivity-related research projects

Gold Fields’ funding will also be used to cover the costs ofabout four to six 3rd and 4th year student research works ayear. The post-graduate and under-graduate research projectswill be in subject areas that are critical to South Deep as it rampsup to full production in 2022.

As part of the partnership Gold Fields has been grantednaming rights for the Genmin Laboratories building on the WitsCampus, which will now be known as the Gold FieldsLaboratories building.

The partnership between Gold Fields and Wits Universitygoes back many years. Most recently, in 2010, the companypledged R18 million on a three-year sponsorship deal comprisinga number of investments in the Faculty of Engineering and theBuilt Environment at Wits University. The last of these fundswere spent in 2015.

‘Wits has for decades provided the skills needed to powerSouth Africa’s mining industry. This latest sponsorship willensure that they are in a position to do so for many more yearsto come,’ says Holland

S. BrahamOn behalf of the Wits School of Mining

Email: [email protected]

Mining research and development reborn –the Mining Precinct

History tells us that, during the 1970s and 1980s, mining research and development in South Africa was at the global forefront,driven by the need to continue and grow mining, and gold in particular, at depths ‘way beyond where other mining countries daredto go’.

South Africa, through the Chamber of Mines Research Organisation (COMRO) and other initiatives, became the leader in miningresearch in deep level, narrow-reef mining, as well as block caving mining in the diamond and copper industries. This was as aresult of co-investment by Chamber of Mines member companies which, in today’s money terms, amounted to some R400 million ayear.

Unfortunately, during the 1990s and beyond, R&D funding reduced significantly, to the extent that, by 2014, only some R5 million was allocated by government to mining R&D. Part of the reason for this was that mining companies decided to ‘go italone’, and set up their own R&D capacity and projects. Whilst this was in many cases successful, these initiatives inevitably becamethe victims of fluctuating price cycles, and budgetary constraints.

The world is moving forward at an alarming pace. The term Industry 4.0 is a name for the current trend of automation and dataexchange, particularly in the manufacturing industries. It includes the Internet of Things, which focusses on the integration of alldata into platforms that allow real time decision making. Industry 4.0 is now upon us, and our mining industry, and if our industrydoes not join this innovation curve, it will be left behind. Our industry is faced not only with technological and economic challenges,but also challenges of the requisite skills, water supply, depleting reserves and environmental, health and safety issues.

Nevertheless, we have opportunities, if R&D can find the answers, of mining the extensive resources that still exist unmined,either in deep operations, or in lower grades. These challenges can only be met if we establish a collaborative and enablingenvironment for mining R&D, innovation and the development of world-class manufacturing in the mining and beneficiation space.

The Mining Phakisa was held in 2015, as a multi-stakeholder engagement that spanned some five weeks of intensive work anddebate, aimed at finding ways to re-establish the mining industry in a sustainable manner as a significant contributor to GDP.

The broad aim of Mining Phakisa was to foster growth, transformation, investment and employment preservation and creationalong the entire mining value chain, in relevant input sectors and within communities affected by mining activities. This was to beachieved by conducting innovative research and development initiatives in collaboration with industry, the original equipmentmanufacturers (OEMs) within the mining supply chain, tertiary education institutions, government departments such as theDepartment of Science and Technology (DST) and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), as well as other stakeholders in theindustry.

Prior to the Phakisa, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) with the support of the DST developed the SouthAfrican Mining Extraction Research, Development & Innovation (SAMERDI) Strategy. In parallel, following extensive discussionsbetween Chamber of Mines members, through the Chamber Council, there resulted a breakthrough in terms of establishing anindustry open innovation platform. A forum was established that identified the main research areas or programmes, and these werethen meshed into the SAMERDI strategy,

Thus, the SAMERDI strategy was adopted post-Phakisa as the mining R&D strategy that would achieve the outcomes of thePhakisa. The Mining Precinct@Carlow Road was established as the physical location from where R&D activities would be co-ordinated along with the Mining Hub to provide management oversight in the implementation of the SAMERDI strategy.

The aims of the strategy is: ‘To maximize the returns from South Africa’s mineral wealth through collaborative, sustainable research, development,

innovation and implementation of mining technologies in a socially, environmentally and financially responsible manner that isrooted in the wellbeing of local communities and the national economy’.

Of great significance in these developments has been the financial commitment to the R&D programmes by the following:

1. The DST made the Carlow Road facility available which is now known as the Mining Precinct@Carlow Road for thecoordination and facilitation of Mining R&D;

2. The DST granted, through National Treasury, an amount of R150 million over a three- year period, and which may beincreased and certainly continued;

3. The DTI granted an amount of R8 million for the establishment of MEMSA (Mining Equipment Manufacturers of SouthAfrica) as a development cluster to increase the capacity and capability of local mining equipment manufacturing, both for thelocal and export markets. MEMSA is housed within the Mining Precinct@Carlow Road;

4. The Chamber of Mines, in addition to initial seed funding in 2016 of some R10 million, has pledged support of R33 millionfor 2018.

5. Additionally, commitments have been made by the mining departments at Universities and the CSIR to participate in theseprogrammes in a fully collaborative manner.

As a result of these developments, mining R&D has been restarted, and the Mining Precinct@Carlow Road now has some 55occupants, ranging from interns to researchers, principal investigators, programme managers and a Mining Hub directorate.Governance has been addressed through the establishment of a steering committee, with representation from key stakeholders,operating similar to that of a board.

�ix

The R&D programmes listed below are currently funded by the DST and participating mining companies and are co-managed bythe CSIR and the Chamber of Mines. The CSIR is contracted by the DST to serve as an incubator of the Mining Hub and the leadimplementer of SAMERDI. This is part of a strategic journey that aims to re-establish a world-class organization as a public-privatepartnership that will support the industry from now until 2030, and beyond.

The SAMERDI Steering Committee is co-chaired by representatives from the DST and the Chamber of Mines, and includes thefollowing programmes (each of which has many sub-projects):

1. Longevity of Current Mining operations (LoCM)—The focus is to increase the efficiency of extraction, improvement inoccupational health and safety and reduction in costs in current mining operations.

2. Mechanized Drill and Blasting (MD&B)—To develop fully mechanized mining systems that will allow for remote drillingand blasting of narrow hard rock mines (in particular the gold and platinum mines).

3. 24/7 Non-Explosive Rock breaking (NERB)—To develop complete mining systems for continuous mining, allowing for oreextraction that is completely independent of the use of explosives.

4. Advanced Orebody Knowledge (AOK)—Mechanization and modernization of mining requires better knowledge of theorebody ahead of the mining face. This project aims to make ‘glass rock’ so that, instead of mining blind, an accurate 3-Dreal time model can be used for safety and planning.

5. Real Time Information Management Systems (RTIMS)—The inability to accurately monitor issues in real time poses asignificant challenge across the entire mining process, even more so when using mechanized mining methods. Production-related issues have a direct impact on the efficiency of the mines. Using real time information for monitoring and controlallows pro-active intervention that can correct deviations and unsafe conditions as they arise. Thus, the ‘Ïnternet of Things’becomes a mining imperative for the future.

6. Successful Applications of Technology MAP (SATMAP)—Modernization via automation and mechanization of South Africanmining processes will have significant implications on the number of people employed in the industry as well as the requiredskills level. This will also require significant attention to change management issues. The requirements for the upstream anddownstream processes associated with mechanisation will have to be understood.

These programmes extend well beyond pure technology implementation. They obviously include many people issues, andmining process and system issues, where radical, modern ideas are required. As such, the programmes focus on people-centricsolutions, that will allow mining to be conducted in a safe, healthy and ergonomically friendly environment, whereby lower gradeorebodies can be mined with minimal dilution, with order of magnitude improvements in efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Less obvious, but equally important, is the need to engage with communities and other stakeholders, on issues of localindustrialization, the establishment of local agri-business, and skills development. Skills development requires that not only aredirect skills identified for the future, but also supervisory and management skills, as well as community skills development, andskills development within OEMs and small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) are identified.

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM) has been kept abreast of the developments post-Phakisa,and has organized events that support elements of the R&D programmes. It now needs to become more involved in terms ofproviding platforms for dissemination of research and development information, in helping to develop new R&D skills andcompetencies, and in supporting R&D initiatives.

A direct result of the demise of R&D over the last 20 years has been the loss of key research capacity and experience. Now thatthis new initiative is underway, there is a need to develop a new breed and critical mass of researchers, to take the programmesforward. These researchers are being drawn from research organisations, Universities, industry and interns. In the case of interns,

these are being sourced through the databases of the YoungProfessionals Council, thus further increasing the support of the SAIMM.

Here, the SAIMM can also assist through its members. Members whomay wish to become involved in the activities at the Mining Precinct areencouraged to support the activities of the researchers and interns in anadvisory, or mentorship role, so as to rebuild much-needed capacity andcapability. These people will require guidance in how to conduct theirresearch, as well as assistance in terms of linkages to industry and itsneeds, while at the same time being encouraged to engage in disruptivethinking and ideas

Anyone who would like to pursue such an interest is encouraged tocontact the Directors of the Mining Precinct@Carlow Road—AlastairMacfarlane ([email protected]) or Navin Singh([email protected]) or telephonically via 011 358 0004.

�

x

The development of the Combined ReservesInternational Reporting Standards Committee(CRIRSCO) family of international reportingcodes is a response to a number of miningindustry ‘bubbles’, e.g. the Poseidon nickelboom and bust of 1969/70 and the Bre-Xscandal of 1997. Although the USA andAustralia had already started developing theircodes (1988 and 1989 respectively), theinternational initiative to standardize reportingdefinitions for Mineral Resources and MineralReserves began at the 15th Council of Miningand Metallurgical Institutions (CMMI)Congress at Sun City, South Africa in 1994.The ad-hoc International Definitions Group(later to become CRIRSCO) was tasked withthe primary objective of developing a set ofinternational standard definitions for thereporting of Mineral Resources and MineralReserves. Deliberations continued, withagreement being reached for the definitions ofthe two major categories, Mineral Resourcesand Mineral Reserves, and their respectivesub-categories Measured, Indicated, andInferred Mineral Resource, and Proved andProbable Mineral Reserves under the DenverAccord in 1997. Following these agreements,an updated version of the JORC Code wasreleased in Australia in 1999 and the firstSAMREC Code was issued in 2000.

In 2002, the Combined ReservesInternational Reporting Standards Committee(CRIRSCO, now known as the Committee forMineral Reserves International ReportingStandards) was formed, replacing the CMMIInternational Definitions Group with themission to continue coordination between

The 2016 SAMREC Code

by K. Lomberg* and S.M. Rupprecht†

The SAMREC Code is a guideline that stipulates the minimum standardsfor the reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and MineralReserves; adds credibility to declarations by project promoters, and assistsin comparisons due to the uniform basis of the declaration, assistsprofessionals by providing guidance; assists the Competent Person todemonstrate the legitimacy of the declaration, and provides credibility toPublic Reporting.

The SAMREC Code provides guidelines and acts as one of thefundamental mechanisms to assist in the progression of mining projects.Importantly, it holds professionals accountable for their work, but does notspecify the technical details relating to estimating Exploration Results,Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves. The SAMREC Code does provideguidance in the estimation and declaration of Exploration Results, MineralResources and Mineral Reserves; thus endorsing the sustainability of themineral industry.

A revision of the SAMREC Code was necessary because the mineralindustry has advanced and has changed focus as the prevailing economicand political circumstances have changed. The manner in which projectsand mines are funded, developed, and operated is continually altering;there are shifting requirements by the investment community,government, and society (social license to operate); there is a need topromote greater efficiency in capital raising and funding for exploration,mining, and production companies; and the SAMREC Code must keepabreast of the advances made by other international reporting codes andeliminate possible contradictory reporting practices.

The aspects that have been addressed and updated in the 2016SAMREC Code are as follows:

� The complete adoption of the Combined Reserves InternationalReporting Standards Committee (CRIRSCO) standard definitions

� Additional assistance with the understanding and reporting ofExploration Results

� The inclusion of a new table format and the adoption of the ‘If not,why not’ principle in reporting

� Further emphasis on economics and transparency/materiality� Additional Technical Studies definitions and the inclusion of

guidelines in terms of the composition of Technical Studies� Provision of clarity as to the point of reference for a declaration� Making a site visit by the Competent Person mandatory� Revision of aspects relating to coal and improved alignment with

SANS 10320� The provision of a more comprehensive diamond and gemstone

section� The introduction of a section on industrial minerals and metal

equivalents� Inclusion of recommendations for a table of contents, signature

page, glossary of terms, and updating of definitions.The objective of this paper is to inform the reader of the changes to the

SAMREC Code and to re-emphasize best practice for the declaration ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves.

Reporting codes, SAMREC 2016.

* Coffey Mining (SA) Pty Ltd, South Africa.† University of Johannesburg, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, 2017. ISSN 2225-6253. This paperwas first presented at the SAMREC/SAMVALCompanion Volume Conference ‘An IndustryStandard for Mining Professionals in SouthAfrica’, 17–18 May 2016, Emperors Palace,Johannesburg

1095VOLUME 117 �

http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/2017/v117n12a1


member countries for the development of internationalstandards for the definition and reporting of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves.Subsequently, various other codes have been developedbased on the CRIRSCO template. These now include ninenational/regional reporting organizations (NROs): namelyAustralasia (JORC), Brazil (CBRR), Canada (CIM), Chile(National Committee), Europe (National Committee PERC),Mongolia (MPIGM), Russia (OERN), South Africa (SAMREC),and the USA (SME). The combined value of miningcompanies listed on the stock exchanges of these countriesaccounts for more than 80% of the listed capital of themining industry (CRIRSCO website).

The mining industry is a vital contributor to national,regional, and international economies. There is a continuousdemand for various mineral and metal commodities thatnecessitates finding new deposits, as well as developing moreefficient, safer, and cheaper ways of mining and processingminerals. In an ever-changing world, new products arecontinuously being developed that require new commoditiesor the continued production of existing commodities.Commodities are frequently discovered in one area,beneficiated and refined in another, and sold or used in yetanother location. The mining industry therefore transcendsinternational boundaries and ‘depends on the trust andconfidence of investors and other stakeholders for itsoperational well-being’ (CRIRSCO website).

The process of developing a mining project or mineinvolves technical expertise, requires a substantial and long-term capital investment, and carries numerous uncertaintiesand risks. Unlike many other industries, mining is based ondepleting assets, the knowledge of which is imperfect prior tothe commencement of extraction. To mitigate the risks andobtain support (financial, political, social etc.) for theinvestment, a detailed technical, financial, environmental,governmental, and social understanding of the project/mineis required. It is therefore essential that the industry is able tocommunicate the investment risks effectively and thusprovide a level of trust and confidence for investors and otherstakeholders to allow project progression and a sustainableoperation. Part of the communication is provided by thedeclaration of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Theinternational codes provide significant guidelines that interalia provide a common understanding of the project/mine.‘The international mining industry has a need tocommunicate effectively. With meaningful standards in placeand enforced, sound decision can be made by variousstakeholders in their participation in a project, as well as thebest way to progress it’ (Rendu, 2000).

The aim of the SAMREC Code is to contribute to gainingand maintaining the trust of potential investors and otherinterested parties and stakeholders by promoting highstandards of reporting of mineral estimates (MineralResources and Mineral Reserves) and of exploration progress(Exploration Results). Furthermore, the SAMREC Codecontains specific guidelines for the Public Reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources, and MineralReserves for mineral projects and mines. The SAMREC Code:

� Provides minimum standards for reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources, and MineralReserves

� Adds credibility to declarations by project promotersand assists in the comparison with similar projects dueto the uniform basis of declaration

� Assists professionals by providing guidance� Assists the Competent Person to demonstrate the

legitimacy of the declaration and provides credibility tothe Public Report.

The SAMREC Code does not specify the technical detailsrelating to estimating Exploration Results, Mineral Resources,and Mineral Reserves. The interpretation of the raw data, thegeological interpretation, engineering design, infrastructurerequirements, and governmental, social, and environmentalinputs are all required to be based on the contribution ofspecialists and signed off by a Competent Person. Becausethe geological model is open to interpretation and has a hugeinfluence on the mine design and associated financial outlookof the mine or project, there is a need for guidelines. TheSAMREC Code provides these guidelines and a mechanism toassist in the progression of mining projects, which includesholding professionals (Compentent Persons) accountable fortheir work.

Over and above the technical work, the SAMREC Coderequires the Competent Person to justify and document thetechnical inputs and the process underlying the declaration ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources, and MineralReserves. This approach relies on the Competent Personbeing prepared to face his/her peers and willing to takeresponsibility for the result.

The aim of the SAMREC Code is to develop and maintainthe trust of investors and other interested and affected partiesby promoting high standards of Public Reporting. TheSAMREC Code represents the minimum reporting standardand compels the Competent Person to rather report ‘moreinformation than the barest minimum’. The SAMREC Codeprovides the guiding principles that support thesedeclarations.

As a result of increasing professionalism and updatedmethodologies, it is necessary to regularly review and updatethe SAMREC Code because:

� The minerals industry has advanced and changed focusas the prevailing economic and political circumstanceshave evolved

� The manner in which projects and mines are funded,developed, and operated is continually changing

� The requirements of the investment community,government, and society (social licence to operate) areshifting

� There is a need to promote greater efficiency in capitalraising and utilization of funds for exploration, mining,and beneficiation

� The SAMREC Code must keep abreast of the advancesmade by other international reporting codes andeliminate possible contradictory reporting practices.

�

1096 VOLUME 117

In recent years, CRIRSCO has worked towards aligning all theinternational reporting codes so that the definitions used inthe extractive industries are globally consistent. Thisconsistency is based on insisting that the 15 standarddefinitions are commonly applied to all the internationalCodes (CRIRSCO, 2013). The following are the standarddefinitions commonly applied by CRIRSCO members:

Public Reports Measured ResourceCompetent Person Mineral ReserveModifying Factors Probable ReserveExploration Target Proved ReserveExploration Results Scoping StudyMineral Resource Pre-Feasibility StudyIndicated Resource Feasibility StudyInferred Resource

Consequently, the definitions in the SAMREC Code arerequired to be either identical to, or not materially differentfrom, the other international definitions.

The reporting of Exploration Results has occasionally beenmisused (or abused) as some Competent Persons have tendedto be selective in their reporting. Because reporting ofExploration Results represents the entry level to declarations,a lot of effort has been made to ensure that these declarationsare considered balanced reporting. Clause 18 of the SAMRECCode has been updated with the intention that ExplorationResults must not be ‘presented in a way that unreasonablyimplies the discovery of potentially economic mineralisation’and should include relevant data and information relating tothe mineral property (both positive and negative). TheSAMREC Code further advises that ‘historical data andinformation may also be included if, in the consideredopinion of the Competent Person, such is relevant, givingreasons for such conclusions’. Guidance has also been

provided that ‘the data and information may be derived fromadjacent or nearby properties if the Competent Person canprovide justification of continuity for such an association’(Rupprecht, 2015). Also, the deposit is referred to as‘Mineralisation’ so as not to imply any degree of technical oreconomic study.

The reporting of Exploration Targets in the updated 2016SAMREC Code has not changed in that a range of tons andgrade has to be reported. However, guidance is provided inthe use of the data maxima and minima being required, andthe requirement that an Exploration Target cannot betabulated together with Mineral Resources and MineralReserves. It is hoped that this will clearly indicate the lowlevel of confidence in the information and ensure that areported Exploration Target cannot be misconstrued ormisrepresented as a Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve.

The 2016 SAMREC Code provides a comprehensive checklistfor the Competent Person in the form of Table I. One of thecriticisms of the previous SAMREC Code has been theformulation of this table. The revised Table I is now in a‘landscape’ format with each section numbered with Arabicnumerals. Each sub-section that existed in the 2009 Table Ihas been included in the various sections and numberedusing Roman numerals (Figure 1). Additional informationwas sourced from the other international reporting codes and,where appropriate, the sub-sections of the original Table Ireworded. It is believed that the new referencing will beeasier for, inter alia, the JSE Reader requirements, and willassist Competent Persons to ensure they have addressed allthe necessary reporting aspects.

The structure attempts to follow the logical projectprogression from the scientific aspects relating to the geologyin the first few sections to the engineering aspects in the latersections. The structure also cascades from ExplorationResults to Mineral Resources and then to Mineral Reserves(proceeding left to right in the table).


1097VOLUME 117 �

Table 1 in the 2016 SAMREC Code provides a comprehensivechecklist of the various technical aspects that are required foran Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, or MineralReserve declaration. The use of the checklist for everydeclaration is considered best practice and if completedproperly it can provide the Competent Person with assurancethat no technical inputs or practices have been omitted. Italso provides users with confidence that the declaration isfully compliant and can be relied upon. The revised SAMRECCode has included a requirement to report against Table 1 onan ‘if not, why not’ basis for maiden declarations and when amaterial change in the declaration has occurred for asignificant project/mine. The reader is referred to theSAMREC Code glossary of terms for the definition of‘material’ and a ‘significant project’. The 2016 SAMREC Coderequires that every aspect of the Table 1 (checklist) must beanswered by the Competent Person so as to adequatelyaddress all key elements of the reporting of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves. Whereaspects of this table are not included in the Public Report, theCompetent Person is required to comment as to why theyhave not been addressed.

The motivation for this requirement is to improve‘transparency’ and ‘materiality’, as well as making it moredifficult to be ‘opaque’ or present ‘selective’ reporting inmarket releases or other Public Reports. ‘If not, why not’reporting increases confidence in Public Reporting, as well asassisting the Competent Person to include all aspects that areasonable stakeholder, investor, and advisors would expectto find in a Public Report. Furthermore, the reportingmechanism assists the Competent Person to provide allrelevant details, whether they are perceived as positive ornegative, in the Public Report.

An ‘if not, why not’ approach is required in recognition of aperceived lack of transparency and/or materiality in PublicReporting. The SAMREC Committee felt that it was importantthat the aspects of balanced reporting are emphasized. Anaspect often lacking in Public Reporting is the demonstrationof ‘reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction’.To this end, various points have been added to Table 1 toprovide more detail to stakeholders, investors, and advisers,and which are aimed at improving the communication ofresults and engendering trust and confidence in the industry.

The previous code contained definitions for Pre-FeasibilityStudy and Feasibility Study. This is appropriate, as theminimum requirement for the declaration of a MineralReserve is a Pre-Feasibility level study. The detailedrequirements, although broadly understood, are frequentlyselectively considered. To assist in providing a commonunderstanding, Table 2 has been included in the 2016SAMREC Code to provide some detail and reduce theambiguity of the definitions. It must be noted that these aregenerally recognized definitions and not mandatory.

Since the previous edition of the SAMREC Code theconcept of Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) hasbecome increasingly popular in Canada. This is a synonymfor a Scoping Study. As a result, and following the CRIRSCO

lead, the definition of ‘Scoping Study’ is provided andsupported by information provided in Table 2. It must beemphasized that a Scoping Study is not sufficient grounds toallow for the declaration of a Mineral Reserve.

Independence of the Competent Person has been a topic ofdebate within the mineral industry. The SAMREC Codeallows employees and people who have a vested interest in aproject to sign off as the Competent Person. However, therelationship with the commissioning entity must be clearlystated. Defining independence can at times be extremelydifficult and complex and it is therefore left to thecommissioning entity to define if independence is arequirement.

The declaration of a Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve islinked to various common practices and economic realities. Adeclaration for precious and base metals typically reportsgrade as a head grade, i.e. prior to processing. However, theeconomics of bulk commodities and industrial minerals arelinked to the saleable specification. Therefore, the concept ofdefining the point of reference has been introduced in the2016 SAMREC Code to improve transparency and enhancecommunication and understanding.

Until now, the necessity of a site visit has not been definitive.The SAMREC Code now requires a site visit to be undertakenby a Competent Person. This is without a doubt best practiceand assists the Competent Person in fully appreciating thetechnical complexities of the assignment. However, where asite visit is impractical or impossible due to, for instance,political unrest, this should be declared. In this case, theCompetent Person cannot abstain from taking responsibility,although a caveat may be appropriate.

In parallel with the SAMREC Code update there has been arevision of the SANS coal standard (SANS 10320: SouthAfrican Guide to the Systematic Evaluation of Coal Resourcesand Coal Reserves). It must be noted that this is a standardunder the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) andcovers a slightly different ambit, which includes nationalreporting of Coal Resources and Coal Reserves. Nonetheless itincludes various valuable aspects that are relevant to thedeclaration of Coal Resources and Coal Reserves. TheSAMREC Code therefore requires that SANS 10320 isconsidered when preparing reports for Coal Resources or CoalReserves. This has allowed the coal section of the 2016SAMREC Code to be revised and abbreviated.

It must be noted that some aspects of coal reporting werepreviously not fully consistent with the SAMREC Code; forexample, the requirement for a Feasibility Study to becompleted in order to declare a Proved Coal Reserve. Theclassification of Proved and Probable Coal Reserves has beenmodified to reflect a minimum requirement of a Pre-Feasibility Study or Life of Mine Plan, which now aligns thisdefinition with international requirements. An additionalchange to coal reporting is the removal of reporting of In-SituCoal Reserves in the 2016 SAMREC Code. It should be notedthat this later concept is not lost and is still part of the SANSstandard – but is no longer included in the SAMREC Code.


�

1098 VOLUME 117

The 2009 SAMREC Code had a diamond section. However,the section was not considered adequate in terms of therequirements of Public Reporting, and a significant revisionwas undertaken to include a set of guidelines forconsideration when a Competent Person makes a publicdeclaration.

Ten additional clauses, as well as a diagram todemonstrate the relationship between Diamond ExplorationResults, Diamond Resources, and Diamond Reserves, havebeen included in the 2016 SAMREC Code. Due to the numberof changes in the diamond section of the Code and thespecific nature of diamond reporting, readers are referred tothe 2016 SAMREC Code for elaboration of these changes. Keyareas discussed are:

� Stone size distribution� Diamond price� Geological domains� Minimum representative parcel or samples for various

deposits� Use of kimberlitic indicator mineral chemistry in grade

and value estimation� Valuation of microdiamonds and sampling protocols � Relationship between the micro- and macro-diamond

portions of the size frequency distribution curve� Recovery factors.

The reporting of industrial minerals is a new section in theSAMREC Code. The broadening of the ambit of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves hasnecessitated that more specific information be provided whendealing with industrial minerals. Aspects mentioned includethe importance of a market and the saleable specifications.

Metal equivalents are a contentious issue. However, someguidance is required and specifically the minimumrequirements of grades, recoveries, and metal prices areemphasized. These have been included as a separate sectionin the SAMREC Code to provide better understanding andcommunication to the various stakeholders and interestedand affected persons or parties.

Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43-101 is oftenconsidered a superior form of reporting due to its structure.The structure, like the guidelines in the SAMREC Code, doesnot guarantee the quality of the Public Report, which remainsthe responsibility of the Competent Person. However, the2016 SAMREC Code now includes a suggested table ofcontents to assist the Competent Person in providing areadable document and improve communication of thetechnical aspects.

Key changes to the SAMREC Code include the updating of theglossary of terms to provide a minimal consistency with theCRIRSCO Reporting Template. For instance, the definition of aRecognised Overseas Professional Organisation (ROPO) wasupdated to Recognised Professional Organisation (RPO).Other terms, such items as review, Competent Person’sReport, and audit have been added to the glossary of terms.

The Competent Person must take responsibility for his/herwork. The guidance provided in the form of a suggestedsignature page is aimed at identifying the Competent Person,noting their qualifications, affiliations, and relevantexperience, as well as demonstrating that the CompetentPerson has indeed taken responsibility for their work or theircontribution to the Public Report.

The classification diagram has been revised and although thechange is minimal, the diagram (Figure 1 of the 2016SAMREC Code) is now virtually the same as the CRIRSCOdiagram. The important inclusion is Infrastructure as aModifying Factor. In addition, specific diagrams have beendrafted for coal and diamond classifications.

During the last few years the legislation affecting surveyinghas been revised in the form of the Geomatics Profession Act19 of 2013. A consequence of this has been the disbandingof PLATO and the establishment of the South AfricanGeomatics Council (SAGC) (statutory body) and the Instituteof Mine Surveyors of South Africa (IMSSA) (learned society)to replace PLATO. These bodies have the necessarydisciplinary codes and codes of ethics.

The designated Competent Person must be sure that theyunderstand fully the meaning of the Competent Persondesignation and the responsibilities that go with it. Being aCompetent Person is not only about the professional traininga person has received, nor simply a matter of being in asupervisory role and certainly not just a matter of beingdesignated – it means the person takes responsibility for theirpart of the Public Report. The responsibility of deemingoneself as a Competent Person lies with the individual as the‘Competent Person must be clearly satisfied in their ownmind that they are able to face their peers and demonstratecompetence in the commodity, type of deposit and situationunder consideration’ (SAMREC Code Clause 10). It is theresponsibility of the Competent Person to be fully aware of allapplicable rules and regulations before a signing off on aPublic Report.

The key professions in Public Reporting and declarationsin terms of the Code are geology, surveying, and miningengineering. They are, naturally, supported by a number ofother professionals such as economists, metallurgists,engineers (geotechnical, ventilation, civil, mechanical,electrical etc.), environmentalists, social scientists/practitioners, and lawyers.

Geologists bring a range of important skills to the estimationof Mineral Resources, notably the discipline and rigor ofscience. Their interpretation of the often sparse data resultsin geological understanding and interpretation in the form ofgeological models. An important aspect of science is theability to predict beyond the data. Geologists are able toassist in presenting the scientific aspects of a project/minethat allow the engineers to provide a technical solution forthe exploitation of the mineralisation. The tool used is thegeological model and associated grade or block model. The


VOLUME 117 1099 �


value of the block model is that it provides the informationnecessary for mine and infrastructure design, supports thedevelopment of the mining schedule and informs mineralprocessing strategies, and underpins the declaration ofMineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.

The mine surveyor is one of the key contributors to themining industry. Surveyors are responsible for maintainingaccurate plans of the mine. More importantly, the surveyor isresponsible for the measuring process that keeps account ofthe monthly production (tonnage and grade) of the operation.In addition to this, the volumes of the waste dumps and othersurface stockpiles are frequently determined.

Mine surveying is considered to be a branch of miningscience and technology and includes all measurements,calculations, and mapping that serve the purpose ofascertaining and documenting information at all stages fromprospecting to exploitation and utilizing of mineral depositsby both surface and underground workings (InternationalSociety for Mine Surveying). Mine surveyors therefore workhand-in-hand with geologists and mining engineers,especially as regards the geometry of the deposit/orebody andthe associated quality/grade. Mine surveyors assist with, andare an integral part of, the estimation of Mineral Resourcesand Mineral Reserves.

The role of the mining engineer is to design, develop, andoperate safe and efficient mines, whether surface orunderground operations. Their role is to combine anunderstanding of the deposit with the various engineeringdisciplines by applying their technical knowledge andmanagement skills. The mining engineer will assess thetechnical, engineering, and commercial viability of a projector mine. This requires the design of a possible mine,including geotechnical engineering, productionrequirements/profiles, equipment specifications, ventilation,health and safety, etc. These technical aspects may bereported in a Scoping Study, Pre-Feasibility Study orFeasibility Study, or Life of Mine Plan for an existing mineand will form the basis of the declaration of a MineralReserve. Mining engineers are able to undertake the varioustechnical or engineering aspects of a mining operation, whichare a series of very complex tasks, and formulate a mine planand schedule that can be executed.

The financial valuation of a project or mine relies ongeological and grade models that are the result of scientificmodelling, together with engineering skills provided by themining engineer and other experts and specialists.

The way forward for Competent Persons is to embrace the2016 SAMREC Code and appropriately apply the guidelines. Itis safe to assume that increased attention will be given toPublic Reporting in the future, partly in response to thelaunch of the revised SAMREC Code. Use of the SAMRECCode should be motivated by the desire to provide the besttechnical output possible rather than by a fear of theconsequence of making a mistake or being found on thewrong side of the SAMREC Code’s guidelines. By complyingwith the SAMREC Code, Competent Persons can enhance theirreputation and the reputation of the mining industry.

Although the revised SAMREC Code came into effect on 1January 2017, there remain some unresolved issues, forexample, the reporting of Mineral Resources inclusively orexclusively of Mineral Reserves, and the registration ofCompetent Persons. These are complex issues that willrequire further discussion. Other issues can be expected toarise in the future and will also need to be discussed. It ishoped that the solution to these issues and new issues can beresolved through public debate or articles on best practicerather than having to revise or update the Code in the nearfuture.

In preparing a Public Report the practitioner must satisfy therequirements of the SAMREC Code. The intention of theSAMREC Code is to aid the Competent Person in thedeclaration of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, andMineral Reserves.

The authors acknowledge that no single document couldcover all accepted industry practices or assist with all possiblesituations. However, the aim of the SAMREC Code is toprovide guidance that represent the best current knowledgein terms of reporting practices. Competency and diligence arestill required when applying the SAMREC Code, as theCompetent Person must balance the unique situation of adeposit with best practices. Despite having the SAMREC Codeavailable, Competent Persons are still required to be preparedto defend themselves to their peers and take responsibly fortheir work.

The amount of effort that may be required in complyingwith the revised Code must not be underestimated. However,the hope is that the industry will see improvedcommunication and the positive progression of projects andmines as a result of these changes.

This paper could not have been written without thecontributions made by the many friends and fellowprofessionals who have contributed to the writing andrevision of the SAMREC Code over the last 15 years.Although the authors have been involved only in the last sixyears, we owe them an immense debt. Naming them allwould be impossible.

BIRCH, C. 2014. New systems for geological modelling – black box or bestpractice? Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, vol. 114. pp. 993–1000.

BLUMER, J.M. 2000. The Valmin Code – Bible, Roadmap or Signpost?International Aspects of Resource and Reserve Reporting in MICA. TheCodes Forum, Sydney.

RENDU, J.M. 2000. International aspects of Resource and Reserve Standards.International Aspects of Resource and Reserve Reporting in MICA. TheCodes Forum, Sydney.

RUPPRECHT, S.M. 2015. The SAMREC Code 2105 — some thoughts andconcerns. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, vol. 115, no. 11. pp. 987-991.

SAMREC. 2009. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and MineralReserves (the SAMREC Code). 2007 Edition as amended July 2009.http://www.samcode.co.za/downloads/SAMREC2009.pdf

SAMREC. 2016. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves (the SAMREC Code). 2016 Edition.http://www.samcode.co.za/codes/category/8-reporting-codes?download=120:samrec �

�

1100 VOLUME 117

AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) has a number ofoperations across ten countries (Figure 1) andis listed on four stock exchanges, therefore itspublic reporting must comply with therequirements of a number of differentregulatory bodies across multiple jurisdictions.

With the first publication of theAustralasian Code for Reporting of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves(‘the JORC Code’) in 1989 and the subsequentpublishing of the South African Code for theReporting of Exploration Results, MineralResources and Mineral Reserves (the SAMRECCode) in 2007, AGA quickly recognized thatthe processes in place within the company forthe reporting of Mineral Resources and MineralReserves were inadequate for the evolvingregulatory environment. In response, thecompany embarked on a 10-year journey todevelop a far more formalized, structured, andstandardized approach to reporting.

To simplify this process and providestandardization, AGA manages its MineralResource and Mineral Reserve reporting interms of the SAMREC Code, supported byinternal guidelines. The internal guidelines areset out to ensure the reporting of ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources, and MineralReserves is consistently undertaken in amanner in accordance with AGA’s businessexpectations and also in compliance withinternationally accepted codes of practiceadopted by AGA. The document outlines theminimum requirement for reporting to ensurethat the process is consistent and transparentacross AGA.

AGA follows a process-driven approach tothe reporting of its Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve. The lead is taken by the AGAMineral Resource and Ore Reserve ReportingCommittee (RRSC), whose membership andterms of references are mandated under apolicy document signed off by the ChiefExecutive Officer. Its primary function is as afacilitator of the process, setting therequirements and the standards of quality.

AGA recognizes that the reporting ofAGA’s Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserveis the responsibility of the company actingthrough its Board of Directors; with access tothe Board being through the Board AuditCommittee. The final published outcome isbased on Mineral Resource and MineralReserve reports and supporting documentationprepared by Competent Persons (CPs). Toachieve this outcome and ensure regulatoryapproval, all CPs are members of SACNASP,ECSA, or SAGC, or are a Member or Fellow ofthe SAIMM, the GSSA, IMSSA, or aRecognized Professional Organization (RPO).

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reservegovernance and reporting for AngloGoldAshantiby R. Peattie, V. Chamberlain, and T. Flitton

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governance is the comprehensive,overarching management process by which the Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve is estimated, managed, and reported. Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve governance provides the Board of Directors and investorswith assurance on the integrity of the reported Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve, which is the primary asset of the company and uponwhich investment decisions are based. The framework for Mineral Resourceand Mineral Reserve governance of a company must be compliant with allregulatory codes as well as internal company policies and procedures. It iscritical to ensure that reporting is transparent, appropriate, timeous, andreliable. Good Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governance shouldalso ensure that all components in the estimation (from exploration toprocessing) of the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve are auditable anddefendable. AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) is acutely aware that its primaryasset is its Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve, and has thereforeestablished a formal Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governanceprocess that has been structured to ensure that the Executive Committeeand the Board have line of sight to the annual Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve Public Reporting, as well as the review findings from astringent internal and external review programme.

SAMREC, governance, Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, CompetentPerson.

* AngloGold Ashanti, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and


1101VOLUME 117 �


Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governance and reporting for AngloGold Ashanti

The CPs also need to have a minimum of five years’ relevantexperience in the style of mineralization and type of depositunder consideration and in the activities they areundertaking.

Appointment of the individual CPs is by the GeneralManager, with oversight and ratification by the RRSC. TwoCPs are appointed for each operation, one for MineralResources and the other for Mineral Reserves.

The RRSC, which meets at least once a quarter, comprisesrepresentatives from the relevant technical disciplines as wellas regional representatives. The Senior Vice President:Strategic and Technical chairs the RRSC to ensure therequisite level of authority is assigned to the Committee. TheRRSC is responsible for setting and overseeing the company’sMineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governanceframework and for ensuring that it meets the company’sgoals and objectives while complying with all relevantregularity codes. Its primary function is corporate assuranceand its terms of reference and composition are fixed througha policy document approved by the Chief Executive Officer.They include:

� Providing Group guidelines for the reporting of MineralResources and Mineral Reserves

� Compilation of the Group’s annual Mineral Resourceand Mineral Reserve statement

� Engagement with external regulatory bodies such asJORC, SAMREC, and the SEC to ensure that AngloGoldAshanti’s interests are protected

� Providing assurance that all Mineral Resource orMineral Reserve reporting complies with the relevantreporting codes as well as internal Group guidelines

� The ratification of CPs

� Ensuring regular external reviews of Mineral Resourcesand Mineral Reserves.

The key outputs of the RRSC are the annual MineralResource and Mineral Reserve report and the requisiteinternal Group guidelines for the reporting of MineralResources and Mineral Reserves.

Due to the ever-evolving regularity environment, a keyaspect of the RRSC is to continuous align itself to the changesand ensure the timeous briefing and training of the CPs.

The Group guidelines for the reporting of the MineralResource and Mineral Reserve is an annual document thatformalizes AGA’s interpretation of the various listingrequirements, regulatory frameworks, and reporting codes,including the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) and theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SAMREC, andJORC, and provides the necessary company context and detailrequired for the estimation and reporting of MineralResources and Mineral Reserves on an annual basis. It is alive document that is reviewed on an annual basis and whoseowner is the RRSC.

To ensure compliance with internationally accepted codesof practice adopted by AngloGold Ashanti, the mainprinciples inherent in the language of the document aretransparency, materiality, and competence.

To consistently achieve these principles across the

�

1102 VOLUME 117

company, the guidelines provides the standardization andnecessary detail regarding the material assumptions used inthe declaration of the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve,including:

� Gold price and other critical economic parameters suchas exchange rates

� Minimum reporting requirements for a new MineralResource and Mineral Reserve

� Detailed definition and work flows for MineralResource classification

� Guidelines for reporting reconciliation, cut-off grades,modifying factors, Inferred Mineral Resource in thebusiness plan, Mineral Resource and Mineral Reservebelow infrastructure, Mineral Resource sensitivities

� Guidelines for Competent Persons Reports (CPRs).

Competency and the competent person (CP) are an integralpart of all of the reporting codes. AGA has recognized theimportance of selecting the appropriate individuals with therelevant experiences and expertise to become CPs at itsoperations and projects across the world, and therefore has aformalized approach to the appointment of its CPs. CPs areappointed by the relevant manager of the operation inquestion and the appointments are ratified by the RRSC. CPsare preferably employed by AGA and are selected based onrelevant experience with the style of mineralization and typeof deposit under consideration and with the activity that theyare undertaking.

To ensure that the CPs consent to the inclusion of MineralResource and Mineral Reserve information in the annualreport, they sign a letter of consent once they have reviewedthe information in the form and context in which it appears.

A critical aspect of this approval is ensuring that the legaltenure of each operation and project has been verified to thesatisfaction of the accountable CP and all Mineral Reserveshave been confirmed to be covered by the required miningpermits or there is a realistic expectation that these permitswill be issued.

Due to the different experience and skills sets required forthe estimation and evaluation of Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves, AGA has separate appointments forMineral Resources and for Mineral Reserves. This isreinforced by a professional development and supportstructure to ensure that the CP is fully briefed on the evolvingexternal governance and has the necessary network andtraining to ensure best practice.

A key aspect of the management of the CPs is the trainingand succession planning required to ensure the skills andexperiences remain in-house to allow the ongoing reportingof the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.

Over more than a decade, AGA has developed andimplemented a rigorous system of internal and externalreviews aimed at providing assurance in respect of MineralResource and Mineral Reserve estimates. External reviewsare done on selected operations, in line with AGA’s policy

that each operation or project will be reviewed by anindependent third party on average once every three years.The external reviews focus on the identification of fatal flaws,and through impartiality they provide an independenceverification that the reporting is in terms of the requirementsof the various codes.

Internal peer reviews are completed on an annual basisbefore all annual information is captured by the CPs. Thisreview consists of an informal process that involves therelevant CP having to defend their work to their peers, and aformal process where the reviewer will attempt to replicateaspects of the work independently.

The peer review process is seen as an integral aspect ofthe audit and review process in ensuring consistency, inpropagating best practice across the company, and for thepersonal development of the individuals involved.

In addition, all variation in excess of 10% (net ofdepletion) in the individual operation or project’s MineralResource and/or Mineral Reserve statement) requires aformal review by the RRSC.

AGA makes use of a web-based group reporting databasecalled Resource and Reserve Reporting System (R3) for thecompilation and authorization of Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve reporting. R3 is a fully integrated system forthe reporting and reconciliation of Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves that supports various regulatory reportingrequirements, including the SEC and the JSE under SAMREC.AGA uses R3 to ensure that a documented chain ofresponsibility exists from the CPs at the operations to thecompany’s RRSC.

The web-based reporting system provides a platform thatensures a single version of the truth is captured in a secure,auditable database that is workflow-enabled. The system hasa comprehensive set of validation rules that include, but arenot limited to, the following:

� The Mineral Resource needs to be captured/importedbefore the Mineral Reserve can be captured

� Mineral Reserve content cannot be greater than MineralResource content per project area

� Inclusive Mineral Resource content must always begreater than or equal to exclusive Mineral Resourcecontext

� The previous year and all changes in the reconciliationcapture must sum up to the current year total for tonsand grams

� The Inferred Mineral Resource in a business plancontent cannot be greater than the inclusive InferredMineral Resource content.

This system is compliant with the guiding principles ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and forms thesupporting database from which the Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve report is published on an annual basis. Tosupport the reporting process, the system also contains adatabase of the various technical specialists and CPs, togetherwith a record of their experience and qualifications. A cleardivision of responsibilities is assigned within the system that


1103VOLUME 117 �

requires a rigid hierarchy of work flow sign-offs; this ensuresthat the relevant people have access to the information forreview and approval before it is made publicly available(Figure 2).

R3 assigns individual responsibilities that can be trackedand managed and allows remote access for data upload bythe relevant technical specialists and approvals and consentby the CPs. Access, authorizations and work flow sign-off isthrough a unique secure login that allows a full audit trail.

R3, first conceptualized in 2003 and rolled out in 2004 asa data capture and company database of the MineralResource and Mineral Reserves, immediately proved itself byproviding a single source of the truth and minimizing humanerror involved in handling large data-sets. Since then it hasevolved into a fully integrated system for the reporting andreconciliation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reservesthat supports reporting to the SEC and the JSE underSAMREC. It achieves this by providing the relevant details,summaries, and reconciliations for end-of-year reporting,together with the necessary consents.

For any particular year of consideration, R3 provides thefollowing information:

� Mineral Resource (inclusive and exclusive of MineralReserve) and the Mineral Reserve statement

� Inferred Mineral Resource used in business plan

� Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve belowinfrastructure

� By-product information

� Reconciliations details

� Mineral Reserve modifying factors

� Professional details of all CPs

� Letters of appointment

� Letters of consent for publication

� Tenement information

� CP Reports (CPRs)

� Statement of competence

� Documented chain of responsibility

� JORC Table 1 and the SAMREC Table 1.

The foundation of AngloGold Ashanti’s Mineral Resource

and Mineral Reserve governance and reporting process is toensure that the right people are doing the right work and thatthe information that is being made publicly available is fullyvetted, compliant, and transparent, and therefore meets theguidelines in the South African Code for the Reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves(SAMREC Code).

To achieve this end, AGA has developed a rigorousMineral Resource and Mineral Reserve governance andreporting process that is supported by a set of internal Groupguidelines, a structure for the management of the process,and an integrated Group reporting database.

This is complemented by a combination of internal andexternal audits and reviews to ensure independence andimpartiality and that the individual operations and projectsare estimating and compiling their Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves in accordance with the company guidelinesand external regulatory requirements.

The sum result is a process that ensures that theExecutive Committee of AGA and the Board through theBoard Audit Committee have line of sight to the annualMineral Resource and Mineral Reserve public reporting aswell as the review findings from a stringent internal andexternal review programme, and thus the assurance in theintegrity of the reported Mineral Resource and MineralReserve, which is the primary asset of the company and uponwhich investment decisions are based.

AGA recognizes that both the regulatory framework andthe definition of best practice are continuously evolving, andthat therefore it is important that the governance frameworkis sufficiently dynamic to respond to the ever-changingenvironment. Through the RRSC, AGA has the structure toboth manage the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reservegovernance and reporting process and react to these changesin a timely manner. The current process is a work inprogress, and while it currently meets the corporate andgovernance requirement it is continuously being improved tokeep pace with the regulatory changes and increases incorporate expectations.

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI. 2014. Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Report. 192 pp.

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI. 2015. Guidelines for the reporting of Mineral Resourcesand Ore Reserve. Internal report. 57 pp.

CANADIAN SECURITIES COMMISSIONS (CSA). 2005. National Instrument 43-101.Standards for disclosure for mineral projects.

JORC. 2012. Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee. Australasian Code forReporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Miningand Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists, and MineralsCouncil of Australia. http://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

SAMREC. 2009. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and MineralReserves (the SAMREC Code). 2007 Edition as amended July 2009.http://www.samcode.co.za/downloads/SAMREC2009.pdf

SAMREC. (2016). South African Mineral Resource Committee. The SouthAfrican Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resourcesand Mineral Reserves (the SAMREC Code). 2016 Edition.http://www.samcode.co.za/codes/category/8-reporting-codes?download=120:samrec �


�

1104 VOLUME 117

The South African Code for the Reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves (The SAMREC Code)contributes to promoting the minimumrequirements of Public Reporting. Adeclaration in terms of The SAMREC Coderequires the Competent Person (CP) to beprepared to defend themselves to their peers.The Code relies on this peer review processand is therefore effectively self-policing. Theeffectiveness of this self-policing has beendebated since the inception of the Code, andalthough it is sometimes seen as ineffective,self-regulation is the preferred method tomonitor Public Reporting.

The Poseidon Nickel bubble of 1970 andthe Bre-X scandal of 1997 motivated thecreation of international reporting codes,which provide investors, potential investors,and other stakeholders with a sense ofconfidence in statements made by promoters

and owners of mineral projects. Consequently,the aim of the SAMREC Code is to maintain thetrust of investors and other interested partiesby promoting high standards of PublicReporting. The SAMREC Code is meant as aminimum reporting standard and advises CPsto report ‘too much information rather than toolittle’ (Clause 32 of the SAMREC Code).

Opponents to the monitoring of PublicReporting practices are of the opinion that theCode is presented as a guideline and thereforeregulating reporting practices is not necessary.Furthermore, opponents feel that someresponsibility must be placed on the investorto be diligent when investing in an explorationor mineral company. The author does notconcur with the above opinions, as the mineralindustry relies on investments to supportproject development and, furthermore, theindustry historically had a tarnishedreputation. Mark Twain in the 1880s famouslydefined a mine as ‘a hole in the ground with aliar on top’. Events such as the 1970sPoseidon Nickel boom-to-bust, Bre-X, andEnron highlight unscrupulous or fraudulentbehaviour. In South Africa, recent failuressuch in coal, platinum, and gold projects andother commodities have eroded investorconfidence, for example the delisting ofMiranda Coal and closure of Burnside goldmine. In an industry that requires investorcapital, often as seed money to fund earlyexploration or development projects, ensuringinvestor confidence is paramount.

Public companies listed on theJohannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) mustadhere to the ongoing reporting requirementsin terms of Section 12.11 of the JSE ListingRequirements. When a company reports

Good reporting practices

by S.M. Rupprecht

The SAMREC Code sets out the minimum standard for the Public Reportingof Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves. Whenmaking a declaration the Competent Person (CP) must disclose relevantinformation concerning the status and characteristics of a mineral depositthat could materially influence the economic value of the deposit andpromptly report any material changes. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange(JSE) Listing enlists Panel Readers to review all CP Reports and annualreports for their compliance with the SAMREC Code and Section 12 of theJSE Listing Requirements.

The JSE Readers Panel assists in achieving reporting compliance.However there are still many Public Reports that are not formallyreviewed. Thus, the SAMREC Code is largely reliant on self-regulation.Although Clause 11 of the SAMREC Code makes provision for complaintsmade in respect of Public Reporting, complaints are rarely made. Yet,noncompliant reporting remains an issue within the southern Africanmineral industry.

This paper investigates compliance of Public Reports and some of thecommon compliance issues currently being experienced. The paper alsodiscusses methodologies to improve compliance and Public Reporting, suchas self-regulation, coaching and training, and other means to promotegood reporting compliance.

Public Reporting, good practice, self-regulation.

* University of Johannesburg, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and


1105VOLUME 117 �



according to the SAMREC Code, the public should have asense of confidence that the information that has beenreported is relevant, factually correct, and provides fulldisclosure. Fortunately, most companies adhere to theprinciples and guidelines of the SAMREC Code. In somecases, minor oversights may occur but generally companiesobserve the underlying values of the Code. Regrettably, thereis a minority of companies that do not understand theimportance of good ongoing reporting and fail to adhere toindustry best practice. In these cases, Exploration Results,Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves are reported in aninappropriate manner, leaving the public uninformed asreporting fails to comply with the Code fully, misinterpretsdata, distorts information, or fails to disclose materialinformation fully. The mineral industry is a difficult enoughinvestment without being encumbered by poor disclosure,non-transparency, and poor quality and/or incompetentreporting.

This paper discusses the issues around compliant PublicReporting and the SAMREC Code. The paper also discussesthe governing principles of the Code, self-regulation andcomplaints procedures, and provides examples ofnoncompliant reporting. Reference is made to the revised2016 SAMREC Code and recommendations made goingforward regarding Public Reporting, self-regulation, andteaching and mentoring of industry professionals.

In the course of Public Reporting, CPs sometimes overlookthe governing principles of the SAMREC Code, i.e.Transparency, Materiality, and Competence (Figure 1).

Materiality signifies that all relevant information shouldbe made available and that reasoned and balanced reportingshould be undertaken. One of the main purposes indeveloping the Codes was to ensure that variousstakeholders, investors, and their professional advisorswould be provided with sufficient information for the purposeof making a reasoned and balanced decision. Critical to PublicReporting is the principle that any material aspects for whichthe presence or absence of comment could affect the publicperception or value of the mineral occurrence must bedisclosed.

Transparency requires that the CP provide sufficientinformation, which is clear and unambiguous, and that theCP does not mislead or omit material information. As a rule,it is better for the CP to provide too much information ratherthan too little. Transparent reporting provides the public withconfidence.

Competency requires that all technical work conducted isdone by suitably qualified and experienced persons who aresubject to an enforceable professional code of ethics and rulesof conduct. It is important that the CP is not unduly affectedby outside influences and remains able to present a fair andaccurate report. Persons undertaking the role of a CP must becapable of defending their professional opinions and not beintimidated by interested parties.

CPs, executives, and other interested parties of publiclylisted companies are reminded that the Code sets out therequired minimum standards for Public Reporting. CPs, asauthors, must insist that they provide written approval (JSEListing Requirement) of specific documentation that isreferred to in a Public Report or statement. The CP must besatisfied as to the form, content, and context in which thatdocumentation is to be included in a Public Report. As areminder to the reader, the Code (Clause 3) defines PublicReports as follows:

Public Reports are all those reports prepared for thepurpose of informing investors or potential investors andtheir advisers and include but are not limited to companies’annual reports, quarterly reports and other reports includedin JSE circulars, or as required by the Companies Act. TheCode also applies to the following reports if they have beenprepared for the purposes described in Clause 3:environmental statements; information memoranda; expertreports; technical papers; website postings; and publicpresentations. And T8 (A)(ii) Announcements by companiesshould comply with the SAMREC Code, where applicable, andinsofar as they relate or refer to a Competent Person’s reportthey should: (a) Be approved in writing in advance ofpublication by the relevant Competent Person.

Unfortunately, Clause 3 is often overlooked bycompanies. Some Public Reports fail to comply with the aboveclause and a number of public statements fail to gainapproval from the responsible CP prior to the announcement.

�

1106 VOLUME 117

In the context of complying with the principles of theCode, the CP is required to comment on the relevant sectionsof Table 1 of the SAMREC Code. The 2016 SAMREC Codeintroduces, similar to the 2012 JORC Code, an ‘if not, whynot’ approach to the reporting as per Table 1. Thisnecessitates that each item listed in the table be discussed,and if not discussed then the CP must explain why it hasbeen omitted from the documentation. This additionalrequirement to the Code improves transparency and ensuresthat the Public Report is clear to the reader (public) and thatall items have been considered and have been addressed orresolved.

In terms of Public Reporting, compliance requires reporting inaccordance with the principles and guidelines of the SAMRECCode. The importance of compliance is the underlyingrequirement to provide the public with confidence. Based ondiscussion held within the SAMREC Committee, some miningprofessionals believe that the Codes are becoming overlyonerous, while others believe that CP Reports (CPRs) shouldbe made simpler and easier to complete, advocating the useof a ‘short form’ CPR. The author rejects the above premiseand stresses the need for comprehensive and fully disclosedPublic Reporting. CPRs and other Public Reports, includingnews releases, should not be taken lightly, noting that PublicReports must ensure that information provided isunambiguous and provide sufficient information for areasonable person to make an informed decision on theviability of a project and whether to invest or disinvest. Ashort form report, basically equivalent to an executivesummary, is incapable of providing sufficient detail tosufficiently inform an investor.

One cannot discuss compliance with the SAMREC Codewithout discussing competency of the CP. The glossary ofterms as provided in the SAMREC Code has no definitionprovided for competency, yet competency is one of thefundamental components of the Code. Competency, asdescribed in Clause 4 of the SAMREC Code, is as follows:

‘The Public Report is based on work that is theresponsibility of suitably qualified and experienced personswho are subject to an enforceable Professional Code ofEthics’.

Although Clause 9 of the Code does provide clarity on thedefinition of a CP it relies on the individual to actcompetently.

‘A Competent Person is a person who is registered withSACNASP, ECSA or SAGC, IMSSA, or is a Member or Fellowof the SAIMM, the GSSA or a RPO’. ‘A Competent Personmust have a minimum of five years’ experience relevant tothe style of mineralisation and type of deposit or class ofdeposit under consideration and to the activity he or she isundertaking’.

For a number of years the JSE has been requesting aregistration list for CPs. The reasoning behind this drive is toimprove the quality of Public Reporting, the objective beingthat only persons that have demonstrated their ‘competency’would be able to provide CPRs to the JSE. To date this

registration has not materialized, as many CPs believe thatthere is sufficient regulation or guidelines in place to ensurecompetence – the real issue is non-compliance in reportingand the lack of discipline for poor reporting practices. Self-regulation is seen as the preferred method of control, but itrequires peers to monitor CPs’ work and to reportnoncompliance.

Some professionals believe that the onus on competencyshould lie with statutory registration bodies such asSACNASP, SAGC, IMSSA, or ECSA. The issue of competencyis sometimes confused with the fact that a CP must be amember of ECSA, SACNASP, SAGC, IMSSA, ormember/fellow of the SAIMM, GSSA or a recognizedprofessional organization (RPO), all of which haveenforceable disciplinary processes including the power tosuspend or expel a member/fellow. This is important in thatthese professional organizations provide an enforceableProfessional Code of Ethics, which is a basic requirement fora CP. Although these organizations have disciplinary powers,they in themselves do not determine whether a person iscompetent. The responsibility of deeming oneself ascompetent relies on the individual as the ‘Competent Personshould be clearly satisfied in their own mind that they couldface their peers and demonstrate competence in thecommodity, type of deposit and situation underconsideration’ (SAMREC Code, Clause 10).

It is up to a CP’s peers to ensure that indeed authors oftechnical (Public) reports act in a competent, responsible, andethical manner. The CP must demonstrate their owncompetency applying to a Code of Ethics and if in doubt aperson should either seek the opinion from appropriatelyexperienced peers or should decline to act as a CP for thatspecific job.

The role of the JSE Reader is to ensure that a CPR or annualreport is conducted in accordance with the requirements ofthe SAMREC and SAMVAL Codes, and the JSE ListingRequirements, indicate errors in the text, and indicatewhether plans and diagrams accompanying the Public Reportsupport the content of the report. The JSE Reader must besatisfied that the Competent Person or Competent Valuatorcomplies with the professional registration requirements andexperience as set out in Clause 7 to 10 of the SAMREC Codeand/or Clause 9 and 10 of the SAMVAL Code.

The JSE Reader also must ensure that the CompetentPerson/Competent Valuator, in terms of a CPR, has correctlyreferenced the SAMREC and SAMVAL Code (Table 1) or JSEListing Requirements in the CPR or annual report.

The Reader’s job is not to provide sign-off on thetechnical aspects of the work nor validate the conclusions ofthe CPR. It must be acknowledged that there is an element ofpeer review in the process of ensuring that technical workmakes sense and is fair and reasonable. For example, the JSEReaders guidelines state that ‘the Reader should comment onissues which, based on his/her experience appear technicallyincorrect or inadequately covered’. However, in the end theCPR remains the responsibility of the author(s).

The JSE Readers Panel review process is viewed by othercountries as a good process. However, JSE Readers Panelreviews are only activated in certain situations and not all


1107VOLUME 117 �

published CPRs are reviewed, especially those conducted forcompanies not publicly listed. The reader must understandthat many CPRs have not been formally reviewed.

Furthermore, the JSE Readers review process is notwithout its problems. One of the dilemmas with the Readersreview process is that a CPR encapsulates a number of areasthat may stretch the capabilities of a single Reader. Forexample, the Reader may be required to be knowledgeable inmineral resources, geotechnical engineering, mineengineering, ventilation, metallurgical processes,environmental, infrastructural, marketing, governmental andsocial aspects, as well as the valuation of mineral projects. Itmay be prudent for the JSE to introduce more than one readerto conduct reviews of CPRs, thereby improving the overallreview process. However, it must be recognized thatultimately the CPR remains the responsibility of the CP(s).

As of 2014, the JSE Readers Panel has also begun toreview annual reports of mineral and exploration companiesto ensure compliance with the ongoing reportingrequirements in terms of Section 12.11 of the JSE ListingRequirements. The second year of reviewing annual reportshas generally seen an improvement in compliance with theJSE Listing Requirements [SAMREC Code], however,compliance still can improve.

Professionals when coming across noncompliant PublicReports need to consider if the breach warrants action. TheSAMREC Code provides a means to make formal complaints,and Clause 11 states ‘complaints in respect of the PublicReport of a Competent Person will be subject to thecomplaints procedures of the [The SAMCODE StandardsCommittee] SSC.’

The written complaint will be referred to the ComplaintsSub-committee, which will review the complaint with thecomplainant so as to best define the nature of the allegedbreach; identify the correct professional/statutory/certifyingorganization where the complaint needs to be lodged; andassist the complainant to lodge their grievance in theprescribed manner of the applicable organization. Therelevant body may be any of the following: SACNASP, ECSA,PLATO (now the South African Geomatics Council (SAGC),the Institute of Mine Surveyors of South Africa (IMSSA),GSSA, SAIMM, or other Recognized ProfessionalOrganization (RPO) to which the CP or Competent Valuator isaffiliated (Learned Society or Statutory Body).

The Complaints Sub-committee will also be available toassist the ethics/disciplinary committee of theprofessional/statutory/certifying organization inunderstanding and/or investigating the nature of the allegedSAMCODES-related violation, if requested to do so by thatorganization.

The difficulty in managing the quality of Public Reportshas been the reluctance of mining professionals to regulatetheir peers and to ensure that Public Reports properly adhereto the Code. The number of noncompliant Public Reportsobserved by the author indicates that there are members ofthe mineral industry that are not concerned with compliance.Perhaps this is due the fact that over the past 15 years therehave only been a few complaints made to the SSC and

therefore there is an attitude that little, if any action is takenfor noncompliant reporting. Based on the author’sexperience, it appears that there are a few CPs, miningexecutives, and senior managers that project a laissez faireattitude toward Public Reporting and that for some there is aresistance to change reporting practices. A general review ofexploration and mining company’s web sites will support theabove statement. Although the author could reference severalindiscretions, it is not the intention of this paper toembarrass individuals or companies but rather highlight theissue.

The need for self-regulation and action on noncompliantreporting has been an issue and a matter for debate since theinception of the SAMREC Code. There are many reasons for ageneral lack of discipline in the industry, one being that CPRsare often under confidentiality agreements. Another is thereluctance of practising CPs to make formal complaintsagainst peers – justifying the lack of criticism under theproverb ‘persons who live in glass houses shouldn’t throwstones’.

Non-compliance in reporting is not limited to SouthAfrica but is a problem for all reporting countries. A generalconsensus is that more focus should be on coaching andmentoring of CPs. Rather than viewing complaints as aprocess of taking disciplinary action or sanctions against CPs,there should be a move towards coaching and mentoring. Itis proposed that the SSC, through each of the CodeCommittees, form a subcommittee whose primary objective isto promote short courses through the GSSA and/or SAIMM toimprove knowledge of the Code and its reportingrequirements.

Similarly, it may be prudent for the learned societies topublish (anonymously) corrective actions taken fornoncompliant reporting. The AusIMM successfully does thisand the author believes that this approach should be adoptedin South Africa. It is interesting to note that if noncomplianceis established, the AusIMM may impose a penalty, whichmay include a reprimand, mediation, and/or counselling.However, suspension of membership to the AusIMM is notimposed by the Complaints Committee, as may be the casewith some of the South African professional/statutory bodies.

The Canadian Ontario Securities Commission in 2013undertook a compliance review of 50 Technical Reports thatrepresented approximately 10% of the NI43-101 TechnicalReports submitted over the period 30 June 2011 to 30 June2012 (Ontario Securities Commission, 2013). The reviewfound that 40% of the CPRs required significant changes anda further 40% were also noncompliant, requiring minorchanges. Only 20% of the reports were considered compliant.

It should be noted that professional organizations do nottake legal responsibility for a CP or a CPR. Professionalmembership does not guarantee competency for any specifictechnical report, nor do qualifications necessarily guaranteecompetency. The onus of conducting competent technicalwork remains with the CP. Professional organizations arelegally liable for ensuring that a person who applies for andis accepted for membership satisfies the requirements of theorganization’s constitution and by-laws. In doing so the


�

1108 VOLUME 117

professional organization affirms that the individual satisfiesthe requirements for, and has the qualifications required tobe, a member and ensures that the member complies with thecode of ethics of the organization. These organizations haveno liability for the negligent activities of their members. Thisis one of the reasons for not having a register of CPs, as theholders of the list could be held liable if a CP does notconduct compliant work.

One thing is for certain – if the mineral industry does notself-regulate its reporting then some other agency will andthat could lead to non-mineral experts reviewing technicalreports; an outcome that will not be good for the miningindustry as a whole.

The following section highlights some of the more commonor serious mistakes in reporting.

Figure 2 depicts a public Coal Resource and Reservestatement, which provides an example of a number ofcommon compliance issues observed by the author. Althoughthis statement is dated 2013, the issues highlighted remainrelevant. The author has removed the project names as not toembarrass the company or the CP purposely.

The Coal Reserve is not subdivided in order of increasingconfidence into Probable and Proved Reserves. Clauses 32,33, and 34 of the Code highlight the requirements when

reporting reserves. Although not the case in this example,CPs continue to incorrectly use the term ’Proven’ instead of’Proved’. Furthermore, when reporting Coal Reserves,Mineable Tons In-situ (MTIS), ROM, and Saleable Tonnagesmust be reported. In the above example the Saleable Tonnagehas been left out of the report, and therefore the reader isuninformed of the coal beneficiation efficiency and theplanned market for the sale of the washed coal.

Figure 2 highlights another common occurrence in thedeclaration of Coal Resources and Reserves – the failure toreport the quality of the coal. The above example only reportscoal tonnages. According to Clause 52 of the Code,appropriate coal qualities must be reported for all Resourcesand Reserve categories. The selection of the qualityparameters is the responsibility of the CP and should includeparameters such as ash, volatile matter, sulphur, cokingproperties, calorific value, etc. The coal quality parametersalso should include the basis of reporting (air-dry or drybasis, etc.), and where applicable Saleable Coal Reservesshould be subdivided into the relevant coal product types.

This information is critical and without reporting coalqualities the Coal Reserve is almost useless to an investor.This reporting trend must be stopped immediately;unfortunately, many coal companies observe this trend asbeing sanctioned. Hopefully, through the JSE Readers Panel’sreview of annual reports and ongoing training this poorreporting practice will be corrected over the next couple ofyears.

When reporting Exploration or Reconnaissance Results(Clause 20 of the SAMREC Code) the potential quantity,quality, and content should be reported as a range andshould include a detailed explanation of the basis for thestatement and a proximate statement that the potentialquantity, quality, and content are conceptual in nature.Failure to report as a range of values and not providing adetailed explanation may be misleading to the investor, as itmay appear that there is greater confidence associated withthe project than actually exists. Failure to comply with Clause20, as seen in the provided example, remains a commonoversight by some CPs and Public Reports.

When both Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves arereported the Public Report must include a statement thatclearly indicates whether the Mineral Resource is inclusive of,or exclusive to those Mineral Resources that have beenmodified to estimate a Mineral Reserve (Clause 39). Thedebate on whether Mineral Resources should be reportedinclusive or exclusive of the Mineral Reserve is a decade-longdebate that probably will never be resolved. However,whatever the reporting position, a statement is required toavoid confusion and the possibility of the inaccuratevaluation of the Mineral Resources. The above example, likemany other Resource–Reserve statements, fails to disclosewhether the Coal Resources are inclusive or exclusive of theCoal Reserve.


VOLUME 117 1109 �


Although Figure 2 is only a summary of the Coal Resourceand Coal Reserve, the CP’s report also failed to providecommentary on the reasonableness of the projects. Forexample, on the only operating mine, no comment is providedwhether a Life Of Mine (LOM) plan has been completed orany other commentary to support the declaration of a CoalReserve. For other projects with Coal Reserves, no mention ismade if a Feasibility Study or Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) hasbeen conducted – a requirement in order to declare a Reserve.

The Public Reporting of a Mineral Resource estimate mustprovide sufficient information on how the projects havereasonable prospects for economic extraction, assumptionsmade to estimate economic viability, and the cut-off gradeused to estimate the Mineral Resource.

In the above example more than two of the project areasdeclared a reserve; however the CP declared ’The [deleted]pillar project is still in a planning phase’. In order to declare aReserve the company should have either conducted a PFS ora LOM Plan. This was not the case at the time of thedeclaration, and therefore the project should only beclassified as a Coal Resource as per Clauses 33 and 34 ofSAMREC Code read with Clauses 47 and 48.

A Mineral Reserve must be based on a minimumassessment of a PFS for a project or a LOM Plan for anoperation, and the modifying factors applied must berealistically considered (Clause 32). On occasion, MineralReserves are declared without a PFS being completed, whichcan have a material effect on the project’s valuation. In termsof compliance, this is one of the biggest mistakes a CP canmake.

Mineral/exploration companies are required to disclose thefull name, address, professional qualifications, and relevantexperience of the Lead CP authorizing publication of theinformation disclosed. Informing the investor of the CP’sdetails and experience is also important to provide theinvestor with confidence that the CP is competent. For theinformed investor, knowledge of the responsible CP mayinfluence the decision to invest or not to invest in a project.

It is common for exploration/mineral companies not toinclude a statement that they have written confirmation fromthe Lead CP that the information disclosed is in accordancewith the SAMREC Code and, where applicable, the JSE ListingRequirements. Again, it is hoped this poor habit will berectified in the short to medium term.

Many Public Reports fail to comment on whether the InferredMineral Resource category has been included in FeasibilityStudies, and if so, the impact of such inclusion. The use oflarge portions of Inferred Resources in a PFS is also incorrect,and can falsely elevate the value of a mineral project.

The terms ‘ore’ or ‘orebody’ should be used only when aMineral Reserve has been completed, and should beassociated with Mineral Reserves and not Mineral Resources.For example, the following excerpt from a recent news releaseis incorrect.

The Zone 5 resource (JORC 2012 compliant) now totalsan estimated 100.3 million tonnes of measured, indicated,and inferred ore grading 1.95% copper and 20 grams pertonne silver.

A common reporting mistake is the use of ‘calculated’ insteadof ’estimated’ when referring to Mineral Resource andMineral Reserve statements.

The Code requires that a comparison of the Mineral Resourceand Mineral Reserve estimates with the previous financialyear/period’s estimates is provided and an explanationprovided of the material differences between the twodeclarations. This remains a common oversight by CPs.

Public Reports often provide no description of futureexploration activities, exploration expenditures, explorationresults, and feasibility studies undertaken. Directors arerequired to state (or include an appropriate negativestatement) on any legal proceedings or other materialconditions that may impact on the company’s ability tocontinue mining or exploration activities. Again, thisstatement is often overlooked in Public Reporting.

Optimistic assumptions in terms of mining rates, capitalexpenditure, operating costs, and revenue factors arerequired. Problems encountered in technical reports includethe inadequate disclose of the main components of the capitalcost estimate. Also, economic analysis information such ascash flows and or sensitivity analysis is sometimes omitted orlacks detail. Many of the reports do not clearly disclose theassumed metal price or factors related to the mining scenarioor mineral processing recovery. Failure to provide this type ofinformation prevents the public from conducting their owntechno-economic analysis of the project.

When reading an annual report, often one will come acrossthe following or a similar statement - ‘A resources andreserves summary, which is SAMREC compliant and JSEapproved, is carried in full on the [deleted] website.’ Theannual report must contain the full information, as requiredby Section 12.11, within the annual report itself. Reference toother documentation providing further detailed informationfor the public is fine, but should not be used to provideprimary information to the public.

The identification of risk is mentioned in several areas of the

�

1110 VOLUME 117

Code, with a dedicated section (T6) in Table 1. Although CPsmay comment on risk, seldom is the analysis conducted withthe intent of truly identifying risk in the Mineral Resourceand Mineral Reserve estimation. A risk assessment shouldincorporate all technical specialists involved in the MineralResource and Mineral Reserve estimation process. Forexample, Public Reports fail to disclose project-specific risksand uncertainties, such as the availability of infrastructure,government approvals, use of novel mining/mineralprocessing technology, or the potential impact of regionalunrest or civil war, e.g. Central Africa. Environmental andsocial issues have become increasingly important in recentyears and remain an area of poor commentary. Based on theguiding principles of the Code, environmental and socialissues require appropriate commentary in Public Reports.

A general consensus is that more focus should be oncoaching and mentoring of CPs in order to improve reportingcompliance. Coaching and mentoring should be seen as thepreferred method, rather than using disciplinary action orsanctions against CPs. Ongoing training for CPs and CVsneeds to be actively pursued by professional organizations,with the price of such training kept to a minimum so thatcosts do not become prohibitive.

Some universities, such as the University ofJohannesburg, include tuition in the area of the SAMREC andSAMVAL Codes. The Geological Society of South Africa(GSSA) conducts CPs courses once or twice a year. The JSEalso has in the past provided reporting compliance coursesand the SAIMM provides ad hoc presentations on the variedtopics on the codes: recent examples include un update of the2016 SAMREC and SAMVAL Codes, the application ofModifying Factors, and the Companion Volume published tocoincide with the launch of the 2016 SAMREC and SAMVALCodes.

As peers we must play a more active role in regulatingour own industry. As a general observation, the miningindustry needs to implement a coaching and mentoringapproach, thereby uplifting reporting standards. Coachingand mentoring must not be limited to only CPs, but must alsoextended to exploration and mineral companies who mustalso abide by the SAMREC Code as well as the JSE ListingRequirements

The SAMREC Code already provides guidelines to reporting,as presented in Table 1. The difficulty is that Table 1 is notproperly used, as authors of CPRs fail to comply fully withthe provided checklist, choosing rather to omit certain clausesof the Code. The updating of the Code should improvecompliance with the introduction of the ‘if not, why not’approach to reporting.

However, updating of the Code addresses only one aspectof Public Reporting compliance. The implementation of self-regulation and peer review will go a long way towardsimproving reporting compliance. CPs, as well as the miningindustry, must realize that failure to comply with the guidingprinciples of the SAMREC Code not only damages the

reputation of the CP but also the reputation of the miningprofession. The mineral industry must self-regulate,otherwise others will conduct this regulatory process andalmost certainly this will not be to the industry’s liking orsatisfaction.

Along with self-regulation, more teaching and mentoringis required to improve the overall quality of Public Reporting.A number of companies and organizations conduct trainingcourses on a regular basis; some for commercial purposeswhile other learned societies such the GSSA and SAIMMpresent courses on a non-profit basis. In the future, coursesneed to focus on compliance issues, the underlying meaningand intent of the Code, and examples of good and poorreporting practices.

When CPs fail to comply with the Code and a complaint israised, corrective action must be taken. The process shouldfocus on corrective action rather than punishment. Theprocess should be geared to improve reporting standards,with severe retribution served only to those individualsacting in a fraudulent or incompetent manner. Part of theprocess must involve educating the mining fraternity on theshortcomings in Public Reporting practices so thatdeficiencies can be shared and the lessons learned madepublic.

Any learning outcome must provide a foundation to theintent of the Code. Currently, CPs see the Code as a hurdle tobe met in order to complete an assignment. All too oftenthere appears to be a disjoint between creating a report andprotecting the interests of investors. Furthermore, CPs mustbe capable of preserving their professional opinions and notbe intimidated by interested parties.

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance andguidance provided by Mr Ken Lomberg of Pivot MiningConsultants (Pty) Ltd.

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION. 2013. OSC Staff Notice 43-705 - Report on

Staff’s Review of Technical Reports by Ontario Mining Issuers. June 2013.

RUPPRECHT, S.M. 2014. The SAMREC Code 2015 – Some thoughts and concerns.

Proceedings of Surface Mining 2014 . Southern African Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg.

SAMREC. 2009. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South African

Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and

Mineral Reserves (the SAMREC Code). 2007 Edition as amended July

2009. Prepared by the South African Mineral Resource Committee

(SAMREC) Working Group.

http://www.samcode.co.za/downloads/SAMREC2009.pdf

SAMCODE. 2009. The South African Mineral Codes.

http://www.samcode.co.za/SAMCODE/SSC/Disciplinaryprocedures

[Accessed: 15 April 2015].

WIKIPEDIA. 2014. Regulatory compliance.

http//www.en.wikipedia/regulatory compliance.

[Accessed 16 April 2015]. �


VOLUME 117 1111 �

SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL ENGINEERINGMSC ENGINEERING/MENG PROGRAMME – 2018

ELEN7067A Research Methodology Compulsory to all MSC 50/50 (ECA00) students + 4 courses totalling 80 credits from each branch of study / 80% from branchCHMT7008A Research Project + 20% from any other engineering branch/school in the Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment = 6 courses}

Course Co-ordinator Course Presenter Course Code Course Name Attendance Dates

OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING

Dr Diakanua Nkazi Jean Marie Bottes (TOTAL/ TPA) CHMT7062A The Future of the Automotive Industry and Fuels 16–20 April Nicolas Caillet (TOTAL/ TPA) CHMT7063A Process Instrumentation and Control in Refining 14–18 May Dr Diakanua Nkazi CHMT7065A Oil Products and Refining 19–23 February Dr Fidelis Wopara CHMT7066A Introduction to Oil and Gas Offshore platforms/ pipelines 12–16 March Prof Abhijit Dandekar CHMT7070A Nanotechnology in Petroleum Reservoir 11–15 June Prof Hofsajer Ivan ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Dr Kevin Harding Antony Higginson CHMT7072A Advanced Biochemical Engineering 12–16 March Paul Chego Prof Jean Mulopo CHMT7037A Distillation Synthesis 09–13 July Prof Geoffrey Simate Dr Shehzaad Kauchali CHMT7038A Applied Thermodynamics 10–14 September ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

CLEAN ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

Dr Shehzaad Kauchali Dr Shehzaad Kauchali CHMT7076A Synthetic Fuels & Processes 21–25 May Prof Michael Daramola CHMT7069A CO₂ Capture in Power Plants 23–27 April Dr Shehzaad Kauchali CHMT7059A Coal Conversion and Gasification 19–23 March Mr Sehai Mokhahlane CHMT7068A Underground Coal Gasification 16–20 April Dr Diakanua Nkazi CHMT7065A Oil Products and Refining 19– 23 February ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

COAL ENGINEERING

Sehai Mokhahlane Dr Shehzaad Kauchali CHMT7059A Coal Conversion & Gasification 19–23 March Dr Elias Matinde CHMT7060A Coal & Carbon in the Metal Industry 10–14 September Sehai Mokhahlane CHMT7068A Underground Coal Gasification 16–20 April Prof Michael Daramola CHMT7069A CO₂ Capture in Power Plants 23–27 April ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING

Dr Elias Matinde Paul den Hoed CHMT7011A Physicochemical principles of refractories 23–27 April Prof Eriç Hürman CHMT7016A Selected/ Special Topics in Pyrometallurgy 28 May–01 June Dr Elias Matinde

CHMT7013A Solid, Liquid and Gaseous state in Pyrometallurgy 16–20 July Prof Serdar Kucukkaragos Dr Elias Matinde CHMT7060A Coal & Carbon in the Metal Industry 17–21 Sep ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) Dr Elias Matinde CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

MINERALS PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY

Prof Vusumuzi Sibanda Prof Sehliselo Ndlovu CHMT7030A Leaching Operations in Hydrometallurgy 25–29 June Dr Murray Bwalya CHMT7028A Physical Processing of Ores 26–30 March ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) Prof Vusumuzi Sibanda CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Dr David Whitefield Dr David Whitefield CHMT7019A Advanced Materials Processing 2–6 July Prof Iakovos Sigalas Prof Iakovos Sigalas CHMT7020A Principles of Ceramic Materials 30 July–3 August Prof Lesley Chown CHMT7024A Structure and Properties of Engineering Materials 11–15 June Prof Natasha Sacks CHMT7071A Tribology of Materials 14–18 May ELEN7067A Research Methodology - Compulsory course (10 credits) Dr David Whitefield CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory course (90 credits)

WELDING ENGINEERING (MSc 50/50)

Dr Lesley Chown CHMT7045A Advanced Welding Processes 16–20 April CHMT7049A Welding Metallurgy of Steels 14–18 May CHMT7050A Weldability of alloy steels & stainless steels 04–08 June CHMT7051A Weldability of ferrous & non-ferrous materials 25–29 June CHMT7073A Design and Construction of Welded Structures under Static Loading 16–20 July CHMT7074A Design and Construction of Welded Structures under Dynamic Loading 13–17 August ELEN7067A Research Methodology (10 credits) (Optional for Welding Engineering) Dr Lesley Chown CHMT7008A Research Project - Compulsory (90 credits)

MASTER OF ENGINEERING (MENG) EC001 TIMETABLE

WELDING ENGINEERING

Dr Lesley Chown CHMT7043A Welding Processes & Equipment 12–16 March CHMT7044A Other Welding Processes 02–06 April CHMT7045A Advanced Welding Processes 16–20 April CHMT7046A Fabrication, applications engineering 10–14 September CHMT7047A Non-destructive testing methods & economics 01–05 October CHMT7049A Welding Metallurgy of Steels 14–18 May CHMT7050A Weldability of alloy steels & stainless steels 04–08 June CHMT7051A Weldability of ferrous & non-ferrous materials 25–29 June CHMT7052A Case Studies for Welding Engineers 22–26 October CHMT7053A Practical Education – Welding Processes 19–24 February CHMT7073A Design and Construction of Welded Structures under Static Loading 16–20 July CHMT7074A Design and Construction of Welded Structures under Dynamic Loading 13–17 August

Due to various reporting irregularities and theneed to protect the investing public, the pastthree decades have witnessed the publicationof reporting codes for all the world’s mainstock exchanges, as well as the release of aninternational reporting template for the publicreporting of Exploration Results, MineralResources, and Mineral Reserves by theCombined Reserves International ReportingStandards Committee (CRIRSCO). Many of thecodes now have commodity-specific reportingsections for coal. However, due to the fact thatthe governing codes have developed to such anextent, some have questioned the need forcoal-specific standards. We would argue thatcoal resource estimation does requirecommodity-specific guidelines, as theprocesses of coal formation include aspectsthat are unique and which are fundamentallydifferent from those that apply to most othermineral deposits. In addition, certain coalqualities may be of special interest for specificuses and technological applications, and mayrequire very specific analytical work.

Of the codes that have commodity-specificsections for coal, two are prescriptive (the USA

and Canada) and two are descriptive (SouthAfrica and Australia) and are considered asguidelines. Though termed ‘guidelines’, mostinstitutions involved in the business of coalresource estimation, evaluation, and ultimatelywith the goal of raising funding, considerthese guidelines as prescriptive, and as a set ofstandards that must be addressed for a CoalResource to be considered as being reported inaccordance with the required code.

While most of the internationallyrecognized reporting codes have become verysimilar, including the South African Code forReporting Mineral Resources and MineralReserves (the SAMREC Code, 2007 asamended 2009; 2016) and that of the Joint OreReserves Committee (JORC, 2012), their coal-specific guidelines have recently diverged anddiffer in a number of significant ways.

Coal occurs in South Africa in 19 separatecoalfields (Figure 1), each of which has uniquecharacteristics relating to coal formation, andthe Competent Person should take dueconsideration of these characteristics whenestimating, classifying, and reporting CoalResources in South Africa.

Currently, Coal Resources in South Africamust be estimated in accordance with theSAMREC Code (2009), with additionalguidelines deemed necessary to standardizethe reporting of Coal Resources for securitiesexchange requirements, being supplied by theSouth African guide to the systematicevaluation of Coal Resources and Coal

The new SANS 10320:2016 versus the2014 Australian guidelines for theestimation and classification of coalresources–what are the implications forsouthern African coal resource estimators?by J. Hancox* and H. Pinheiro†

The past three decades have witnessed the publishing of reporting codesfor all the main stock exchanges, as well as the evolution of a uniforminternational standard covering the definition, estimation, and publicreporting of Mineral Resources. Many of these reporting codes havecommodity-specific reporting sections for coal, but only two countries(Australia and South Africa) have specific guidelines for reporting on coalresources. Both of these companion documents (SANS 10320:2016 and theAustralian Guidelines for the Estimation and Classification of CoalResources, 2014) have recently been updated. Unlike their parent codes,which have become increasingly similar, these new guidelines havediverged and are different in a number of significant ways, which in turnwill have an impact on coal resource estimators working in the coalfieldsof south-central Africa, particularly in countries where no commodity-specific guidelines for coal exist.

Reporting codes, coal resources, estimation, classification.

* CCIC Coal (Pty) Ltd, South Africa.† Ariy Consulting and Advisory, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and


1113VOLUME 117 �


The new SANS 10320:2016 versus the 2014 Australian guidelines

Reserves (SANS 10320:2004). The standard was originallyprepared in conjunction with the SAMREC Code by theSAMREC Coal Commodity Specific Sub-committee. Althoughnot yet published, this guideline has recently been updated asSANS 10320:2016 and has passed the Committee draft stage.Both authors of this paper were involved with this processand were provided with a final draft of the document for usein writing this paper. Once ratified, the new standard willsupersede the first edition, and will serve to provide furtheralignment, clarification, and best practices in terms of thereporting of Coal Deposits, Coal Resources, and CoalReserves. Dingemans (2015) and van Deventer (2015) haveboth provided overviews of what the main changes in thenew guidelines will be, and these are documented anddiscussed below.

One of the most significant aspects of the new SANS10320:2016 standard is that it applies to all Coal ExplorationResults, Inventory Coal, Coal Resources, and Coal Reserveswithin South Africa, irrespective of the jurisdiction withinwhich the reporting is undertaken. This means that theapplication of other codes and guidelines to South Africancoal deposits will no longer be allowed, which will preventthe previous poor practice of using the larger drill-holespacing that other codes allow in delineating South Africandeposits.

SANS 10320:2016 will provide the methodologies anddefinitions of the relevant terms that should be consideredwhen preparing Public Reports on Coal Exploration Results,Coal Resources, and Coal Reserves. In terms of the newstandard a Coal Resource is defined as ’coal of economicinterest in or on the Earth's crust in such form, quality andquantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction’. Tonnage and coal quality must bereported for all entries in a Public Report, per classification

category, in order of increasing confidence in respect ofgeoscientific evidence, into Inferred, Indicated, and Measuredcategories. The moisture content for all tonnages and coalqualities must be reported.

The determination of reasonable and realistic prospectsfor eventual economic extraction is fundamental to thedefinition of a Coal Resource. Under the new standard, inorder to classify a Coal Resource, the Competent Person (CP)shall identify that part of a coal deposit for which there arereasonable and realistic prospects for eventual economicextraction, and that will be economically viable to mine andproduce a raw or beneficiated saleable coal product.Consideration must also now, for the first time, be given toConversion Factors, which are considerations used in ageological study to convert Coal Exploration Results to CoalResources. These include, but are not restricted to, mining,processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic,marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmentalfactors. Although these factors are similar to the ModifyingFactors used to convert Coal Resources to Coal Reserves, theymay be more conceptual in nature.

Under the new standard a Coal Resource risk assessmentmust be undertaken, and any risks that may affect thepotential economic viability of the Coal Resource must beclearly stated. If any key variable or combination of variablesof the coal deposit under consideration does not meet a levelfor which there are reasonable and realistic prospects foreventual economic extraction, then Coal Resources cannot bedeclared, and must be reported only as Inventory Coal.

While SANS 10320:2004 allowed for a Gross Tonnes insitu (GTIS) resource to be publicly stated, the new standardwill allow such figures for internal calculation purposes only,and not for Public Reporting. Under SANS 10320:2016, forthe Public Reporting of Coal Resources, all tonnages and coal

�

1114 VOLUME 117

qualities must be reported on a Mineable Tonnes in situ(MTIS) basis, with the associated yield, coal quality, andmoisture content clearly stated. According to Dingemans(2015) the lowest level of Resource that may be publicallyreported under the new standard would be an Inferred, MTISCoal Resource. A MTIS Resource is the tonnage and coal

quality, at a specified moisture content, contained in the coalseam, or section of the coal seam, which is proposed to bemined, at the theoretical mining height, adjusted by thegeological loss factors and derating for previous miningactivities, but excluding contaminant material, with respect toa specific mining method, and after the relevant minimumand maximum mineable thickness cut-offs and relevant coalquality cut-off parameters have been applied.

SANS 10320:2016 will still recognize two different typesof South African coal deposits (multiple seam and thickinterbedded deposit types) and will still allow for resourcecategory confidence to be assessed based on the density (per100 hectares) or spacing of cored boreholes with quality data.A difference to the previous SANS 10320:2004 guidelines isthat the new guideline specifically mentions that differentcoal deposit types within the same coalfield must be reportedseparately. In addition, the new guidelines will allow for amaximum 500 m borehole spacing for the MeasuredResource category of thick interbedded coal deposit, asopposed to the 350 m required in SANS 10320:2004 (Figure 2).

Typically in South Africa, the Free State, Vereeniging-Sasolburg, South Rand, Witbank, Highveld, Ermelo, KlipRiver, Utrecht, Vryheid, Springbok Flats, lower Waterberg,Somkhele, and Molteno coalfields are multiple seam deposittypes, whereas the upper Waterberg (GrootegelukFormation), Springbok Flats, Limpopo, Soutpansberg(Mopane, Tshipise, and Pafuri) are thick interbedded seamdeposit types. The Nongoma and Kangwane coalfields maycontain both coal deposit types (Figure 1). SANS 10320:2016will supply a list of which coalfields contain which types ofcoal deposits.

The productive coalfields of Australia occur mainly on andaround the east coast (Figure 3), predominantly inQueensland and New South Wales, where the coal-bearingsequences show extreme lateral continuity and continuousgeometry (Allen and Fielding, 2007).


1115VOLUME 117 �

Prior to September 1999 the estimation and reporting ofCoal Resources in Australia was prescribed by the AustralianCode for Reporting Identified Coal Resources and Reserves(February 1986). The first direct references to coal are foundin clauses 38 to 40 of the 1999 JORC Code. Until October2014, the JORC (2012) Code required that Coal Resources bereported on the same basis as any other mineral commodity,with cognisance taken of the guidelines contained in theAustralian Guidelines for Estimating and Reporting ofInventory Coal, Coal Resources, and Coal Reserves (2003).These guidelines (2003) stated that a Measured CoalResource may be estimated using data obtained from Pointsof Observation usually less than 500 m apart, an IndicatedCoal Resource from Points of Observation less than 1000 mapart, and an Inferred Coal Resource from Points ofObservation less than 4000 m apart. These recommendedspacings were based on historically proven continuity of coalseams in the Hunter Valley and the Bowen Basin. Unlike inthe SANS 10320:2004 document, only one set of spacingswas used no matter what the type of coal deposit.

Subsequent geostatistical work by Bertoli et al., (2013)showed that the use of a ‘one size fits all’ classificationscheme (even in the well-documented Bowen Basin) mayresult in inappropriate resource classification (Table I), andas such the use of fixed drill-hole spacing for resourceclassification was not good practice.

In October 2014 the new Australian Guidelines for theEstimation and Classification of Coal Resources (AustralianGuideline 2014) were ratified. This document represents asignificant update and marks a major change in the role ofthe CP in coal resource estimations in Australia. Probably themost important aspect of this revision is the fact that theconcept of defining Resource categories in terms of distancearound Points of Observation (which was introduced in 1971in the first edition of the Code for Calculating and ReportingCoal Reserves by the Geological Survey of New South Wales)has been removed. Instead, the CP must now assess the

confidence in the estimate of all significant variables, and themost applicable methods and criteria to demonstrate suchconfidence should be used to support the classificationassigned. Such criteria and methods include statistical andgeostatistical analyses, as well as the definition of geologicaldomains, and geological modelling. The estimator must alsoidentify any critical parameters that might affect the eventualeconomic extraction test, or those that may result incontractual penalties. The use of geostatistical methodology,whereby the classification of the resource is driven by theactual in situ variability (or conversely spatial continuity) ofthe resource, is strongly recommended.

The Australian Guidelines (2014) include a Glossary ofterms, which is surprisingly short, and does not includeimportant terms such as ‘ply’, ‘seam’, and ‘zone’. Yet theconcept of ply in particular is vital to the exercise ofAustralian resource assessment. While the words ’should’,‘can’, ‘may’, ‘may not’, and so on are typical and rathercommon throughout the guidelines, occasionally ‘must’enters the fray. For example, ’seam thickness and locationmust be unambiguous’, in which case it is prescriptive.

For the first time the new Australian Guidelines (2014)recommend that the geotechnical conditions of theoverburden, interburden, roof and floor strata, the seam gascontent and composition, the propensity of the coal forspontaneous heating, the potential of relevant materials forfrictional ignition, and any other parameters pertinent to theconsideration of reasonable prospects for eventual economicextraction, should be assessed.

Furthermore these guidelines suggest that a CP mustassess all relevant aspects of (and risks to) mining,processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic,marketing, legal, environmental, social, governmental, andregulatory factors. It notes that while the assessment can inpart be qualitative in nature, there generally needs to be atleast a basic quantitative evaluation that considers financialindicators and consideration should be given to whether thetonnage and coal quality are sufficient to ensure satisfactoryreturns over a reasonable life of mine. These guidelines donot, however, prescribe: a specific approach to arriving at thekey assumptions; the level of detail required; the economicindicators that need to be satisfied; the level of satisfactionthat needs to be achieved for the coal to be said to havereasonable prospects, and hence be classified as a CoalResource.

There are a number of instances where the two parent codes(JORC and SAMREC) and coal guidelines are now similar, yetdifferent from their previous versions. The most significantof these are that:

� The controlling Code now requires that Table 1 iscompleted in both instances

� All reporting must be on an ‘if not – why not’ basis

� The basis for quality and tonnage reporting must nowbe in-situ moisture, with the Preston and Sanders(1993) formulae applied for density in tonnagecalculations


�

1116 VOLUME 117

Table I

et al

Blackwater 550 1050 2100Caval Ridge 800 1400 2800Caval Ridge 500 1000 2450Crinum M Block 1100 1900 3600Daunia 650 1250 2800Goonyella Riverside 650 1250 3150Gregory Crinum 1100 1900 3600Lorus North 350 700 1850Norwich Park 750 1450 3550Peak Downs 700 1300 2600Peak Downs 850 1700 4200Poitrel 400 750 1800Saraji 750 1400 2500South Walker Creek 250 500 1000Coal Guidelines (2003) 500 1000 4000

� More importance must be placed on the conversionfactors in the stating of a Coal Resource

� A risk assessment is now required.

The Australian Guidelines (2014) require the CP toassess the likely mining scenario (open cut/cast orunderground). For a potential open cut mining scenario,emphasis must be placed on strip ratio, minimum mineableseam thickness, maximum non-separable parting thickness,pit wall stability, and depth of weathering. In an undergroundmining scenario, aspects such as depth, faulting, igneousintrusions, working section thickness, seam dip, physicalproperties of roof and floor lithologies, hydrogeology, stressregime, gas content, lithological composition, andpermeability should be considered. SANS 10320:2016 willalso place more emphasis on geotechnical work, specificallyas to how such parameters may influence the potential foreventual economic extraction.

Both documents also place more emphasis on the role ofthe CP, often extending outside of such person’s normalsphere of expertise, with the Australian Guidelines (2014)going as far as noting that these matters are normallyconsidered in concert with engineers and other specialistsand that it may be necessary to seek expert comment onthese factors. The impact of the latter on the cost ofexploration cannot be underestimated, and will be significant,especially for junior miners seeking to operate and deliveragainst such guidelines. Neither guideline requires thelodging of the CP Report with the controlling exchange, anarea which should be addressed.

There are, however, also several differences between theforthcoming SANS 10320:2016 revision and the AustralianGuidelines (2014), the main ones being:

� SANS 10320:2016 will still allow the use of maximumdistances between Points of Observation for definingresource categories per coal deposit type in SouthAfrica, whereas the concept of defining resourcecategories on distance around Points of Observationhas been removed from the Australian Guidelines(2014), which prefers that the resource classificationbe founded on the assessment of the confidence in theestimate of all significant variables, based on a seriesof methods and criteria, such as geostatistical analysis

� SANS 10320:2016 will still prescribe core recovery inexcess of 95% by length within the coal seamintersection of a drill-hole, whereas the AustralianGuidelines (2014) state that sample recovery must beconsidered representative, and that potential loss ofmaterial from within a sample may be critical,irrespective of the relative percentage lost; and thatdownhole geophysical data should be used to confirmthe location and nature of any core loss in the coalseam. The use of downhole geophysical data is notprescribed in the new SANS 10320:2016 standard

� The Australian Guidelines (2014) also note that theanalysed sample should be representative of the in-situmaterial within the interval of interest, and as suchhints that it is in fact the percentage of material thatmakes it to the laboratory that is important. SANS10320:2016 does not state that the received sample at

the laboratory must represent 95% of the recoveredmaterial

� SANS 10320:2016 refers to both Coal Resources andCoal Reserves, whereas the Australian Guidelines(2014) is now only applicable to Coal Resources

� In SANS 10320:2016 the only level of tonnagereporting is MTIS; the Australian Guidelines (2014)makes no distinction between GTIS, TTIS, and MTISand do not mention that geological losses need to bespecified

� SANS 10320:2016 specifically mentions that differentcoal deposit types within the same coalfield (e.g. for theWaterberg Coalfield) must be reported separately,whereas this is not required by the AustralianGuidelines (2014), other than as stipulated in section5.2.2 of the guidelines

� SANS 10320:2016 must be applied to all CoalExploration Results, Inventory Coal, Coal Resources,and Coal Reserves within South Africa, irrespective ofthe jurisdiction within which the reporting isundertaken; whereas the Australian Guidelines (2014)are intended for use in Australian coalfields

� The revised SANS 10320:2016 guidelines for CoalResource estimation do not require the reporting oftonnages beyond the in situ stage. Where the CoalResource is deemed suitable to be exploited for awashed coal product, the associated theoretical yieldand washed target product shall, however, be stated. Inthe case of the Australian Guidelines (2014) theapplication of certain quality and potential utilizationfactors is required, thereby allowing for reporting of acoal quality that is closer to a saleable product

� For the Australian Guidelines (2014) a CP must at leastundertake a basic quantitative evaluation of financialindicators, whereas this is not a requirement of theSANS 10320:2016 guidelines.

Despite the Australian Guidelines (2014) stating that it isintended for use in Australian coalfields, it also follows withthe wording ’but may also provide guidance internationally’,thus leaving the door open for its use elsewhere, such as isthe case in the coalfields of Mozambique.

The coalfields of the Tete Province of Mozambique occupy anarea stretching over 350 km, from Lake Cahora Bassa in thewest to the Malawi border in the east (Figure 4). From westto east these are variously termed the Chicôa-Mecúcoè(including the Mucanha-Vuzi sector), Sanângoè-Mefídézi,Moatize (or Moatize-Benga), Muarazi, and Minjova sub-basins, with northwest and southeast extensions Ncondezi(N’condezi) and Mutarara (Vasconcelos, 2012).

In the past decade a lot of exploration focus has beenplaced on the coalfields of Mozambique. However, at presentMozambique does not have its own reporting code orcommodity-specific coal reporting guidelines. The JORC Codehas mostly been used by companies active in the coalfields,


VOLUME 117 1117 �


and prior to October 2014 this meant that the more looselyconstrained maximum distances between Points ofObservation allowed for by the 2003 Australian CoalGuidelines could be used to define Coal Resources.

As an extreme example of how things stood prior to thenew codes and coal guidelines, consider a South African CPutilizing the SAMREC Code (2009) and SANS 10320:2004 todefine a coal resource in Mozambique. Based on a drill-holespacing of 500 m and raw coal quality data, the CP would beable to disclose an Indicated GTIS Coal Resource, with nogeological losses required. Even considering the changesproposed in the SANS 10320:2016 update that GTIS may notbe reported, a 1.5 billion ton (Gt) opencastable GTIS Resourcemay drop by only 10–20% (geological losses) if full seamextraction is considered, to give an MTIS Resource of 1.2–1.35 Gt. An Australian geologist considering the sameresource and reporting in terms of the JORC (2012) code and2003 Australian Guidelines (prior to October 2014) would beable to define a similar resource estimate in the Measuredcategory and would not have to apply any geological loss.

Strict application of the Australian Guidelines (2014) maymean that many such publicly stated coal resources inMozambique may have to be re-defined based on ageostatistical evaluation of the density and variability of theirPoints of Observation, as well as on all critical variables.Given that coal represents a heterogeneous mixture ofconstituents there is a large range of coal quality parametersthat would have to be considered by the CP, and geostatisticalanalysis on a ply-by-ply and variable-by-variable basis (asmay be required in the Tete Province coalfields ofMozambique) would be extremely onerous and costly. Underthe more stringent requirements of the Australian Guidelines(2014) it is also highly likely that several of the resourceestimations made public prior to the new guidelines mayhave to be downgraded in tonnage and resource category,and that some isolated deposits in remote areas may notmake it into the Resource category at all.

Since many of the coal deposits of Mozambique consist ofthick interbedded seams, the application of the new SANS10320:2016 guidelines would allow a spacing of 500 m forthe Measured category (as for the 2003 Australian Coal

Guidelines), and we may in future therefore see previouslyJORC-compliant resources turning to the SAMREC Code(2016) and SANS 10320:2016 guidelines. The new SANS10320:2016 guidelines, however, specifically mention thatdifferent coal deposit types within the same coalfield must bereported separately, and this would impact on the reporting ofMozambique coal resources, where both thick interbeddedand multiple seam styles may occur within a coalfield or sub-basin. Additionally, in structurally complex deposits, such asthose found in Mozambique, it is structure (and not only coalquality) that can often be the critical resource-limitingdeterminant. Mozambique should therefore be considered tobe a unique setting, with structural complexity far greaterthan seen in Australia or most of South Africa. As has beenshown above, the rigid application of either the SAMREC(2016) or JORC Code (2014) may not be best practice, andMozambique desperately requires a set of coal reportingguidelines of its own.

There is no doubt that the revised Australian Coal Guidelines(2014) and SANS 10320:2016 guidelines are superior totheir predecessors. The authors, however, contend that thereis still one glaring omission in both the guidelines andcontrolling codes, and that is the failure to ensure arequirement for the lodging of the CP Report with thecontrolling exchange (such as is the case for the TorontoStock Exchange).

While both the Australian Guidelines (2014) and theSANS 10320:2016 revision place more emphasis on the roleof the CP, neither address how to gauge (or maintain) thelevel of competency. Both the proposed SANS 10320:2016update and the Australian Guidelines (2014) require that aCoal Resource geologist (whose core skills should be coalgeology, modelling, and resource estimation) must also befamiliar with Conversion (SANS 10320:2016) or ModifyingFactors (Australian Guidelines, 2014). The AustralianGuidelines (2014) further require the CP to be conversantwith the potential product qualities, potential utilization,

�

1118 VOLUME 117

product yields and value, and mining horizon/target, whichwill undoubtedly require at least a mine plan and morerealistically a pit shell for opencast mining. These aspects aremore traditionally defined as the Modifying Factors, and fallwithin the realm of the mining engineer. It is thereforeevident that the lines are becoming blurred in both codes,more notably so in the case of the Australian Guidelines(2014).

The SANS 10320:2016 update could also benefit fromvarious considerations found in the new AustralianGuidelines (2014), such as the geostatistical analysis of drill-hole data. There are, however, some concerns with ageostatistical approach to resource classification in SouthAfrica, the main one being that the creation of a robustsemivariogram requires sufficient data-points, and that onecannot create a robust semivariogram if the data has a mix ofdifferent populations. Small Coal Resource areas, such as areoften found in South Africa, would require data-sets withdrill-holes numbering far in excess of what is currentlyrequired for Resource reporting.

The authors also note that while the level of recoverythrough the seam is mandated in the revised SANS10320:2016 guidelines, the level of that material reporting tothe laboratory is not. We have come across many a SouthAfrican example when it is stated that 95% recovery wasobtained through the coal seam, yet less than 50% of themass has been delivered to the laboratory.

One last point of discussion that arises from the newAustralian Guidelines (2014) is the death of the spotted dog’(Figure 5) – the poor practice of estimating Measured,Indicated, and Inferred Resources over disconnected circles ofinfluence around individual Points of Observation or along aline of Points of Observation (Stephenson et al., 2006).

The exclusion of such practice means that the newAustralian Guidelines (2014) directly contradict the USA(USGS Circular 891) and Canadian (GSC Paper 88-21)systems, which are rules-based and prescriptive and whichrely on the use of spotted-dog methodologies.

This paper has shown that while the parent codes (JORC andSAMREC) are very similar, the coal reporting guidelines for

the two are not. In the case of the revised AustralianGuidelines (2014) there is a significant increase in certainrequirements, which include the application of geostatisticalparameters to resource classification criteria, as well as expertknowledge of coal beneficiation, utilization, and miningpractices. While this places an increased burden on theCompetent Person (and, the authors believe, moves into theterritory of reserving), the new codes and guidelines do atleast mean that seeing a 1.5 Gt Coal Resource reported withReserves of only 200 Mt will be a thing of the past.

ALLEN, J.P. and FIELDING, C.R. 2007. Sequence architecture within a low-accommodation setting: an example from the Permian of the Galilee andBowen basins, Queensland, Australia. American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bulletin, vol. 91, no. 11. pp. 1503–1539.

AUSTRALIAN GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING AND REPORTING OF INVENTORY COAL, CoalResources and Coal Reserves. 2003 Edition. Coalfields Geology Council ofNew South Wales and the Queensland Mining Council, 2003. 8 pp.

AUSTRALIAN GUIDELINES FOR THE ESTIMATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF COAL RESOURCES.2014 Edition. Coalfields Geology Council of New South Wales and theQueensland Resources Council. 16 pp.

BERTOLI, O., PAUL, A., CASLEY, Z., and DUNN, D. 2013. Geostatistical drillholespacing analysis for coal resource classification in the Bowen Basin,Queensland. International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 112. pp. 107–113.

DINGEMANS, D. 2015. The update of the SAMREC & SAMVAL Codes and SANS10320: Progress and Changes. Presentation at the Witbank RecreationClub, March 2015.

HANCOX, P.J. and GÖTZ, A.E. 2014. South Africa's coalfields — a 2014perspective. International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 132. pp. 170–254.

JORC. 2012. Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee. Australasian Code forReporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves(The JORC Code, 2012 Edition). The Joint Ore Reserve Committee of theAustralasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute ofGeoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC), (Effective 20December 2012, mandatory 1 December 2013). 44 pp.http://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

PRESTON, K.B. and SANDERS R.H. 1993. Estimating the in-situ relative density ofcoal. Australian Coal Geology, vol. 9. pp. 22–26.

SAMREC. 2007. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves (The SAMREC Code). 2007 Edition as Amended July2009 . 61 pp. http://www.samcode.co.za/downloads/SAMREC2009.pdf

SAMREC. 2016. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves (the SAMREC Code). 2016 Edition.http://www.samcode.co.za/codes/category/8-reporting-codes?download=120:samrec

SANS 10320:2004. South African guide to the systematic evaluation of coalresources and coal reserves. Standards South Africa, Pretoria. 140 pp.

SANS 10320:2016. Systematic evaluation of coal exploration results, inventorycoal, coal resources and coal reserves. Standards South Africa, Pretoria.[in press].

STEPHENSON, P.R., ALLMAN, A., CARVILLE, D.P., STOKER, P.T., MOKOS, P., TYRRELL,J., and BURROWS, T. 2006. Mineral Resource classification – it’s time toshoot the ‘spotted dog’! Proceedings of the Sixth International MiningGeology Conference, Darwin, NT, 21–23 August 2006. AustralasianInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. pp 91–95.

VAN DEVENTER, K. 2015. Update of the Resource and Reserve Reporting Codesand Guidelines for the Coal Industry with specific focus on the SAMRECand SANS 10320 update. Progress and changes and the practicalapplication thereof. Presentation for the SAMCODE Committee, September2015.

VASCONCELOS L. 2012. Overview of the Mozambique coal deposits. Proceedingsof the 34th International Geological Congress, Brisbane, QLD, Australia,5–10 August 2012. Australian Geosciences Council. 25 pp. �


VOLUME 117 1119 �

The 15th International Ferro-Alloys Congress (Infacon XV) will be held at the Century City Conference Centre in Cape Town, South Africafrom 25-28 February 2018.

INFACON (International Ferro-Alloys Congress) was founded in South Africa in 1974 by the SAIMM (Southern African Institute of Miningand Metallurgy), Mintek (then the National Institute for Metallurgy), and the Ferro Alloys Producers' Association (FAPA) when the firstINFACON was held in Johannesburg.

The intention of INFACON is to stimulate technical interchange on all aspects of ferro-alloy production.

Topics for discussion:Topics include but are not limited to� Operational updates from ferro-alloy producers� Technical aspects of ferro-alloy production� Status of the ferro-alloys markets� FeCr, FeMn, FeNi, FeV, FeSi, SiMn,

etc.� Effects of electricity cost and

availability� Energy efficiency and recovery� Pre-treatment technologies� New technologies and processes� Safety� Environmental issues� Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change� Government policies affecting ferro-alloys� Carbon tax� Export restrictions or subsidies� Sustainability� Use of natural gas� Sale of ore versus ferro-alloy production� Market supply and demand� Future of the ferro-alloys industry in South Africa

� The impact of UG2 chromite from the PGM industry� Fines, tailings, and low-grade ores� Volatility of ore and ferro-alloy prices� Approach to a circular economy� How to extract maximum value from resources

� Other topics of relevance to ferro-alloy production

Who should attend?� Metallurgists� Ferro-alloy producers� Steel and stainless steel producers

� Smelter operations managers� Plant general managers

� Engineers, technicians, and scientists� Process engineers� Engineering companies� Furnace equipment and

refractory suppliers� Researchers / Academics� Specialists in production,

economics, and the environment

� Policy makers� Investors� Students

For further information please contact:

Gugu Charlie • Conference Co-ordinator • E-mail: [email protected]: http://infacon15.com

Infacon XV: International Ferro-Alloys Congress

25–28 February 2018

Century City Conference Centre and Hotel, Cape Town, South Africa

The original purpose of the internationalreporting codes was to regulate the publicreporting of Mineral Resources and MineralReserves. This is highlighted by the titles ofthe original codes – for example, the 1999JORC Code is entitled ‘Australasian Code forreporting of Mineral Resources and OreReserves’ and the 2000 SAMREC Code is‘South African Code for reporting of MineralResources and Mineral Reserves’. In both ofthese codes, issues were confined to reportscompiled for the relevant securities exchange.Very little attention was paid to the pre-resource space, with no more than a few linesdealing with the reporting of explorationresults, called ‘prospecting information’ in the2000 SAMREC Code.

By the mid-2000s, both codes had changedtheir titles. The 2004 version of JORC hadbecome ‘Australasian Code for reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources andOre Reserves’ and the 2007 SAMREC Codewas entitled ‘South African Code for thereporting of Exploration Results, MineralResources and Mineral Reserves’ (italicsadded). It is noteworthy that, although theemphasis is still on listed company reporting,

the definition of ‘Public Reports’ has beenexpanded significantly to include all reportsthat may be of use to investors and potentialinvestors.

This migration appears to be, partially, inrecognition of the increasing role played byjunior exploration and mining companies andtheir need to report on strategic explorationtargets for continued financial support. Inaddition to the needs of junior companies,large mining companies need to continuouslyassess long-term development opportunities inthe exploration areas surrounding theiroperations (Mullins et al., (2014). Theobjectives of these programmes are to developa thorough understanding of the mineralinventory so that the full mineral endowmentpotential of an area can be considered undermultiple scenarios and long-term investmentdecisions taken to optimize the developmentpotential of the province. It was argued thatsuch objectives require a consistent approachto evaluating the nature and extents ofpotentially economic mineralisation. Whileguidelines such as the JORC Code (and, byextension, the SAMREC Code) adequatelyaddress this for Public Reporting purposes,internal strategic decisions often require a lessconservative, but similarly rigorous, approachso that projects and increasingly competitivebudgets can be prioritized before all of theinformation needed for formal resourceestimation and classification is available.

Similar to other codes, the 2007/2009SAMREC Code did not place much emphasis onthe definition of Mineral Resources, beyondthe statement that there were to be reasonableexpectations for eventual economic extraction.Apart from recognizing that it is commonpractice for a company to comment on anddiscuss its exploration in terms of target size

Exploration Results, ExplorationTargets, and Mineralisationby T.R. Marshall

While the original intent of all of the international reporting codes was toregulate the Public Reporting of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reservesonly, many jurisdictions have seen the need to provide guidance for thereporting of Exploration Targets, which are the lifeblood of juniorexploration and mining companies and private operators alike. In harmonywith this trend, the SAMREC Code 2016 has greatly expanded the issuessurrounding Exploration Results and Exploration Targets and has alsointroduced the concept of Mineralisation. This document seeks to clarifythe concepts and definitions and to assist in clearing misconceptionsbefore they arise. A number of case-study examples are presented in orderto illustrate the differences between Exploration Targets that are purelyconceptual and those which may be identified as Mineralisation.

Public Reporting, Resource classification, Exploration Results, ExplorationTargets, Mineralisation.

* Explorations Unlimited, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and


1121VOLUME 117 �


Exploration Results, Exploration Targets, and Mineralisation

and type, guidelines for anything in the pre-resource spacewere even more vague and, consequently, reporting ofexploration results, exploration targets, mineralisation, andinventory became highly suspect in terms of credibility. Theemerging importance of Exploration Results as a defined termwas, however, seen in the fact that an entire column in Table1 of the SAMREC Code (‘Exploration Results (A)’) wasdedicated to the discussion of exploration data andinformation, where applicable.

‘Exploration target’ became a sack term for anything thatdid not meet the requirements of a Mineral Resource andincluded everything from pure conceptual models toproperties where the amount of data and/or the level ofconfidence in the results fell just short of ‘Resource’. Since itis not a Resource, according to the Codes an ExplorationTarget could not form part of a Mineral Resource statement ortabulation, nor be included in any techno-economicassessment, however preliminary. An unintendedconsequence of the inclusion of both early and moreadvanced reconnaissance-stage exploration programmes wasthat many that of the more advanced reconnaissance-stageproperties were shoehorned into the Inferred Resourcecategory because that was the lowest classification thatcredited the company with having done any exploration onthe target property.

The latest versions of the JORC, PERC, and SME codes alldefine an Exploration Target as ‘a statement or estimate ofthe exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a definedgeological setting where the statement or estimate, … relatesto mineralisation for which there has been insufficientexploration to estimate Mineral Resources’ (same or similarwording). Both JORC and PERC note that all disclosures of anExploration Target should clarify whether the target is basedon actual exploration results completed or on proposedexploration programmes yet to commence, implying thatExploration Targets can be both conceptual or advanced. Theprovisions of SME indicate that only properties where actualexploration results have been obtained can be described asExploration Targets. Although CIM makes no mention ofeither of the terms Exploration Results or Exploration Target,the National Instrument 43-101 Companion Policy of 2011gives limited guidelines on what might constitute suchinformation and how it may be reported publicly in a mannerthat does not misrepresent the potential prospectivity of theproperty.

It is in recognition of these matters that the SAMRECCode 2016 has greatly expanded the issues surroundingExploration Results and Exploration Targets, and has alsointroduced the concept of Mineralisation (as opposed tomineralisation as a geological term, which SAMREC definesas ‘The process or processes by which a mineral or mineralsare introduced into a rock, resulting in a potentially valuabledeposit. It is a general term, incorporating various types, e.g.fissure filling, impregnation, replacement, etc.’). The Codehas also seen the migration from reports that deal with purelylisted entities to any document that may find its way into thepublic domain, and even includes statements on social media.In addition to the requirements of the various securitiesexchanges with respect to public reporting by listedcompanies of all sizes, industry best practice stronglyrecommends that reports compiled for ’private’ companiesalso be compiled in accordance with the SAMREC Code – theprimary argument being that investors in non-listed entities

deserve the same level of professionalism in reporting andvaluation standards as for listed companies. In recent yearsthere has been an upsurge in the number of Public Reportsassociated with non-listed companies. The reasons for thisare many and varied, but the most common involve the manyprivate companies that are looking to obtain finance for veryearly-stage exploration projects from financial institutions(such as the Industrial Development Corporation, banks,and/or mining funds), from established (listed) explorationand mining companies, or from high-wealth individuals. Inmost of these situations, the potential investor requires aCompetent Person’s Report (CPR) before being willing tocommit to commercial terms.

This paper seeks to clarify the thought processes by theExploration Results subcommittee of the SAMREC WorkingGroup in developing the definitions and concepts integral tothe pre-resource space and to assist in clearingmisconceptions before they arise.

The 2016 SAMREC Code (Clause 20) defines ExplorationResults as data and information generated by explorationprogrammes that may be of use to investors, but which donot form part of a declaration of Mineral Resources orMineral Reserves. The reporting of such information iscommon in the early stages of exploration when the quantityof data available is generally not sufficient to allow anyreasonable estimates of Mineral Resources. What is vitallyimportant in the reporting of such Exploration Results is thatthey must not be presented in such a manner so as tounreasonably imply that potentially economic mineralisationhas been discovered.

Reports of Exploration Results must contain sufficientinformation to allow for a considered and balancedjudgement of their significance and the reporting should bestructured to include both positive and negative relevant dataand information relating to the mineral property. Theoverriding emphasis is on balanced reporting, providingrelevant information relating to prospecting activity that hastaken place on the property of interest.

Such Exploration Results may include survey, geological,geophysical, geochemical, sampling, drilling, trenching,analytical testing, assaying, mineralogical, metallurgical, andother data and information, where available. ExplorationResults may also include historical data/information as wellas data/information from adjacent or nearby properties, if theCP can provide justification for its inclusion. Suchjustification must include at least some physical evidence ofassumed continuity of the mineralisation on the property ofinterest.

With the rise of the junior exploration company, it hasbecome common practise to comment on and discussExploration Results in terms of size and type, even at a veryearly stage of prospecting, before formal Mineral Resourceshave been identified. There is a long history of miningprojects where the mineral endowment of a district orprovince is underestimated and careful consideration of thefull potential for economic mineralisation in the early stagesof assessment could have significantly improved developmentdecisions and long-term profitability (Mullins et al., 2014).Likewise, examples of overestimating the potential size of amineral district have been equally disastrous for shareholder

�

1122 VOLUME 117

value. Historically, this is where many (listed and private)companies have misused and abused reporting standards,resulting in, at best, the obfuscation of the situation so as toimply better results than actually exist and, at worst, thegross misrepresentation of the potential of projects (probablythe most infamous example of this in modern times is theBre-X fiasco in 1995-1997).

The term ‘exploration target’ in the 2007/2009 SAMREC Code(Clause 20) had no formal definition, but was included as away of reporting Exploration Results that might be of interestto investors. The governing principles of reportingexploration targets was that any statement referring topotential quantity, quality, and content of the target was tobe expressed as ranges (to emphasize the lack of confidencein the data) and that they were to be accompanied by variouscautionary statements.

The definition of the term ‘Exploration Target’ in Clauses21/22 of the 2016 SAMREC Code has retained these essentialelements. In harmony with other international codes,Exploration Target is defined as a statement, or estimate, ofthe exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a definedgeological setting where the statement or estimate, quoted asa range of tons and a range of grade or quality, relates tomineralisation for which there has been insufficientexploration to estimate Mineral Resources.

The essence of an Exploration Target is that, at oneextreme, it can refer to a concept of mineralisation. It doesnot necessarily require that any mineralisation be identifiedor even that the company has identified specific properties foracquisition. A (conceptual) Exploration Target, therefore,need not, imply reasonable prospects for eventual economicextraction (RPEEE). Notwithstanding, there must be alikelihood that this exploration target occurs in an area ofgeological prospectivity for that commodity andmineralisation type.

For example, a diamond company might target a propertylocated on the Kaapvaal Craton in a region where kimberlitepipes are known to occur. The known kimberlite cluster mayor may not include a pipe that is currently being mined, orthat was mined in the past. The Exploration Target might beassociated with the occurrence of an indicator mineralanomaly or a geophysical anomaly, or perhaps artisanalminers are recovering alluvial diamonds downstream fromthe property.

At the other extreme, an Exploration Target may refer toa specific area in a property held under licence that has beensubject to an advanced reconnaissance explorationprogramme, but where either the amount of data or the levelof confidence in the data is insufficient for classification as aMineral Resource or where RPEEE have not yet beenestablished for the specific property.

So, the company in the example above might have drilleda number of holes into one of the geophysical anomalies andidentified the presence of kimberlite. The systematic drillingwas able to identify an initial volume of some 20 Mm3 ofkimberlite down to a depth of 60 m. Each intersection mayhave been sampled for microdiamonds which indicatedpotential grades in the order of 30-40 carats per hundredtons (the bulk density was assumed from a regional averageaverage). However, to date, only 25 macrodiamonds have

been recovered from the initial bulk sampling programme.While this data will fall short of allowing the project beingclassified as a Resource, it can be classified as an ExplorationTarget (with identified Mineralisation).

In terms of Clause 21, anything classified as anExploration Target must not be expressed so as to bemisrepresented or misconstrued as an estimate of a MineralResource or Mineral Reserve. Details of the ExplorationTarget may not form part of a Resource statement or beincluded in a tabulation of Mineral Resources or MineralReserves. Exploration Targets may not be included in aTechnical Study (at Scoping, Pre-Feasibility, or Feasibilitylevel) and may not be converted to Mineral Reserves (Clauses21, 43-46). They may not be included in economicassessments or discounted cash flow (DCF) models, nor beincluded in valuations based on Income Approaches. Giventhe levels of uncertainty surrounding the supporting data, thequantity (volume or tonnage) or quality (grade and value) ofan Exploration Target may not be reported as a ‘headlinestatement’ in a Public Report (Clause 22).

When discussing Exploration Targets, the CP must clearlydescribe the rationale for such selection, including thegeological model on which it is based. Any statementreferring to potential quantity, quality, and content, asappropriate, must be substantiated and include a detailedexplanation of the basis for the statement. This must befollowed by a proximate statement, with the sameprominence, that the potential quantity, quality, and content,as appropriate, are conceptual in nature, that there has beeninsufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and thatit is uncertain if further exploration could result in thedetermination of a Mineral Resource.

‘Same prominence’ is defined as the same font type andsize and ‘proximate location’ is defined as the cautionarystatement being included in the same paragraph as, orimmediately following, the reported statement. Thecautionary statement may not be by way of a footnote, norwill a general disclaimer elsewhere in the disclosuredocument satisfy this requirement. This cautionary statementmust, further, be made each time the statement of potentialquantity, quality, and content is presented.

Any statement referring to quantity and quality mustreflect the lack of reliable data. Where the statement includesinformation relating to ranges of tonnages and grades, thesemust be represented as approximations. The conceptualnature of the statements must be expressed either throughthe use of ‘order of magnitude’, including appropriatedescriptive terms (such as ‘approximately’, ‘in the order of’,etc.) or as ‘ranges’, which is defined as the variation betweenthe lowest and highest relevant Exploration Results – the useof ranges in this context has no statistical relevance.

Estimates of potential quantity and quality should,preferably, be made in terms of volume (or area) and notmass/tonnage. If, however, target tonnages are reported, thenthe preliminary estimates, or the basis of assumptions, madefor bulk density must be stated. The explanatory text mustinclude a description of the process used to determine thegrade and tonnage ranges describing the Exploration Targetor Mineralisation.

Appropriate rounding should be used to express the levelof uncertainty of the estimates. By way of example,‘approximately one to two million tons at a grade of 3-5% Cu’or ‘an Exploration Target of more than 100 million tons of


1123VOLUME 117 �

coal in excess of 16 MJ/kg for power generation markets’would be acceptable, but not ‘2 ±0.2 million tons’. Whenestimates are quoted, statements of both quantity and qualitymust be provided. It is not permissible to quote one withoutthe other.

In addition, any discussion of Exploration Targets mustinclude the intended exploration work programme to explorefor the target, detailing the extent of the proposed explorationactivities, the planned timeframe, and the anticipated costs.Public Reporting of an Exploration Target shall not be doneunless supported by exploration. Without an explicitexploration work programme, Public Reporting of anExploration Target must be regarded as being solelyspeculative (Clause 21). Clause 20 further notes that indiscussions of Exploration Targets on properties adjacent to,or nearby, properties of known mineralisation, at least somephysical evidence of assumed continuity of themineralisation on the property of interest must be presentedby the CP.

A new term, Mineralisation, (Clause 21/22) has beenintroduced (as a subset of Exploration Target) to deal withthe situation where the Exploration Target is no longerpurely conceptual, but where actual data has been obtainedon the property and where mineralisation of significance (asopposed to a mineral occurrence) has been identified (seeexample above). Mineralisation refers to the situations whereinsufficient data has been acquired to estimate a MineralResource, where the existing data is of insufficientconfidence to allow the classification of a Mineral Resource,or where RPEEE have not yet been demonstrated. In thisrespect, the concept of Mineralisation is similar to the term

‘deposit’ in the previous SAMREC Codes. It can be roughlycorrelated with the concept of Inventory Coal (SANS 10320,2nd Edition – note, however, that the term ‘Inventory Coal’ isnot recognized by the SAMREC 2016 Code, nor shall it to beincluded or presented in Public Reports).

The term Mineralisation has been introduced in deferenceto the proliferation of both private and junior explorationcompanies whose continued financial backing depends onthe presentation of exploration results in the public domain.It was noted that, unless terminology was introduced andstrictly controlled, then the current Resource definitions(especially the Inferred Mineral Resource category) would beadulterated by individuals/companies seeking the highestclassification for their projects. It would not be sufficient tosimply prohibit the reporting of anything that did not meetthe requirements of the ‘Resource’ definition – the necessityto publicize results would still result in further abuse of thecodes.

For an Exploration Target where Mineralisation has beenidentified based on Exploration Results, a summary of therelevant exploration data/information and the nature of theresults should also be presented, including a disclosure of thecurrent drill-hole or sampling spacing and relevant plans orsections. In any subsequent upgraded or modified statementson the Exploration Target, the CP should discuss any materialchanges to potential scale or quality arising from completedexploration activities.

Typically, the phases of an exploration programme, andthe subsequent classification, can be defined by the activitiescarried out in that phase (Table I). Depending on the mineralcommodity and/or style of mineralisation, the activitiesundertaken in each exploration phase may differsignificantly. The list included in this table is not meant to beexhaustive and is for illustrative purposes only.


�

1124 VOLUME 117

Table I

A number of case studies might be considered, which willhelp to highlight the differences between conceptualExploration Targets and Mineralisation. Irrespective of thecommodity and/or mineralisation type described in thespecific case study, the principles are applicable to allcommodity and deposit types.

BHP Billiton, as one of the largest mining companies in theworld, is committed to developing large, long-life, low-costexpandable operations. An appreciation of this long-termpotential in the earliest stages of development is critical forprofitable long-term investment. To estimate this long-termpotential, the company has developed a rigorous in-housemethod to assess the mineral endowment potential of aprovince that is unconstrained by current markets,technology, and the detailed requirements for Resourceclassification. Exploration Targets (potential mineralisation)are estimated from a limited set of geological information andare reported as a range to reflect different interpretations andthe higher level of geological uncertainty. The geologicalinformation can be a combination of geophysical, mapping,and sampling data. Such targets (Mullins et al., 2014)capture the essence of ‘what we think will be there when thearea under consideration is fully explored’ and contribute tothe total mineral inventory to consider and prioritize long-term development options for a given orebody or mineralprovince.

The Midamines Concession is located along the Kwango Riverin the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Diamonds havelong been associated with alluvial sediments within this riversystem both in Angola and the DRC. Historical data(primarily pre-1980s) regarding diamond recoveries coversan area of some 600 km, both up- and downstream of theproject concession; however, no formal resource statementscompatible with any international code were ever issued.Major prospecting/mining activity in this area ceased afterindependence in 1960, although low-level artisanal activitycontinued in various locations along the river, and even onthe concession itself.

A site visit confirmed that extensive river, flats werelocated on each side of a meandering river as well as thepresence of several levels of higher terraces. Aninterpretation of available satellite data suggested that some50 km2 (river channel, floodplain, and terrace) waspotentially underlain by gravels. Information gleaned fromthe artisanals operating on the site indicated that the basalgravels in the present river bed (the primary target) weresome 1 m thick. Limited information was also obtainedregarding average diamond size and sales value. The onlyformal mining activity in the Kwango valley was locatedsome 135 km upstream in a different geomorphologicalsetting. A resource statement from this operation wasobtained for comparison.

At this stage of knowledge, the first Public Report on theproperty identified an (early stage, conceptual) ExplorationTarget of approximately 8–10 Mm3 in the present river andan additional 35-40 km2 of abandoned river channel,floodplain, and terrace deposits (De Decker, 2005). Target

grades for the Kwango River (and, therefore the projectproperty) are 0.8-1–5 carats per cubic metre (ct/m3) andaverage sales values in the region of US$90–140 per carat.

For the sake of the example, if it is assumed that thecompany proceeded to prospect this property; that a numberof bulk sample pits were excavated on the floodplains andterraces and a small dredge was installed on the river itself;also a RC drill-rig was employed to drill on a wide gridspacing (as defined in the exploration programme outlined inthe abovementioned geological report). As a result of thisprogramme, 250 ct of diamonds were recovered and valued atUS$120 per carat. The next Public Report or news release, ifdone in accordance with the 2016 SAMREC Code, wouldindicate that Mineralisation (no longer simply a concept) hadbeen identified on the property in the amount of some 8.5–9.5 Mm3 of gravel in the present river and approximately 36-38 Mm3 in the floodplain/terrace environment, at samplegrades of 0.8-1 ct/m3 and an average diamond value ofaround US$90-140 per carat. The news release would nothave the headline ‘47.5 Mm3 of diamondiferous gravelidentified on the Midamines Concession’.

A number of kimberlite dykes are known to exist on the Bobiconcession in Côte d’Ivoire. Volumes were estimated fromdrilling during 1993-1995 – the exact locations of the holesas well as the original core were destroyed during the civilwar of 1999-2011. It is unknown how much material wasprocessed from the different kimberlites over the years orhow many diamonds were recovered. Historical documentsindicate anecdotal grades of 0.15–0.3 ct/m3 based on therecovery of an unknown number of carats from an unknownvolume of material by artisanals. Diamond values are basedon a report by Reuters (in 2014) which indicates that beforethe embargo, some 300 000 ct a year were being exportedfrom the Ivorian diamond fields, worth around US$25 million(estimated US$83 per carat). Current sales (by small-scaleartisanals) to local diamond buyers indicate prices of someUS$50-200 per carat

On the same property, a detailed ground geophysicalsurvey (magnetics) was completed during 1974. Sevengeophysical targets were identified from this data. No drillinghas taken place to confirm whether they represent kimberlite.

Based on this information, this project may be classifiedas containing identified Mineralisation as well as conceptualExploration Targets. With respect to the Mineralisation,although some useful information is available from samplingon the property itself, it is totally inadequate to be stated as aResource (Marshall, 2014). In addition, RPEEE have not beendemonstrated at any scale. In a Public Report, a statementmight indicate the identification of Mineralisation of some300 000–400 000 m3 of kimberlite to a depth of 60 m atsample grades of 0.15–0.3 ct/m3 and US$50–200 per carat.

The geophysical anomalies, while occurring on theproperty, spatially related to the known kimberlites, andhaving similar (geophysical) characteristics, have not yetbeen verified as representing kimberlite. These anomalieshave geological merit and would be classified as conceptualExploration Targets. Again, the news release might indicatethat the company is pursuing kimberlitic Exploration Targetswith a combined volume in excess of 500 000 m3, whereregional grades and values are in the range of 0.15–0.3 ct/m3

and US$50–200 per carat.


VOLUME 117 1125 �


A company holds rights to a chrome project in the easternlimb of the Bushveld Complex. The project area is covered byrecent sediments, with minimal outcrop of the underlyinggeology. The regional and local geology is well known, withcurrent activity on nearby properties – one is an undergroundmining operation with identified Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves; and another project (adjacent to the projectproperty), has been the subject of recent exploration,

No historical mining has been known on the projectproperty and the only documented historical exploration is foradjacent projects, including two percussion boreholes thatwere drilled into the suboutcrop area (LG6 chromitite unit)near the southern boundary of the farm. An initialexploration programme was conducted by the company,which included an aeromagnetic survey (including 5 mcontours for a detailed digital terrain model), as well as thedrilling of 10 diamond and reverse circulation drill-holes.

The regional geology of the Bushveld Complex is verywell known and it might be tempting on the part of a CP toextrapolate a Mineral Resource based on limited data fromthe property itself. In this case, the limited explorationborehole information and geophysical data, combined withextensive regional information resulted in the CP declaring anExploration Target (Clay et al., 2014). The provisions of the2016 SAMREC Code would add that the Exploration Targetcould be further described as Mineralisation.

SAMREC (and other CRIRSCO codes) adequately addressesthe consistent approach required to evaluate and report thenature and extents of potentially economic MineralResources. However, limited guidelines exist for the PublicReporting of material that cannot be described as a MineralResource. As a result of these inadequacies, manyjunior/private exploration companies have misused andabused the Resource classification category (especially theInferred Mineral Resource category). In an attempt to preventsuch abuse and regulate the reporting of the pre-resourcespace, the 2016 SAMREC Code has greatly expanded on theconcept of Exploration Targets – what they may include andhow they may be reported in the public domain in a mannerthat is not misleading, but is useful for potential investorsand other stakeholders, in assessing the exploration potentialof a specific property of even of an entire mineral province.

The term ‘Mineralisation’ is introduced as a variety ofExploration Target where the target is no longer purelyconceptual, but where actual data has been obtained on theproperty and where mineralisation has been identified (basedon actual Exploration Results). It refers to the situation whereinsufficient exploration data has been acquired to estimate aMineral Resource, where the existing data is of insufficientconfidence to allow the classification of a Mineral Resource orwhere reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction(RPEEE) have not yet been demonstrated.

When discussing Exploration Targets (either conceptualor with identified Mineralisation), the CP must clearlydescribe the rationale for such selection, including thegeological model on which it is based. Any statementreferring to potential quantity, quality, and content, as

appropriate, must be substantiated and include a detailedexplanation of the basis for the statement. This must befollowed by a proximate statement, with the sameprominence, that the potential quantity, quality, and content,as appropriate, are conceptual in nature, that there has beeninsufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource, andthat it is uncertain if further exploration could result in thedetermination of a Mineral Resource.

Exploration Targets (conceptual or with identifiedMineralisation) may not be included in a Technical Study (atScoping, Pre-Feasibility, or Feasibility level) and may not beconverted to Mineral Reserves. They may not be included ineconomic assessments or discounted cash flow (DCF) models,nor be included in valuations based on Income Approaches.Given the levels of uncertainty surrounding the supportingdata, the quantity (volume or tonnage) or quality (grade andvalue) of an Exploration Target may not be reported as a‘headline statement’ in a Public Report.

It is apparent that, in each of the examples or case studiespresented, the Exploration Targets have merit, based on theirregional setting, association with known deposits and/orlimited prospecting data. However, the paucity of sampledata, lack of confidence in the data or lack of demonstratedRPEEE means that they cannot be classified as MineralResources.

CIM. 2014. Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves2014. Prepared by the Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions.Adopted by CIM Council on 10 May 2014.http://www.cim.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Subsites/CIM_DEFINITION_STANDARDS_20142

CIM. 2011. Companion Policy 43-101CP to National Instrument 43-101Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block484_Doc111.pdf

CLAY, A.N., ORFORD, T.C., DYKE, S., MYBURGH, J.A., and MPHAHLELE, K. 2014.Independent Competent Persons' Report on the Moeijelik Chromite MineralAsset prepared for Bauba Platinum Limited. Venmyn Deloitte,Johannesburg.

DE DECKER, R.H. 2005. Report on a field visit to the Midamines Concession onthe Kwango River, DRC to assess the potential for Diamond Mining. DeDecker and Associates Consulting Services, Noordhoek.

JORC. 2012. Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee. Australasian Code forReporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Miningand Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists, and Minerals Councilof Australia. http://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

MARSHALL, T.R. 2014. Desktop study of the Bobi Diamond Project, Seguela,Cote d'Ivoire. Explorations Unlimited, Johannesburg.

MULLINS, M., HODKIEWICZ, P., MCCLUSKEY, J., CAREY, C., and TERRY, J. 2014.Estimating and reporting potential mineralisation at BHP Biliton - theunconstrained view. Monograph Series 30. Australasian Institute ofMining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. pp. 791-798.

PERC. 2013. Pan-European Reserves and Resources Reporting Committee.PERC Reporting Standard 2013. Pan European Standard for Reporting ofExploration Results, Mineral Resources and Reserves (‘The PERCReporting Standard’). 15 March 2013 (revision 2: 29 November 2013).http://www.vmine.net/PERC/documents/PERC_REPORTING_STANDARD_2013_rev2.pdfhttp://www.vmine.net/PERC/documents/PERC_REPORTING_STANDARD_2013_rev2.pdf

SME. 2014. The Resources and Reserves Committee of the Society for Mining,Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc. The SME Guide for reporting ExplorationResults, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. June 2014. Society forMining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., Englewood, CO. �

�

1126 VOLUME 117

Diamond deposits are often geologicallycomplex and typically characterized bysignificant variability in terms of diamondcontent (grade), diamond value, and otherestimation parameters. The particulate natureof diamonds, their size distribution in thedeposit, shape, quality, and colour also impacton the estimation and classification ofdiamond resources. This can lead to highlevels of uncertainty during evaluationcompared to other mineral deposits. Samplingto define grade variability on a local scale isoften problematic as diamond depositsgenerally have very low grades (in terms ofparts per million or ppm) when compared to

other mineral deposits, as illustrated in Figure1. These factors make the accurate estimationof diamond resources challenging and dictatethat a significant quantity of optimizedsampling is required to minimize risk. Itfollows that an accurate view of the level ofuncertainty in the Mineral Resource estimate iscritical in terms of obtaining a representativeMineral Resource classification for diamonddeposits. The classification plays a critical rolein terms of the status of a diamond deposit inthe project delivery pipeline and the associatedinvestment decisions. As a result, De Beershas invested considerable time in devising abest-practice classification methodology andsubsequently developing an appropriatesoftware package, the Mineral ResourceClassification System (MRCS).

In the authors’ experience there are manycases where insufficient diligence is applied tothe Mineral Resource classification processrelative to the completion of the MineralResource estimate. This lack of thoroughnessis often related to a poor understanding of theclassification categories and/or the ability tointerpret the various classification codeguidelines. However, the need for an IndicatedMineral Resource in order to conduct aFeasibility Study requires the classificationprocess to be thorough and justifiable. Ashighlighted in the introduction, theclassification of a diamond resource is typicallymore complex than for other mineral resourcesfor a number of reasons.

Development of a best-practice mineralresource classification system for theDe Beers group of companiesby S. Duggan*, A. Grills*, J. Stiefenhofer†, and M. Thurston†

The De Beers Group of Companies has operating diamond mines andexploration projects in numerous countries including South Africa,Namibia, Botswana, and Canada. Diamond deposits are often geologicallycomplex and typically characterized by significant variability in terms ofgrade and other variables. In addition, diamond revenue also needs to beestimated. These issues make evaluation sampling difficult and accurateMineral Resource estimation problematic. De Beers identified the need forsound Mineral Resource classification that highlighted areas ofuncertainty in the Mineral Resource. As a result De Beers has investedconsiderable time in developing a best-practice Mineral ResourceClassification System (MRCS). In 2004 De Beers developed a prototype thatidentified the five key Mineral Resource criteria of geology, grade, volume,revenue, and density. A set of key questions and associated answers wasdeveloped for each criterion and a scoring system introduced. The MRCSprototype was tested on a wide range of De Beers diamond deposits.Critically, this extensive database of deposits allowed the questions,scoring, and priorities to be adjusted until representative and consistentclassifications were produced. The MRCS has evolved through time and,more recently, significant changes have been made that include the abilityto take cognisance of new data obtained during mining and productionperformance. The process involves the project geologist completing thefive scorecards, which are reviewed internally prior to an independentreview and final ratification by a Competent Person (CP). De Beers is of theopinion that the system is leading practice and provides a repeatable andconstant depiction of the confidence in the Company’s mineral resources.

diamonds, mineral resource classification, geology, grade volume, revenue,density.

* Z Star Mineral Resource Consultants (Pty) Ltd,South Africa.

† De Beers Group Services (Pty) Ltd, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and


1127VOLUME 117 �


Development of a best-practice mineral resource classification system

� In-situ diamond grade can be highly variable within asingle rock type and can vary significantly betweenrock types in the same deposit

� In the kimberlite environment the explosive volcanicnature of the pipes often leads to extensive dilution,which adds to the complexity of the grade estimate

� Diamond deposits are particulate and characterized byextremely low grades, typically less than 1 ppm.(Figure 1). This makes representative samplingextremely difficult and expensive. In many cases, dueto cost, a move has been made to micro-diamondsampling, i.e. the sampling of a particular portion ofthe size frequency distribution (SFD) to estimate thediamond grade for the entire SFD

� Diamond revenue is typically estimated from a SFD andan assortment. The assortment provides an average USdollar value per carat per size class based on modellingvaluation results. This is combined with the SFD toprovide an overall average US dollar per carat estimate.This estimate may be for the entire pipe, or for aparticular rock type within the pipe. The accuracy of theassortment, in particular, is often dependent onacquiring a sufficiently representative diamond parcel(e.g. >5000 carats)

� Being particulate in nature, diamond resources must bequoted at a defined bottom cut-off, e.g. a nominalsquare mesh cut-off of 1.15 mm. The grade and bottomcut-off are typically determined by economic studiesthat optimize these parameters for the resource inquestion. Should the production plant have a differentbottom cut-off (e.g. 1.40 mm) or treatment process,e.g. re-crush to a different particle size, Resource toReserve modifying factors are required.

In 2004, based on the above reasons, De Beers identifiedthe need to develop an appropriate classification methodology(and associated system) to categorize diamond deposits. Themethodology had to accommodate three primaryrequirements:

� To enable mineral resource managers across the DeBeers Group to refer to a standard system ofclassification across all deposit types (kimberlites,placers, and tailings) and thus ensure compatibilityacross the Group

� To consistently and accurately assess the diamondresource risk

� To undertake a classification compatible and compliantwith generally accepted international reporting codes.

The methodology devised for classifying De Beers mineralresources involved the development of prototype scorecardsfor each of the five key mineral resource variables:

� Geology (the thinking behind the emplacement ordeposition model)

� Grade (the data integrity, estimation methodology andprocess, and validity of results)

� Volume (the constructed 2D or 3D representation of thegeological thinking)

� Revenue (the data integrity, SFD and assortmentmodelling, and validity of results)

� Density (the data integrity, estimation methodologyand process, and validity of results).

The process started with the development of the prototypescorecard based on a set of key questions and associatedrange of answers for each variable. The scoring associatedwith each question ranged from low for a negative outcomethrough medium for a partial outcome to high for a positiveoutcome. The questions in each of the variable scorecardswere grouped into sets, e.g. data integrity or estimationmethodology, and a priority assigned to the group ofquestions. The ability to assign priorities to each of thevariables (geology, grade etc.) was also introduced as somevariables, e.g. grade, were deemed to be more important thanothers, e.g. density.

Importantly, the prototype scorecard system was testedon a wide range of De Beers diamond deposits, i.e.kimberlites, placers, and tailings mineral resources. Critically,this extensive database of deposits allowed the questions,scoring, and priorities to be adjusted until representative andconsistent classifications were being produced.

Once the scorecard methodology had been approved andimplemented, the formal classification of all diamond depositsacross the De Beers Group of Companies was undertaken bya Mineral Resource Classification Committee (MRCC) in 2004.The committee comprised De Beers specialists representingthe mineral resource disciplines of geological modelling,grade and density estimation, and diamond revenuemodelling. The committee mechanism assisted in ensuringconsistency and compatibility of classification across all

�

1128 VOLUME 117

operations and deposit types; the chairman of the committeewas responsible for the final sign-off of a classification.

The classification scorecard can also be used in aproactive sense to analyse the work undertaken on a depositand identify the risks (areas outstanding) that requireaddressing prior to attaining a particular confidence level, e.g.Indicated.

The formal classification at De Beers was initially undertakenby the MRCC. Typically, the project geologist or relevantmineral resource manager would present a preliminaryscorecard to the MRCC for review. The scorecards would beinterrogated and modified during the meeting, if required. Ata later stage the MRCC would meet to ratify the scorecard.This process involved checking the classification database toensure that question scores were compatible with depositselsewhere in the Group where a similar amount and qualityof work had been undertaken. Once ratification was completethe scorecard was signed off by the chairman of the MRCC.

More recently the emphasis has moved towardsownership on the operations with the relevant CompetentPerson (CP) approving the final classification. However, thecurrent classification process does require a peer review onthe operation and, in addition, an independent externalreview. To this end there are four key steps in the current DeBeers classification process:

� An initial classification by the project geologist, i.e.based on the project work undertaken, a series ofquestions are answered for each of five scorecards andscores assigned

� An on-site peer review by a committee, i.e. answersand scores are amended where applicable according togroup consensus

� An independent external review (i.e. different companyand external to the mine) – no changes areimplemented, but recommendations are made regardingquestions and scores for the CP’s consideration

� Finalization by the De Beers-appointed CP (mayinclude the external review’s recommended changes ifdeemed appropriate).

This best-practice approach to mineral resourceclassification ensures good governance by providing arepresentative semi-quantitative view on the level ofconfidence, thus ensuring adherence to the variousinternational reporting guidelines (e.g. SAMREC, JORC, andNI 43-101).

The methodology developed comprises four mainprocesses (Figure 2):

� A preparation phase where the deposit to be classifiedis defined and information required collated

� A set-up phase which requires the user to select theappropriate De Beers company and operation in theMRCS and create a Resource, group, and classification

� A completion phase where a preliminary scorecard iscompleted, reviewed by the operation, and finallysubmitted for external review (i.e. by a differentcompany)

� A final ratification and sign-off by the CP.

In terms of the MRCS a typical classification will requireeight steps as illustrated in Figure 2.

One of the most important tasks in the classification processis the subdivision of the deposit prior to completing thescorecards. It is often the case that a portion of the depositmay have a higher sampling density; this may be a highergrade area that was found first or it may simply be the part ofthe resource that is closer to surface and has been easier todrill. The higher sampling density will typically facilitate abetter understanding of the geological model and thusimproved definition in the volume model, the interpolation oflocal block grades and density estimates, and the recovery ofmore diamonds, resulting in a higher confidence revenueestimate. When an area or volume is delineated forclassification it is critical that a similar level of evaluationwork has been undertaken on the entire portion. If this is notthe case, the questions become problematic as there can bemore than one answer to each question. In summary, it isvery important that, having taken the geological model intoconsideration, the deposit is carefully subdivided intoportions with reasonably equal levels of evaluation workprior to classification.

An individual score is assigned to each of the 84 questions inthe scorecards. Within each individual scorecard, e.g.geology, the assigned scores within each group of questionsare averaged. These average scores are then added to providean overall score for the criteria out of a maximum of 100. Thescorecards for the five key criteria are summarized in Table Iin terms of the priority assigned to various groups ofquestions.


1129VOLUME 117 �

In Table I, the knowledge techniques relate to theapplication of appropriate methods, the sample (and data)integrity is associated with procedures, security issues,logging methods, positioning accuracy, etc. The samplingaccuracy with respect to the grade scorecard relates to howthe sample area and/or sample volume was measured.

The original De Beers classification committee determinedthat three of the five variables – geology, grade, and revenue– are critical and should be assigned the highest weighting(3). Volume was viewed as being slightly less important as itis a constructed representation of the geology, and was henceassigned a lower weighting (2), and density was assignedthe lowest weighting (1). These weightings are applied to therelevant scorecard and a final average classification scorecalculated.

Classification limits were assigned as follows:• 0-30 – Deposit (excluded from the resource)• 30-70 – Inferred Mineral Resource• 70-90 – Indicated Mineral Resource• 90-100 – Measured Mineral Resource.

The De Beers classification methodology calls for eachclassification to be independently reviewed prior to finalsign-off by the CP. The external reviewer is given access tothe MRCS and is required to comment on the answers andthe scores but has no permission to change the originalentries. The external reviewer documents appropriatecomment and the Microsoft WordTM file is stored in theMRCS.

De Beers officially appoints a CP for each Anglo Americanreporting cycle (typically a year), and this person isresponsible for mineral resource classification on a specificoperation or project. The MRCS has been designed with thisstructure in mind, and represents a change from historicalclassifications, where the final responsibility rested with aclassification committee.

In keeping with international reporting codes, the CP isultimately accountable for the classification of mineralresources on an operation and must ensure that correctprocedures have been followed during the classificationprocess. The company letter of appointment, signed by the CPand the mine general manager, includes an abridged CVindicating the number of years of relevant experience that theCP has in terms of the type of deposit and style ofmineralization. It includes proof of membership of adesignated professional organization (e.g. SACNASP) and theletter is stored on the MRCS.

The methodology has evolved through time, and recentlysignificant changes have been made to the scorecard and theMRCS. For example, the ability to take cognisance ofproduction history has been introduced as an accurateassessment of performance that shows the resource isperforming as expected will result in reduced risk andtherefore enhance the resource confidence. The softwareapplication has a number of attributes that simplify theclassification process, namely, an SQL sequel databasefacility that stores a list of documents and informationassociated with the particular resource being classified, ahelp facility to explain the meaning of each question, and auser-friendly ‘front end’ that streamlines the process.

The MRCS includes a hierarchical structure that enablesusers to easily select (or create) the company, operation,resource, group, and classification. Permission to create anew company or operation is restricted but most users maycreate and edit a resource, group, or classification (Figure 3).Each of these operations is briefly explained below:

� A Resource is named by the user and is defined by thegeology (e.g. kimberlite, dyke, aeolian placer, beachplacer, deep-water marine placer, fluvial placer,


�

1130 VOLUME 117

Table I

shallow-water marine placer, tailings mineral resource,stockpile) and the deposit type (e.g. primary,secondary, tertiary)

� A Group constitutes a user-defined group ofclassifications in a particular Resource, named by theuser and including a brief description and spatialdefinition (e.g. a ‘from-to’ elevation in the case of akimberlite)

� The Classification scorecard status could bepreliminary, internally reviewed, externally reviewed,or ratified depending on how far the Mineral Resourcehas moved along the classification process.

Once the hierarchy has been appropriately defined, theclassification scorecard is created and the user answers thequestions appropriately based on his knowledge of theMineral Resource (Figure 4). Hints are provided foruninitiated users as a guide to understanding the questionsand comparative scoring functionality aids the user inselecting an appropriate score.

The De Beers classification method remains a subjectiveprocess, and therefore it is useful to provide a guidelinerelated to how questions should be interpreted. To this endthe MRCS includes functionality that enables the user tocompare scores and answers from other classifications acrossthe De Beers Group of companies. This is achieved by aselection process that enables the user to compare scores fora specific question, a group of questions on a scorecard, anentire scorecard, or the whole classification. This process isextremely useful, as De Beers has a vast array of diamondresources that have been classified, and enables newresources to be benchmarked. The comparative statisticsmodule is user-friendly and provides rapid graphic solutions,as illustrated by the example in Figure 5. The upper portionof this figure shows a number of options for selectingclassifications for the comparison, which include selection bycompany, mine, Resource, group, deposit type, and geologytype.


VOLUME 117 1131 �


The MRCS includes a facility to store and manage documentsassociated with each classification. By way of example, it isimportant for users to have access to the documentedsampling procedures, the geological models, the estimationreports, and review or audit documents. All versions of theclassifications are stored, and therefore the MRCS documentmanagement component provides a record of the estimationprocess for each Mineral Resource, thereby creating anhistorical record for future users. Files of any format can bestored in the MRCS, e.g. ArcInfoTM files, WordTM documents,GemcomTM. Files, and ExcelTM spreadsheets.

In the latest MRCS, mining performance has been introducedas a method for assessing the level of confidence in a smallpart of the Resource close to existing production. Thisapproach, documented by Noppé (2014) and others, isintended for a relatively small part of the Resource, forexample the next two years of mining. By way of example,for a typical kimberlite Mineral Resource the performancedocumentation may include a model like the one illustratedschematically in Figure 6. In this example of a kimberlitemine a few benches have been included below the currentmining level. The decision as to what is included isdocumented in the MRCS, e.g. three benches falling withinthe vertical variogram range. Should the business rules bemet, the dark green portion shown in Figure 6 would beupgraded to an Indicated category.

In assessing confidence in this local resource the MRCSrequires the user to answer a number of questions (all ofwhich should be affirmative), including the following:

� Has face mapping, blast-hole chip sampling, fieldobservations etc. been undertaken?

� Is the change in geology insignificant in adjacentmining?

� Is the orebody envelope changing insignificantly?� Do the density estimates correlate with geology?

Finally, as a measure of grade and value consistency, thefollowing ratios are also considered:

� RsCR: the average Resource carat ratio by year, definedas the carats expected from the Resource divided by thecarats recovered

� RvCR: the average Reserve carat ratio by year, definedas the carats expected from the Resource after applyingmodifying factors divided by the carats recovered

� Rv$R: the average Reserve revenue ratio by year,defined as the value (in US dollars) expected from theResource carats after applying modifying factorsdivided by the value of the carats recovered (in USdollars).

For an Indicated Mineral Resource, these ratios shouldmeet the so-called 15% rule (Cañas, 1995; Dohm, 2004; andothers), meaning that the standard error of a given ratiomeasured over a period of one year should be 15% or less(90% confidence limits).

The De Beers semi-quantitative approach to classification isrobust and satisfies the key components of the internationalreporting codes, i.e. transparency, materiality, andcompetence. The classification method is not focused onspecific estimation variables, such as kriging variance, butrather covers the five key criteria that combine to produce adiamond Mineral Resource estimate: geology, grade, volume,revenue and density. The classification approach isstandardized and semi-quantitative and enables CPs on theoperations to make informed decisions in terms ofconfidence. The comparative statistics is a powerful tool thatallows classifications to be benchmarked against a largedatabase of De Beers diamond Mineral Resources. Theintroduction of a performance module to incorporateinformation from mining is an important addition.

The MRCS is a user-friendly and flexible system andensures that a robust record of the classification process onall De Beers operations is stored electronically. Importantly,the MRCS provides De Beers with a best-practice documentedand justifiable classification for all types of deposits:kimberlites, placers, and tailings. Although the MRCScontinues to change, the essence of the scorecard approachhas been applied to successfully produce several hundred DeBeers classifications.

CAÑAS, J.D. 1995. Salobo ore reserve model review. Letter from MRD (MineralResources Development Inc.) to Dr Alvaro Tohar (Anglo American Corp.),30 July 1995.

DOHM, C.E. 2004. Quantifiable mineral resource classification: a logicalapproach. Proceedings of Geostatistics Banff 2004. Springer, Dordecht:.pp. 399–341.

JORC. 2012. Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee. Australasian Code forReporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Miningand Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists, and Minerals Councilof Australia. http://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

NOPPÉ, M.A. 2014. Communicating confidence in Mineral Resources andMineral Reserves. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, vol. 114. pp. 213–222.

SAMREC. 2009. South African Mineral Resource Committee. The South AfricanCode for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and MineralReserves (the SAMREC Code). 2007 Edition as amended July 2009.http://www.samcode.co.za/downloads/SAMREC2009.pdf �

�

1132 VOLUME 117

In recent years, deaths occurring as a result ofunderground coal mining have increased, dueto serious accidents in certain regions. Theseaccidents are mostly due to firedampexplosions and spontaneous combustion of thecoal. Toxic gases are formed as a result ofspontaneous combustion and many deathsmay ensue due to exposure of employees tothese gases. The spontaneous combustion ofcoal is an serious event that must be takeninto consideration since it impedes productionand has adverse occupational healthconsequences in underground mines.

Spontaneous combustion is caused by self-heating of the coal through slow oxidation,and with sufficient heat accumulation it candevelop into actual combustion with openflames. Top and bottom roads as well as theproduction areas in underground coal minesare continually in contact with the oxygensupplied by the mine ventilation system. Thecoal adsorbs the oxygen, and once the thetemperature reaches over 40°C, the processtransforms into a reaction and the ambienttemperature increases further (Saraç, 1992). Ifthis temperature cannot be reduced, after

approximately 70°C the concentrations of COand CO2 in the environment increase, andsteam is evolved at 125°C. When thetemperature reaches the ignition temperature,the coal starts burning. Therefore, the galleriesand the roads opened inside the coal faces arecontinually at risk of spontaneous combustion,depending on the environmental conditionsand characteristics of the coal seam. To avoidthis risk, contact between coal seams andoxygen must be prevented during production.Various studies have been carried out basedon the use of fillers, generally consisting ofcement and nitrogen, in small areas prone tofire risk to control or delay the advent ofspontaneous combustion by preventing contactof the coal with oxygen. However, thesestudies were limited to very small areas due tothe cost of the cement and nitrogen used toinertize the voids. Also, scientific studies haveshown that cement cannot completely preventthe ingress of the oxygen.

In the scope of this study, the aim was todevelop different materials with much loweroxygen permeability for coating the walls ofthe galleries in coal mines. Bearing in mind thesize of the galleries, ensuring that the cost ofthis material is very low has been among thetargets of this study. Therefore, the gaspermeabilities of various cheap polymercomposite materials were determined. Themechanical characteristics of the compositematerials, such as stroke and friction, werealso determined. The materials developed canbe used to ensure that the coal seam doesn'tcontact with oxygen throughout the entireproduction process. Thus, it will be possible tominimize the occupational accidents occurringas a result of the oxidation of coal inunderground mines.

Development of a technology to preventspontaneous combustion of coal inunderground coal miningby A. Tosun

Top and bottom roads, as well as the production areas in underground coalmining, are continually in contact with oxygen supplied by the mineventilation system. These areas are at risk of spontaneous combustion,depending on various environmental conditions and characteristics of thecoal seam. The formation of toxic gases as a result of spontaneouscombustion of the coal and exposure of employees to these gases are themost important causes of coal mining accidents. To avoid the risk ofspontaneous combustion, contact of the coal with oxygen must beprevented during production. The literature mentions various studiesbased on the use of fillers on small areas to control or delay spontaneouscombustion. In this study, the aim was to develop cheap materials withvery low oxygen permeability and high mechanical resistance for coatingthe walls of the mine galleries. Epoxy/fibreglass was identified as thematerial with the least oxygen permeability, and also has other desirableproperties.

Coal mining accidents, spontaneous combustion of coal, polymercomposite materials, oxygen permeability.

* Dokuz Eylul University, Department of MiningEngineering and Bergama vocational schoolBergama-Izmir, Turkey.

© The Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, 2017. ISSN 2225-6253. Paper receivedMar. 2016; revised paper received May. 2017.

1133VOLUME 117 �


Development of a technology to prevent spontaneous combustion of coal

The presence of coal and sufficient oxygen to initiateoxidation and sustain the oxidation at ambient temperaturewill lead to heat accumulation (Karpuz et al., 2000),depending on the characteristics and geological structure ofthe coal, and the mining conditions and environment (Feng,Chakravorty, and Cochrane., 1973; Kucht, Rowe, andBurgess, 1980). Generally, low-rank coals with a high pyritecontent or high ratio of oxygen to moisture (semibituminousand lignites) are more prone to self-heating. Pyrite increasesthe risk if it is fine grained and present in sufficient quantity(Didari, 1986). The total surface area of the coal makes animportant contribution to the self-heating propensity. Theheating rate is directly proportional to the cube of the surfacearea. Thus, the more friable the coal the higher the risk ofspontaneous combustion, due to the increased quantity ofcoal fines. Since a large amount of coal fines is produced atmechanized mines, accumulation of this material poses apotential risk. In thick seams, poor roof conditions may alsocreate danger since the roof becomes unstable and coalaccumulates on the floor. Generally, subsidence leads tocracks above the mine workings close to the surface andprovokes the development of combustion by causing airleakage. Similarly, fractures in closely spaced seams cause airto leak between the seams. A high pressure difference in theventilation is also an important factor provoking thedevelopment of self-heating. With an increase in theventilation pressure, the possibility of heating is increasedsince the air leakage to a cracked coal mass or cave-in willincrease. Main ventilation ways, regulators, and leakages inthe gates are also a source of danger. Ground heave and rooffalls also cause air leakage. If the regulators and the doorsare not placed properly, they may cause air leakage into thecracks inside the coal around them due to increased pressuredifferential. The greater the pressure difference, the greaterthe risk of combustion. The amount of air in circulation in themine is also important. As a general rule, the amount of airsupplied to the oxidation zone must be sufficient to preventthe accumulation of the heat released. If a large amount of airflow is applied, the heat of oxidation is carried away but theincreased oxygen supply will facilitate combustion(Demirbilek, 1986). On the other hand, if air flow is low, theheat released as a result of oxidation cannot be removed fromthe environment and will remain in the coal. If the fissuredensity, degree of cracking, and amount of broken coal areexcessive, the rate of oxidation and subsequently the rate ofheat production will be excessive. Therefore, it is useful toknow the mine conditions inducive to self-combustion.

As soon as the coal contacts the open air, it reacts withthe oxygen even at low temperatures. Besides the physicaland chemical changes in the coal, the heat is releaseddepending on absorption and adsorption capacity of each coaltype. The rate of oxygen comsumption during oxidationvaries depending on the time and the phase of the oxidation.In the first phase of oxidation, the oxygen intake is veryrapid and peroxide complexes are formed. The oxygenconsumption decreases over time due to the coating of thecoal surface with oxygen compounds and the temperatureapproaches a constant value. However, if the coal reaches thetemperature of self-heating, oxygen consumption andtemperature increase rapidly. Wade (1988) indicated that the

factors affecting the physical oxidation ratio of the coal areparticle size, temperature, moisture, pre-heating, oxygenpartial pressure, volatile substance content, internal moisture,carbon content, degree of carbonization, and methanecontent.

Studies on the prevention of spontaneous combustion arealso reported in the literature. Millions of dollars have beenspent on research related to this subject in Australia (Cliff,Brady, and Watkinson, 2014). A method based onmonitoring the distribution of oxygen in the coal seams wasdeveloped (Balusu et al., 2002, 2010; Ren, Balusu, andHumphries, 2005). A simulation model showing the oxygendistribution inside the coal seam can be constructed by thismethod, as seen in Figure 1. Thus, precautions can be takenin cases where there is a high self-heating risk. The data forthe simulation model is provided through sensors located atcrirical places. However, owing to breakdown of the sensors,correct readings cannot be obtained in adverse conditions.Also, the method doesn't control or prevent combustion.

The source of oxygen in the case of an underground coalmine is the mine ventilation. One aeration ventilator isgenerally placed at the mine entrance. Ventilator pressurevaries depending on the depth of the mine and the length ofthe galleries. This pressure is high at mines with deep andlong galleries. High air pressure creates high oxygenconcentrations underground. Luxbacher and Jong (2013)reduced the ventilation pressure by using more than oneventilator. Thus, the contact of the coal with less oxygen gasis ensured, delaying spontaneous combustion.

Certain filling materials were injected into the zones witha combustion risk in order to prevent spontaneouscombustion (Humphreys, 2013). Filling materials were usedin the form of resin, foam, and cement. These materialsreduced the passage of oxygen. The injection of nitrogen andcarbon dioxide under pressure into the zones at risk ofcombustion has also been successful (Ray and Singh, 2007).

The abovementioned studies were based on the coating ofonly small areas at fire risk with various substances.Preventing contact of the entire coal seam with oxygencouldn't be ensured, except for the production area during theproduction period. Also, due to high cost of the nitrogen toprevent combustion and the cement filler, the coating of allcoal surfaces in the underground mine with these materials isnot possible. On the other hand, studies have shown thatcement cannot completely exclude oxygen.

�

1134 VOLUME 117

Based on this previous work, studies were carried out atOmerler underground coal mine in Tunçbilek district,Kütahya Province of Turkey. A method that would preventspontaneous combustion of the coal seam was developedduring this research (Onur et al., 2012). The mine gallerieswere coated using a mixture of ash, cement, and water incertain proportions and efforts were made to prevent oxygenfrom contacting the coal (Figure 2). It was determined thatthe mixture of ash, cement, and water reduced the oxygenpermeability.

Polymers are materials with a low oxygen permeability.The development of polymer composite materials as a barrierlayer between the coal surface and the ambient air of themine was therefore investigated in this study.

Fibre-reinforced polymers consist of a polymer resinimpregnated with low-cost fibreglass or high-costaramid/carbon fibre materials. Fibres may be short or long,continuous or discontinuous, and single or multi-ply.Materials of this type have advantages compared with steel,aluminum, and other isotropic metals, having high stiffness,low weight, good fatigue characteristics, and corrosionresistance. Additionally, the characteristics of the materialscan be tailored to the requirements of special designs bychanging the orientations of the fibres. Typically the matrixmaterials, which harden by the evolution of heat, consist ofepoxy, epoxy-based vinyl ester, and polyester resin and areused for the production of fibre-reinforced layers. However,vinyl esters modified by more flexible urethane are also usedin the production of composites. These resins are normallyhardened by a peroxide-based catalyser and a cobalt-basedaccelerator. To improve the characteristics of the compositematerial, the resin may be subjected to different curingprocedures after the hardening process. Different fibreglasstypes can be used as reinforcement, including E-glass andboron-free E-glass. These materials differ in their corrosionreistance towards acid and basic substances and their tensile-corrosion strengths. Fibre-reinforced polymer materials canbe produced by manual spreading or by continuousprocessing methods such as filament winding, spraying, andcentrifuging, depending on the structure and geometry of thefibre materials. The focus in this project was to obtain highstrength values and to avoid the use of easily flammablematerials such as wedge-brush.

Polymers are widely used in packaging, especially forfood and medicine where gas permeability, optical, and

mechanical characteristics become important. These mustmeet challenging needs such as moisture, oxygenpermeability, carbon dioxide permeability under pressure,and high-temperature sterilization. Different polymers suchas polyolefin and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) aregenerally used in multi-layer structures to integrate theirdesirable characteristics (Lee, 2002). In general, these layersconsist of a polyolefin folio serving as a moisture barrier anda PET folio functioning as an oxygen barrier. If adhesivematerial contributes to the oxygen barrier characteristic ofpolyolefin/PET layers, this will be advantageous. The barriercharacteristics of the polymer are generally developed byobtaining a composite material through impregnation of thefibre materials not having good permeability characteristicswith the polymers. Thus, the possibilities of the small oxygenmolecules being able to diffuse to the other side of thecomposite layer by passing around the fibre materials will beminimized. Fibre-reinforced polymer materials are used inthe reinforcement and the repair of structures, and manyindependent studies have shown that these materials areimpermeable to oxygen. These applications have beeneffective in the repair of corrosion damage since the mid-1990s (Alampalli, 2001; Pantazopoulou et al., 2001;Debaiky, Green, and Hope, 2002; Sen, 2003; Wang and Shih,2004; Badawi and Soudki, 2005; Suh et al., 2007, 2008;Winters et al., 2008). Various studies have also shown thatfibre-reinforced polymer materials do not prevent corrosionentirely, but reduce the corrosion rate considerably (Baiyasiand Harichandran, 2001; Berver et al., 2001; Wootton,Spainhour, and Yazdani, 2003; Wheat, Jirsa, and Fowler,2005). Figure 3 shows the corrosion of an abutment causedby oxidation and the process of coating with a polymercomposite material.

Coal is a fragile and pervious material. The oxygen gainsentrance to the coal either through fissures or by diffusionfrom the coal surface. This situation causes the spontaneouscombustion of the coal. Because oxygen molecules are verysmall and also undergo rapid diffusion, their permeabilityinside fibre-reinforced polymeric materials is critical. In thescope of this study, the oxygen permeability of the fibre-reinforced polymer was investigated experimentally. Thisstudy is the first international study of the oxygen


1135VOLUME 117 �

et al

permeability of polymer composite materials for undergroundcoal mining applications. Several types of polymer compositematerials were prepared experimentally. Fibreglass producedin the form of a felt was used as an additive, since it is verycheap compared to the alternatives, namely carbon andarmide, and has been very effective. Three types of polymericresins – epoxy, polyester, and vinyl ester resins – wereinvestigated to ascertain the effect of the polymer material

used in the production of the composite material on theoxygen permeability.

A few methods are available for the determination of theoxygen permeability of polymers, but these are not suitablefor thick materials. The oxygen permeabilities of thecomposite material samples produced at laboratory scale weredetermined using the system developed by Chandra (2011)(Figure 4). In this test device, a stream of oxygen gas isdirected on the surface of the material and the amount ofoxygen that diffuses to the opposite surface of the material isdetermined by an oxygen sensor. The volume of oxygen gaspassing from the material during the test is recordedcontinually.

The material tested was placed in the test cell. Oxygengas was streamed onto the sample from the oxygen tank. Theoxygen gas sensor in the test cell transmitted the data on theamount of oxygen passing through the material to the datacollecting device, and the data was stored in the datarecorder. Thus, the degree of oxygen permeability of thematerial tested could be measured precisely. Each test lastedfor three or four hours. The oxygen gas permeabilitiesdetermined for the materials are listed in Table I.


�

1136 VOLUME 117

Table I

Epoxy/fibreglass 5.22×10-13 6Polyester/fibreglass 4.02×10-8 4Vinyl ester/fibreglass 4.29×10-11 7

A composite polymer material intended for application inunderground working conditions must also be strong.Therefore, it is also important to determine the mechanicalcharacteristics of the composite polymer materials. The elasticmodulus and the Poisson’s ratios were determined by meansof the tensile test, using the apparatus shown in Figure 5.

Strain gauges were fixed to the material with adhesive.The strain gauges consisted of fine washers on an elasticcarrier and connected to each other in parallel. These washersextend or shorten in proportion to the load applied on thematerial. Deformation was recorded continually by the datarecorder. The first increase in the force applied on thematerial must be regular. Therefore, pre-loading was carriedout and the force was increased slowly. At the end of the test,the elasticity modulus and the Poisson’s ratio weredetermined for each material by averaging the longitudinaland axial deformations measured continually (Table II). Thefollowing relationships were used in the determination ofthese values.

[1]

[2]

[3]

where

= Tensile strength (MPa)

E = Elastic modulus (MPa)

v = Poisson’s ratio

= Lateral deformation

= Vertical deformation

The epoxy/fibreglass composite was identified as having theleast oxygen permeability of the materials tested. All gallerysurfaces in the underground coal workings can be coatedwith this material to impede the permeation of oxygen gasduring production and prevent spontaneous combustion ofthe coal. Thus, reduced levels of dangerous gases can beensured inside the mines through minimized spontaneouscombustion reactions.

The permeability constant is defined as the rate per unitarea at which a gas passes through a material of unitthickness under one unit pressure difference, expressed inunits of mol.m2/m3.atm.sec. Thus underground coal miningcompanies can calculate how much oxygen gas will enter thecoal seam by substituting their ventilator pressure, the size ofcoal seams, and time. This will indicate when thespontaneous combustion of the coal will start according tothe combustion properties of the particular coal.

The materials used in the study were produced in thesolid state in the laboratory environment. For use inunderground conditions, they must be produced in liquidform so that they can be sprayed onto the gallery surfaces.The surfaces of coal galleries are generally very irregular, andit will be necessary to ensure thorough coating of all surfacesand discontinuities. The application of the materials inunderground conditions and the determination of theperformances of the materials under these conditions shouldbe investigated in future studies.

The aim of this study was to develop cost-effective materialswith very low oxygen permeability and high mechanicalresistance for coating the walls of the galleries inunderground coal mines in order to prevent spontaneouscombustion of the coal. Three types of composite materialwere manufactured for testing. All of them were found tohave good mechanical properties as well as being cheap tomanufacture. The epoxy/fibreglass composite was identifiedas the material with the lowest oxygen permeability. The costof this material (weight of 80 g/m2) is US$0.124-0.209(https://cnxinghao.en.alibaba.com/product/60601388436219069229/80g_m2_fiberglass_price_epoxy_fiberglass_resin_bitumen.html). This study is the first international study todetermine the oxygen permeability of polymer compositematerials for use in underground coal mining.


VOLUME 117 1137 �

Table II

Epoxy/fibreglass 3802 0.274 13Polyester/fibreglass 6546 0.225 18Vinylester/fibreglass 2756 0.336 11


ALAMPALLI, S. 2001. Reinforced polymers for rehabilitation of bridge columns.Proceedings of the 5th National Workshop on Bridge Research inProgress, 8-10 October. University of Minnesota. pp. 39–41.

BADAWI, M. and SOUDKI, K. 2005. Control of corrosion-induced damaged inreinforced concrete beams using carbon fiber-reinforced polymerlaminates. Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 9, no. 2. pp. 195–201.

BAIYASI, M. and HARICHANDRAN, R. 2001. Corrosion and wrap strains in concretebridge columns repaired with FRP wraps. Proceedings of the 80th AnnualMeeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Paper no. 01-2609.

BALUSU, R., REN, T., SCHIEFELBEIN, K., O’GRADY, P., and HARVEY, T. 2010.Proactive strategies to prevent fires and explosions in longwall mines. Acentury of Mining Research. SME, Littleton, CO. pp. 408–417.

BALUSU, R., HUMPHRIES, P., HARRINGTON, P., WENDT, M., and XUE, S. 2002.Optimum inertisation strategies. Proceedings of the Queensland MiningIndustry Safety and Health Conference, Townsville. pp. 133–144.

BERVER, E., JIRSA, J., FOWLER, D., WHEAT, H., and MOON, T. 2001. Effects ofwrapping chloride contaminated concrete with fiber reinforced plastics.Report no. FHWA/TX-03/1774-2. enter for Transportation Research,University of Texas, Austin.

CHANDRA, K.K. 2011. Oxygen diffusion characterization of FRP composites usedin concrete repair and rehabilitation. Doctoral thesis, University of SouthFlorida..

CLIFF, D., BRADY, D., and WATKINSON, M. 2014. Developments in themanagement of spontaneous combustion in Australian underground coalmines. Proceedings of the 2014 Coal Operators’ Conference, University ofWollongong. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne.

DAVID, C., DARREN B., and MARTIN W. 2014. Developments in the managementof spontaneous combustion in Australian underground coal mines.Proceedings of the 2014 Coal Operators' Conference, University ofWollongong. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne.

DEBAIKY, A., GREEN, M., and HOPE, B. 2002. Carbon fiber-reinforced polymerwraps for corrosion control and rehabilitation of reinforced concretecolumns. ACI Materials Journal, vol. 99, no. 2. pp. 129-137.

DEMIRBILEK, S. 1986. The development of a spontaneous combustion riskclassification system for coal seams. PhD thesis, University ofNottingham, UK.

DIDARI, V. 1986. Yeraltı ocaklarında kömürün kendili inden yanması ve riskindeksleri. (Spontaneous combustion and risk indices in undergroundmines). Madencilik, vol. 15, no. 4. pp. 29–34.

FENG, K.K., CHAKRAVORTY, R.N., and COCHRANE, T.S. 1973. Spontaneouscombustion - a coal mining hazard. CIM Bulletin, vol. 66. pp.75–84.

HUMPHREYS, D. 2013. Scoping Study: Application of new forms of firesuppression and hydrocarbon absorption materials to underground coalmines. Final Report C21015. Australian Coal Industry Research Program,Brisbane.

KARPUZ, C., GÜYAGÜLER, T., BAĞCI, S., BOZDAĞ, T., BAŞARIR, H. and KESKIN, S.2000. Linyitlerin kendili inden yanmaya yatkınlık derecelerinin tespiti:bölüm 1 – risk sınıflaması derlemesi. (The determination of liability ındexfor spontaneous combustion of lignite: Part 1- Risk classification review).Madencilik dergisi Sayı, vol. 39, no. 3-4. pp.3-13.

KUCHTA, J.M., ROWE, V.R., and BURGESS, D.S. 1980. Spontaneous combustionsusceptibility of U.S. coals. Report of Investigation RI8474. US Bureau ofMines.

LEE, S. 2002. The Polyurethane Book. Wiley, New York.

LUXBACHER, K. and JONG, E. 2013. Development of a passive tracer gas sourcefor mine ventilation applications. Proceedings of the 24th Annual GeneralMeeting of the Society of Mining Professors, Milos Island, Greece. pp. 26–99.

ONUR, A.H., KÖSE, H., YALÇIN, E., KONAK, G., YENICE, H., KARAKUŞ, D., GÖNEN, A.,TOSUN, A., and ÖZDOĞAN, M. V. 2012. Türkiye kömür i letmeleri-güneylinyitleri i letmesi (TK -GL ) müessesesi Ömerler yeraltı oca ı tavankontrolü-tahkimat tasarımı ve ocak yangınları Ar-Ge Projesi.

PANTAZOPOULOU, S.J., BONACCI, J.F., SHEIKH, S., TOMAS, M.D.A., and HEARN, N.2001. Repair of corrosion-damage columns with FRP wraps. Journal ofComposites for Construction, vol. 5, no. 1. pp. 3–11.

RAY, S.K. and SINGH, R.P., 2007. Recent developments and practices to controlfire in underground coal mines. Fire Technology, vol. 43. pp. 285–300.

REN, T.X., BALUSU, R., and HUMPHRIES, P. 2005. Development of innovative goafinertisation practices to improve coal safety. Proceedings of Coal 2005:Coal Operators' Conference, University of Wollongong. Aziz, N (ed).Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. pp. 315–322.

RESTREPOL, J.I. and DEVINO, B. 1996. Enhancement of the axial load carryingcapacity of reinforced concrete columns by means of fiberglass-epoxyjackets. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Composites inInfrastructure, Montreal. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. pp. 547–553.

SAMAAN, M., MIRMIRAN, A., and SHAHAWY, M. 1998. Model of concrete confinedby fiber composites. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 124, no.9. pp. 1025–1031.

SARAÇ, S., and SOYTÜRK, T. 1992. Tunçbilek kömürlerinin kendili indenyanmaya yatkınlıklarının ara tırılması. (An ınvestigation on the liabilityof Tunçbilek coals to spontaneous combustion.) Türkiye 8. KömürKongresi Bildiriler Kitabı. pp. 141–152.

SEN, R, MULLINS, G., and SNYDER, D., 1999. Ultimate capacity of corrosiondamaged piles. Final Report submitted to Florida Department ofTransportation.

SEN, R. 2003. Advances in the application of FRP for repairing corrosiondamage. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, vol. 5, no. 2.pp. 99–113.

SHEIKH, S., PANTAZOPOULOU, S., BONACCI, J., THOMAS, M., and HEARN. N. 1997.Repair of delaminated circular pier columns with advanced compositematerials. Report no. 31902. Ontario Joint Transportation Research,Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

SUH, K., MULLINS, G., SEN, R., and WINTERS, D. 2007. Effectiveness of FRP inreducing corrosion in a marine environment. ACI Structural Journal, vol.104, no. 1. pp. 76–83.

SUH, K.S., SEN, R., MULLINS, D., and WINTERS, D. 2008. Corrosion monitoring ofFRP repaired piles in tidal waters. Special Publication 252. AmericanConcrete Institute. pp. 137–156.

TARRICONE, P. 1995. Composite sketch. ASCE, Civil Engineering Magazine. pp. 52–55.

WADE, L. 1988. The propensity of South African coals to spontaneouslycombusti. PhD thesis, University of the Withwaterstrand, Johannesburg.

WANG, C. and SHIH, C. 2004. Rehabilitation of cracked and corroded reinforcedconcrete beams with fiber-reinforced plastic patches. Journal of Compositesfor Construction, vol. 8, no. 3. pp. 219–228.

WHEAT, H.G., JIRSA, J.O., and FOWLER, D.W. 2005. Monitoring corrosionprotection provided by fiber reinforced composites. International Journalof Materials and Product Technology, vol. 23, no. 3-4. pp. 372–388.

WINTERS, D., MULLINS, G., SEN. R., and STOKES, M. 2008. Bond enhancement forFRP pile repair in tidal waters. ASCE, Journal of Composites forConstruction, vol. 12, no. 334. 10 pp.

WOOTTON, I., SPAINHOUR, L., and YAZDANI, N. 2003. Corrosion of steelreinforcement in CFRP wrapped concrete cylinders. Journal of Compositesfor Construction, vol. 7, no.4. pp. 339–347. �

�

1138 VOLUME 117

The mechanized deep-level mines in SouthAfrica have been using tendon straps (locallyreferred to as Osro straps) together with weldmesh for the support of longer termexcavations. Traditionally, the Osro straps are300 mm wide and consist of five 10 mmdiameter strands along the length (Figure 1).The connecting strands are generally 6 mm indiameter and spaced 150 mm apart along thewidth, as shown in the figure. The five-strandgeometry encourages eccentric loadingunderground, with clamping of differentstrands along the length of the strap (Figure 2).

The Osro strap is normally installed withlong anchors and dome washers over theexisting primary support. The primary supportcommonly consists of 5.6 mm diameter weldmesh with 100 mm apertures, installed withtendons. One deep-level gold mine reported adramatic drop in injuries since the introductionof the mesh and straps (Pretorius, 2010).

In the absence of a documented standardon how to test mesh and Osro straps, themanufacturers of these products requested theCSIR to perform a tensile pull-test to determinestrength and quality (Bergh, 2016). Thestrands are clamped on either end as shown in

Figure 3 and the element is loaded in tensionuntil failure. However, a significant over-estimation of the load-bearing capacity isprovided by this test due to the disparateloading condition underground. Inunderground applications, clamping isprovided by tendons located on the corners ofthe mesh (usually 150 mm in from the cornersfor mesh overlap) and the ends of the Osrostraps, and loading takes place perpendicularlyto the strands. A typical dome washer is 200 mm in diameter and can load a maximumof only two or three strands due to its size(Figure 4) and the uneven rock surface.Generally, two of the strands are doing littlework during loading underground. This paperinvestigates whether the quoted tensilestrengths are sufficient, or could the supportelements be over- or under-designed? Asuitable testing apparatus was thereforeconstructed to cater for a worst-case,underground loading environment, and testswere conducted at the CSIR in Johannesburg.The load demand requirements were calculatedassuming the maximum likely dead-weightload of loose rock between support tendons.

Mesh research was undertaken in South Africaby Rand Mines limited (Ortlepp, 1983) and inCanada by the Ontario Ministry of Labour(Pakalnis and Ames, 1983) in the early 1980s.Large-scale mesh tests were conducted byTannant, Kaiser, and Maloney (1997) andThompson, Windsor, and Cadby (1999) todetermine the force-displacement reactionproperties of mesh when loaded perpendicularto the strands. In 2005, a large-scale statictesting facility was designed and built by the

An improved method of testing tendonstraps and weld meshby B.P. Watson*, D. van Niekerk†, and M. Page†

There is currently no standard method of evaluating tendon straps andweld mesh for underground excavation support in South Africa. At therequest of suppliers, the CSIR has been conducting pure tensile tests onthese elements with all the strands clamped in a jig. Even though theactual in situ loading is usually quite different, the manufacturers haverequired pure tensile results. In an underground situation, these supportunits are loaded by a block or set of blocks perpendicular to the strandsunder the influence of gravity. This loading results in a combination oftensile stresses and bending moments at the point of fixture, which is notadequately represented by a pure tensile test. In this paper we describe amore representative test which caters for a worst-case loading conditiondue to block rotation. An improved design of tendon strap to better copewith the loading environment is also described.

eccentric loading, load-bearing capacity, bending moments, strengthrequirement, realistic laboratory test.

* Visiting Professor - School of Mining Engineering,University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

† Private Consultant.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, 2017. ISSN 2225-6253. Paper receivedSep. 2016; revised paper received Sep. 2017.

1139VOLUME 117 �


An improved method of testing tendon straps and weld mesh

Western Australian School of Mines, based on insightsprovided by the previous research. Two test programms wereundertaken by Player et al. (2008) to assess the static anddynamic properties of welded wire and chain link meshes.

The WASM static test facility is shown in Figure 5. Itcomprises two steel frames, which provide a loadingcondition perpendicular to the mesh or surface support. Themesh sample is restrained within a stiff frame that rests onthe support frame. The restraint system consists of high-strength eye nuts, D-shackles, and threaded bar passingthrough a perimeter frame at allocated points as shown inFigure 6.

�

1140 VOLUME 117

This system, although providing repeatable results, doesnot fully represent the loading dynamics underground. Inparticular, Osro straps are generally clamped by domewashers and bolts that are pre-tensioned to 18 t. Loadingwould subsequently cause bending moments at the washerand edge of the loading block. Numerical analysis wasperformed to determine the effects of such a loadingconfiguration on a strap.

Finite element modelling (Solidworks, 2014) was carried outto determine the stress distribution along an Osro strapduring loading. The results clearly show the tensile andcompressive stresses resulting from the bending moments atthe edge of the loading block and dome washer (Figure 7).These stress concentrations do not develop in a standardpull-test and therefore the standard test over-estimates thestrength of the strap. Thus the modelling shows theimportance of using the same loading configuration asunderground to establish true strap and mesh strengths.Shackles do not provide a true boundary constraint as thebending moments are less pronounced. A test rig wastherefore designed to load against a dome washer.

The current primary support in the access and infrastructureexcavations of South African mechanized gold minesgenerally consists of 2.4 m long split sets, spaced about 1.2 m × 1.5 m, and weld mesh (Figure 8). Both the mesh andsplit sets are installed remotely using twin-boom drill rigs orbolters. In the more permanent ramps and haulages,secondary support is installed in the form of 4.5 m long, 38 tanchors, spaced about 2 m × 2 m apart, with Osro strapsacross and along the direction of the tunnels (Figure 9).

Assuming that the secondary support anchors are installeddeep enough to anchor into competent ground, the mesh and

Oslo straps need to contain the loose rock between thetendons. The size and mass of the unstable rock requiringcontainment can be approximated by a square pyramid, witha height of half the spacing between the tendons (Figure 10).

The strength requirements of the mesh and Osro strapsupport elements are therefore calculated assuming theweight of loose rock within this shape:

[1]

where:L = Weight

= Densityg = Gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2)l,w, and h are the dimensions of the pyramid assuming h= ½l (Figure 10).

A test rig has been designed to cater for the worst-caseloading scenario. It includes the bending moments shown inthe model results and the guillotine effects of the domewasher on the outer strap. (There will almost always be a


1141VOLUME 117 �

connecting or crossing strap that will not be exposed to theguillotine effects of the washer.) In addition, the sharp edgesof loading blocks, typical of the Witwatersrand quartzites inthe gold mines, are also considered.

Typical blocks observed in falls of ground on theintermediate- to deep-level gold mines are relatively small(approx. 1 m × 0.5 m × 0.3 m). The commonly observedsharp edges are shown in Figure 11. Worst-case loadingconditions would be caused by the acute bending that occursalong the edges of these blocks.

The rig design consisted of a rectangular frame of thesame length as a standard length of weld mesh (3.4 m) ortendon spacing along an Osro strap. The element is attachedto the base of the rig by short bolts and washers to replicatethe conditions underground (Figure 4). The assembly isloaded from the top by a line-shaped plunger (Figure 12 andFigure 13). The loading shape represents a block of rock thathas rotated and is loading the support element along its edge.The length of the loading line was 0.5 m to coincide with atypical block size.

Peak failure Loads of 18 kN and 44 kN were typical forthe mesh and straps strands, respectively. A common tensiletest on the same Osro strap will provide loads of about 170 kN.

A typical load-deformation curve for weld mesh under thedescribed line-loading condition with a 0.5 m long plunger isshown in Figure 14. Note that the first strand failed at about18 kN.

Using the pyramid model, the strength requirement ofsuch mesh where the support elements are spaced 2 m × 2 mis 35 kN (ignoring the support effects of the split sets).Obviously, the mesh on its own is insufficient, requiringstraps as additional reinforcement. A similar test performedon a normal four-strand Osro strap with 10 mm strands willprovide 44 kN (Figure 15). The significant safety factorallows for some corrosion. Note that only two strands wereclamped during the test, as shown in Figure 4.

Conventional tensile testing of the strap provides strengthresults that are ’not applicable’ for estimating load resistancein an underground mine situation, as shown in Figure 16.Apart from ignoring the bending moments, it is impossiblefor all the strands to be equally loaded and to contribute tothe overall element strength in the undergroundenvironment.


�

1142 VOLUME 117

A normal 300 mm wide Osro strap will cost about R280, buta two-strand strap will do almost the same work for R100.However, the areal coverage is small, with a possibility offalls of ground (FOGs) between the straps. Nonetheless, awider strap can be designed with a hammock shape to caterfor the area of the clamping washer. In this instance thewashers would be located in the narrow ends.

The hammock shape (Figure 17) allows a 200 mm washer,located in the narrow end, to load over all four strands andmaintain the standard 300 mm strap-width. An undergroundinstallation of the strap is shown in Figure 18.

Strength tests were performed on the normal and hammock-shaped straps using the suggested testing apparatus (Figure 19a and Figure 19b). The results of the investigationare shown in Figure 20. As expected the hammock shape isstronger and stiffer than the normal shape.

The hammock-shaped strap in Figure 20 is significantlyover-designed for a 2 m × 2 m tendon spacing and anarrower gauge strand can therefore be considered, whichwould reduce costs and be easier to install around corners.

An 8 mm diameter strand strap was tested and the strengthwas shown to be adequate for the described tendon spacing(Figure 21).

An underground trial was initiated on a deep-level gold mineto determine any installation difficulties (Figure 22). Thelimited tolerance on the position of a tendon in the standardhammock design meant that tendons could not be moved toavoid bridging across ridges in an uneven hanging- orsidewall. However, this problem can be resolved byincreasing the length of the hammock neck for straps used inuneven and blocky ground conditions.


VOLUME 117 1143 �


A more realistic laboratory test shows that the standardSouth African tensile testing of Osro straps and weld meshprovides strength values that are not applicable forestablishing load-bearing capacity in underground minesituations. However, the mesh and Osro straps only need tocontain the loose rock between properly installed tendons.The required strength is therefore relatively small and easilyachieved if two strands are clamped. The standard 10 mmthick Osro strap could be considered as over-designedbecause only two of the five strands are carrying the load. Itshould also be remembered that there is a risk, in anunderground environment, for only one strand to be properlyclamped due to the uneven surface and eccentric loading. An

Osro strap designed in the form of a hammock, however,improves clamping and ensures that all the strands areloaded. Using this design, it is possible to reduce the strandthickness to 8 mm and still maintain sufficient load-bearingcapacity. The mass of such a strap is considerably less and itis also easier to bend around corners.

It should be noted that the analysis presented here dealsonly with static loading conditions, and does not considerdynamic loading in rockbursting situations.

It has been shown that in tests simulating undergroundloading conditions, Osro straps and weld mesh fail atsignificantly lower loads than predicted by the standardtensile tests. A test frame that creates a more realistic loadingcondition has been developed to simulate actual loadingconditions. The research showed that the standard 5.6 mmdiameter weld mesh is insufficient on its own if thesecondary support tendons are installed at the common 2 m ×2 m spacing. Osro straps are thus required to strengthen theareal coverage support. Normal Osro straps with 10 mmdiameter strands are sufficient to carry the unstable load.However, there are strands that are not clamped due to thesize of the dome washer, uneven surface underground, andeccentric loading. Such strands are carrying little load andmost of the work is done by one or two strands at the centreof the strap. A hammock-shaped strap with four strands hasbeen designed to better accommodate the undergroundconstraints. Tests have proved that such a designsignificantly increases the strength and stiffness of the strap.The current 10 mm diameter longitudinal strands are anover-design if this shape is employed. Under such conditions,8 mm diameter strands are sufficient to provide the requiredload-bearing capacity on a 2 m anchor spacing. This willbring down the mass and make the strap more user-friendly.

The paper deals only with static loading conditions, andmay not be applicable to dynamic loading in rockburstingsituations.

BERGH, R. 2016. Personal communication. CSIR, Johannesburg, South Africa.Ortlepp, W.D. 1983. Considerations in the design of support for deep hard rock

tunnels. Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on RockMechanics, vol. 2. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 179–187.

PAKALNIS, V and AMES, D. 1983. Load tests on mine screening. UndergroundSupport Systems. Udd, J. (ed.). Special Volume 35. Canadian Institute ofMining Metallurgy and Petroleum, Montreal. pp. 79–83.

PLAYER, J.R., MORTON, E.C., THOMPSON, A.G., and VILLAESCUSA, E. 2008. Static anddynamic testing of steel wire mesh for mining applications of rock surfacesupport. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on GroundSupport in Mining and Civil Engineering Construction, Cape Town, 30March – 3 April 2008. Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, Johannesburg. pp. 693–706.

PRETORIUS, W. 2011. Personal communication. Randfontein, South Africa.SOLIDWORKS. 2014. www.solidworkstutorials.comTANNANT, D, KAISER, P.K., and MALONEY S. 1997. Load - displacement properties

of welded - wire, chain - link and expanded metal mesh. Proceedings ofthe International symposium on Rock Support - Applied Solutions forUnderground Structures, Lillehammer, Norway, 22–25 June 1997. Broch,E., Myrvang, A., and Stjern, G. (eds.). Norwegian Society of CharteredEngineers. pp. 651–659.

THOMPSON, A.G., WINDSOR, C.R., and CADBY, G.W. 1999. Performance assessmentof mesh for ground control applications. Rock Support and ReinforcementPractice in Mining. Villaescusa, E., Windsor, C.R., and Thompson, A.G.(eds.). Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 119–130. �

�

1144 VOLUME 117

The problems of non-simultaneous combinedmining by open pit and underground methodsand transition from open pit to undergroundmining are among the most importantchallenges in mining engineering, and havebeen recently considered in many researchinvestigations. Different researchers haveattempted to solve these problems andpresented solutions based on empirical,heuristic, and mathematical programmingmethods. In these works, the transitionproblem has been examined in three modes:(1) optimizing transition from open pit tounderground mining, (2) determining thepoint, depth, or limit of transition from openpit to underground operation, and (3)determining the time of transition.

Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Mirhasani(2012) reviewed the solutions proposed for thetransition problem, a summary of which isgiven in Table I, together with the most recentsolutions. It can be seen from Table I that fewof the solutions have an empirical basis,ultimately leading to only an estimatedresponse. The main weaknesses of theempirical solutions are ignoring the time valueof money, production planning, anduncertainties.

Most of the solutions for the transitionproblem have a heuristic basis and follow asimilar process by use of the cash flow

solution introduced by Nilsson (1982). Theymake an economic comparison amongdifferent options, including open pit andunderground mining. Some other heuristicsolutions, such as the algorithms proposed byBakhtavar and Shahriar (2007) and Shahriar(2007) and Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Oraee(2008a, 2008b) are based on an economiccomparison of open pit and undergroundmining methods at different levels of an oredeposit. The main drawback of the heuristicsolutions is their complete dependence on theoptimization algorithms of surface andunderground mining. For this reason, theycannot solve the transition problemindependently. Another deficiency of theheuristic solutions, excluding the researchpresented by Opoku and Musingwini (2013),is failure to consider uncertainty. Thisdeficiency leads to the small differencebetween their responses and the reality. Theworking steps of the solution presented byOpoku and Musingwini (2013) are mostlysimilar to the solution by Visser and Ding(2007), except that Opoku and Musingwiniemphasized uncertainties during geologicalsimulation (in kriging) and preparedproduction planning and economic modelsemploying conventional mining software.

Among the solutions for the transitionproblem, studies by Bakhtavar, Shahriar, andMirhasani (2012), Newman, Yano, and Rubio(2013), Chung, Topal, and Ghosh (2016), andMacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos (2017) have amathematical basis and are more stable thanothers. These methods can be considered afoundation and then developed or modified toachieve an optimum solution to the transitionproblem, similar to the development of theoptimization models of final pit limits andproduction planning.

A stochastic mathematical model fordetermination of transition time in thenon-simultaneous case of surface andunderground miningby E. Bakhtavar*, J. Abdollahisharif†, and A. Aminzadeh*

This research introduces a stochastic mathematical model that uses openpit long-term production planning on an integrated open pit andunderground block model to determine the optimal time for transition fromopen pit to underground mining. In the model, ore grade is considered arandom parameter in objective function and ore grade blendingconstraints. The objective function is modelled as the maximization of netpresent value in the mode of non-simultaneous combined open pit andunderground mining. Moreover, the most important and conventionalconstraints in open pit long-term production planning are developed fornon-simultaneous combined mining. Finally, information on an iron oredeposit is used to evaluate the results of the model.

stochastic programming, transition time, non-simultaneous, combinedmining.

* Department of Mining and Materials Engineering,Urmia University of Technology, Iran.

† Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Iran.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, 2017. ISSN 2225-6253. Paper receivedFeb. 2017; revised paper received Aug. 2017.

1145VOLUME 117 �


A stochastic mathematical model for determination of transition time

�

1146 VOLUME 117

Table I

The model by Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Mirhasani (2012)started to apply mathematical programming in combinedmining by open pit and underground methods and in solvingthe transition problem. It has some deficiencies, such asfailure to consider production planning and net present value(NPV), presentation on a two-dimensional block model,limitation in the number of decision variables, and ignoringuncertainties such as ore grade. Among the importantadvantages of this model are its detail-oriented trend (onblocks with economic value) and its independence from otherpit limits and production planning optimization algorithms.This model uses binary integer programming to maximize theprofit from combined open pit and underground mining. Acomputerized tool was developed based on the modelestablished by Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Mirhasani (2012)for simple applications (Bakhtavar, 2015).

The model introduced by Newman, Yano, and Rubio(2013) follows a holistic trend based on investigating variousstrata of an ore deposit at different levels using networkprogramming. In this model, which is stated by schematicnetworks, the method of determining deposit boundaries ineach stratum was not specified. Using strata instead of blocksin a block model can reduce the number of decision variablesand investigations; however, this may not lead to an accurateresponse compared to blocks. The strata were considered dueto the large size of the deposits with combined open pit andunderground mining potential. In these cases, usingconventional ore blocks would limit problem-solving usingthe available solvers and personal computers. Since eachstratum is mined during two or more scheduling periods,mining sequence and production planning cannot determinewhich part of the stratum must be mined in the first place. Tosolve this problem, the strata must include ore blocks with agrade or economic net value. The main weakness of thenetwork model by Newman, Yano, and Rubio (2013) isfailure to consider uncertainty. This model is primarily basedon maximizing NPV and decision-making based onproduction planning, which is a benefit of this model.

An integer programming-based model was developed byChung, Topal, and Ghosh (2016) to determine the transitionpoint from open pit to underground mining in three-dimensional space. Some strategies for shortening thesolution time were attempted in order to deal with theproblem of a large number of variables. This research focusedon the optimal mining strategy, in addition to the optimaldetermination of the transition point from open pit tounderground mining.

MacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos (2017) developed a two-stage stochastic integer programming model by use ofgeological uncertainty and managing technical risk todetermine the transition from open pit to undergroundmining. The discounted cash flow values of differenttransition depth alternatives are calculated after optimizingthe production schedules of each depth for open pit andunderground operations. The most profitable transition depthalternative is determined by comparing the sum of both openpit and underground mining values. This base concept ofmaking a comparison among a set of transition depthalternatives is similar to the work by Bakhtavar, Shahriar,and Oraee (2008a, 2009). The only deficiency of the model isholistically investigating and solving the transition problem

by use of a two-stage process of open pit and undergroundproduction scheduling.

In the present study, attempts are made to introduce astochastic binary integer programming model, which not onlyeliminates the deficiencies of other methods but alsoincorporates their benefits as far as is possible. Therefore, themodel follows the following objectives:

� Determining the optimal time for transition from openpit to underground mining based on maximizing NPV

� Searching three-dimensional block models based on adetail-oriented trend

� Independence from the software and algorithms ofproduction planning and pit limit and undergroundlayout optimization (i.e., independent working)

� Considering ore grade uncertainty in mathematicalplanning of the model

� Considering technical and economic criteria(constraints).

For these purposes, the stochastic model presented byGholamnejad, Osanloo, and Khorram (2008) for optimallong-term production planning for open pits, which wasoriginally introduced by Rao (1996), is the basis for thepresent research.

This research aims to maximize the overall NPV obtainedfrom combined open pit and underground mining. Thus, inmathematical modelling, the objective function is defined asthe maximization of the combined NPV resulted from bothopen pit and underground operations. To this end, thefollowing requirements are taken into account.

First, the economic net values of combined open pit andunderground blocks are determined. In the transitionproblem, the main objective is to identify levels, andconsequently blocks, extractable by open pit or undergroundmethods so that an economic comparison is made for eachblock and level between open pit and underground methods.Then, the mining method with a higher NPV is selected as thesuperior option. This research uses the concept of the priorityof open pit to underground mining. In this case, thecombined economic value for each block is calculated bysubtracting open pit and underground block net values. Thisconcept has been used in some solutions for the transitionproblem, such as the work by Camus (1992) and Tulp(1998). Open pit and underground economic net values foreach block are calculated by use of Equations [1] and [2],respectively. Moreover, according to Equation [3] and bysubtraction of open pit and underground block net values,combined (subtracted) block net value can be calculatedusing Equation [4]. It should be noted that block caving isthe most practicable underground method in the case of non-simultaneous open-pit and underground mining. In blockcaving, ore recovery can usually be close to the open pitrecovery, approaching 100%. Therefore, in Equation [4], orerecovery (r) is considered to be 100% for both open pit andunderground methods (rop = rug = 1).

[1]


1147VOLUME 117 �

[2]

[3]

[4]

whereBEVop: Open pit economic net value for each blockP: Unit selling price of metalCS: Unit selling cost of metalrop: Total metal recovery in open pit miningg: Block gradeTO: Total amount of ore in each blockCop: Unit open pit cost of ore extractionCW: Unit open pit cost of waste removalTW: Total amount of waste in each blockBEVug: Underground economic net value for each blockrug: Total metal recovery in underground miningCug: Unit underground cost of ore extractionB: Open pit and underground combined economic net

value for each block.In Equations [1] to [4], the economic net value of a waste

block is negative, since a waste block imcurs removal costwithout any profit. The NPV resulting from combined openpit and underground mining is obtained by Equation [5].

[5]

In certainty mode, based on Equations [1] to [5], theobjective function can be defined as Equation [6] in the formof a programming model using (0-1) integer decisionvariables.

All the model variables, parameters, indices, counters,and indicators are defined in Appendix 1.

[6]

The most important uncertainties should be involved tominimize the errors of the optimization process and toachieve the optimal response, especially in specific miningsituations that are greatly influenced by uncertainties.Simulating a deposit and preparing a geological block modelwith block grade estimation are the basis for the optimizationof production planning and mining layout. These simulationsand grade block models, which are constructed usingexploration data, particularly from exploration boreholes,contain estimation errors. As a result, these errors areincorporated directly into all the processes based on usingdata on grade (geological) block models in optimizingproduction planning. Therefore, block grade is randomlyconsidered with uncertainty in the optimization of productionplanning to minimize the impact of grade error resulting fromexploration phase and block model simulation. In this case,the objective of maximizing NPV is accompanied byminimizing risks arising from the uncertainty in block grade.

The random grade parameter is imported to the objectivefunction and the related constraints of the model.Accordingly, the objective function of maximizing NPV asgiven in Equation [6] is randomly formulated in thefollowing stages.

After applying changes associated with the randomvariable to the objective function and constraints, they arenon-linearized. They can be converted into linear mode usinglinear approximation methods, or the model can be solved inthe same nonlinear mode. When a parameter is randomlyconsidered in stochastic programming, some changes aremade to the objective function and constraints. Assumingthat a random variable has a normal distribution, a specificprobability is considered for a constraint, and then theexpected values and the variance are calculated. Given thatthe random variable has a normal distribution, the objectivefunction would also have a normal distribution, and theexpected value and variance would be calculated in theobjective function. In such a case, a new objective function isdefined in two stages: the first stage consists of maximizingthe average of NPV, and the second is minimizing deviationfrom the main objective, which is the maximization of NPV.

Now that ore grade is considered as a random variable, aconfidence level is first assumed based on Equation [7] forthe constraint related to the average grade as given inEquations [8] and [9].

[7]

[8]

[9]

Then, the expected value and variance of a randomvariable are calculated. The calculation results for expectedvalue (average) and variance on the constraint with oregrade random variable are applied as given in Equations [10]to [14].

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]


�

1148 VOLUME 117

Given that the random variable of ore grade exists in theobjective function, the expected value and variance of theobjective function by the random variable of the ore grade arecalculated by Equations [15] and [16].

[15]

[16]

According to Equation [17], the new objective functionmaximizes the average NPV resulting from combined miningand minimizes the deviation from grade distribution whereoptimal production planning is applied only to open pitmining in the combined block model.

[17]

Equation [18] indicates that values for the expected valueand variance of the objective function are imported toEquation [17].

[18]

[19]

[20]

Consistent with the long-term production planning modelpresented by Gholamnejad, Osanloo, and Khorram (2008),the following constraints are considered for the problem oftransition from open pit to underground mining.

The average ore grade of materials that are sent to theprocessing plant in each period is different, and has upperand lower bounds, as given in Equations [21] and [22] byGholamnejad, Osanloo, and Khorram (2008).

[21]

[22]

The normal distribution function of the ore grade randomvariable is converted into a standard normal distribution byuse of Equations [23] and [24].

[23]

[24]

where is a standard normal random variableassociated with ore grade which has an expected value(average) of zero and variance of unity. In this case, St is thevalue of a random variable that is true in Equation [25].

[25]

Equation [26] can be derived from Equations [23] and[25].

[26]

According to Equation [26], the following certain andnonlinear inequality (Equation [27]) can be fixed. Thus, theconstraint of the problem changes from random anduncertain mode to certain but nonlinear.

[27]

[28]

Now, the values for the expected value and variance of arandom variable are substituted into Equation [28], and thegrade-related constraints are given by Equations [29] and[30].

[29]

[30]

Equation [33] shows the constraint related to the lowerbound of the grade blending constraint. The values of St andS 't are calculated by taking the integral of standard normaldistribution function as given in Equations [31] and [32].

[31]

[32]


VOLUME 117 1149 �


The tonnage of ore and waste materials mined in one periodcannot exceed the maximum capacity or be less than aminimum capacity of equipment available in that period.Accordingly, the constraints of the maximum and minimumcapacity of equipment can be formulated as Equations [33]and [34].

[33]

[34]

All blocks above the desired block must be extracted so that,for the stability of the pit wall, a cone with at least threeblocks would comprise the desired block. This constraint alsoindicates that all rows of the pit limit should be assumedcontinuous in mining. This constraint is mathematicallydefined by Equation [35].

[35]

According to the constraints of reserve extraction, any blockin the block model can be extracted only once, in one periodand using only one method (open pit or undergroundmining). This constraint is mathematically modelled usingEquation [36].

[36]

The objective function of the model (Equation [18]) and theconstraints of the upper and lower bounds of grade(Equations [29] and [30]) are certain but nonlinear. They arelinearized by use of a linear approximation method.

If xi and xj are assumed as two interdependent randomvariables, a parameter can be defined as a correlationcoefficient between these two variables as given in Equation[37].

[37]

Since the correlation coefficient is between 1 and -1,Equation [38] can be applied.

[38]

Therefore, the maximum amount of covariance can beequal to the product of the variance of two variables. In

Equations [18], [29], and [30], instead of covariance, theproduct of the variance of two variables is imported, yieldingEquation [39].

[39]

Now, the certain and nonlinear equations are linearizedand rewritten as in Equations [40] and [41].

[40]

[41]

In Equation [29], changes are applied as Equation [42].

[42]

According to Equation [18], this can be written as:

[43]

[44]

These values are substituted in the objective function,which is written as Equation [45].

[45]

Using the linear approximation method, the objectivefunction and the constraints for grade blending becomelinear. Finally, the model for determining the transition timein non-simultaneous combined mining is formulatedemploying ore grade uncertainty based on binary (zero andunity) integer programming as follows:

�

1150 VOLUME 117

s.t.

An iron ore deposit with potential for mining by acombination of open pit and block caving is used to apply theintroduced stochastic programming model. The size of the oredeposit was estimated at approximately 160 Mt at an averagegrade of 51%. According to the mine design parameters, theheight of the benches in the open pit part was to be 15 m. Itshould be noted that in addition to block caving, sublevelcaving can also be used as an alternative the case of non-simultaneous underground and open pit mining.

A geological model of the iron ore deposit that includesblocks with Fe grades is first created. The model consisted of11 023 blocks with an average grade of 51%. The block sizeis 15×15×15 m. Table II summarizes some essential technicaland economic parameters for applying the presentedstochastic model in the non-simultaneous case of open pitand block caving mining. The grade value of each block thatresulted from the kriging-based geostatistical process isimported to the stochastic model. A normal distributionfunction is assumed by the mean (kriging estimate) andvariance (estimation variance) values of the grade parametertaken from the kriging process. The normal distributionfunction of the ore grade random variable was alsoconsidered by Gholamnejad, Osanloo, and Khorram (2008)and Halatchev and Lever (2005) for simplifying thecalculation procedures.

Then, the stochastic mathematical model of the studiedcase with 22046 decision variables is solved in approximately55 minutes, and the optimal solution obtained. As shown inFigure 1, the results indicated that the optimal transition timeis when the pit depth reaches the 1765 m level in the case ofnon-simultaneous combined open pit and block cavingmining. According to the optimal transition time, a total NPVof $5159.7 million is determined. In the optimal case, theiron ore deposit should be mined by open pit to the 1765 mlevel, and the rest of the ore deposit between levels 1765 mand 1630 m by block caving.

It is noteworthy that the determination of the transitiontime from open pit to underground mining is a very complexmulti-attribute decision-making (MADM) process.Mathematical modelling of the transition problem based onthe MADM concepts is very complicated, especially in thecase of a detail-oriented trend as was considered in thisresearch by searching for blocks on a block model withcombinational economic values. The current research focusedonly on the technical and economic parameters (attributes) toavoid the complexity of modelling the transition problem as amulti-attribute system.

The transition problem is similar to other miningproblems based on strategic planning and asset management,which are long-term processes. Komljenovic, Abdul-Nour,and Popovic (2015) explained that the strategic planning andasset management models in mining projects shouldincorporate all related economic, operational, technical,engineering, organizational, natural, and other importantfactors in a systematic manner. The impacts of uncertaintiesand operational complexities should also be considered.


VOLUME 117 1151 �

Table II

Processed ore price 69 Annual 355($ per ton) working daysOpen pit stripping cost 1.5 Processing 80($ per ton) recovery (%)Open pit mining cost 1.75 Open pit 100($ per ton) recovery (%)Open pit capital cost 109 Underground 90(million $) recovery (%)Block caving cost 4.25 Discount rate (%) 20($ per ton)Underground capital cost 430 Maximum open pit 8 000 000(million $) mining capacity (t/a)Processing cost 8 Maximum underground 8 000 000($ per ton) mining capacity (t/a)Additional costs ($ per ton) 4.5 Mine life (years) 20


Accordingly, mining problems and challenges are quitecomplex with a multidimensional space because of majoruncertainties arising through the complexity of the system.The traditional models in strategic planning, assetmanagement, and decision-making in the case of miningproblems have some limitations which make it difficult todeal with the complexities adequately. For this reason, manymining organizations have employed the strategic planningand management models that decrease uncertainties toincrease the overall efficiency of the system. In this case, thenew approaches are required to model and analyse miningproblems as complex adaptive systems (Komljenovic, Abdul-Nour, and Popovic, 2015).

A mathematical model was presented utilizing open pit long-term production planning and the stochastic effect of oregrade to determine the optimal transition time from open pitto underground mining. The objective function of the modelis based on the maximization of NPV in the case of non-simultaneous combined open pit and underground mining.The most important constraints are developed for the non-simultaneous combined mining based on open pit long-termproduction planning. A database from an iron ore deposit ofabout 160 Mt was used to implement the model in detail. Thedeposit is suitable for mining by a combination of open pitand block caving. The proposed model was developed andsolved considering the essential technical and economic datafor the mining system. The results indicate that a total NPV of$ 5159.7 million is obtained based on the 1765 m level beingselected as the optimal level for the transition from open pitto block caving.

BAKHTAVAR, E. 2013. Transition from open-pit to underground in the case ofChah-Gaz iron ore combined mining. Journal of Mining Science, vol. 49,no. 6. pp. 955–966.

BAKHTAVAR, E. 2015. OP-UG TD optimizer tool based on Matlab code to findtransition depth from open pit to block caving. Archives of Mining Science,vol. 60, no. 2. pp. 487–495.

BAKHTAVAR, E. and SHAHRIAR, K. 2007. Optimal ultimate pit depth consideringan underground alternative. Proceeding of the Fourth AachenInternational Mining Symposium - High Performance Mine Production,Aachen, Germany. RWTH Aachen. pp. 213–221.

BAKHTAVAR, E., SHAHRIAR, K., AND MIRHASANI, A. 2012. OPTIMIZATION OF THE

TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO underground operation in combined miningusing (0-1) integer programming. Journal of the Southern AfricanInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 112. pp. 1059–1064.

BAKHTAVAR, E., SHAHRIAR, K., and ORAEE, K. 2008A, A MODEL FOR DETERMINING

OPTIMAL TRANSITION DEPTH OVer from open pit to underground mining.MassMin 2008: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference andExhibition on Mass Mining, Luleå, Sweden, 9–11 June 2008.Schunnesson, H. and Nordlund, E. (eds.). Luleå University of Technolog.pp. 393–400.

BAKHTAVAR, E., SHAHRIAR, K., and ORAEE, K. 2008b. An approach towardsascertaining open-pit to underground transition depth. Journal of AppliedSciences, vol. 8, no. 23. pp. 4445–4449.

BAKHTAVAR, E., SHAHRIAR, K., and ORAEE, K. 2009. Transition from open-pit tounderground as a new optimization challenge in mining engineering.Journal of Mining Science, vol. 45. pp. 485–494.

CAMUS, J.P. 1992. Open pit optimization considering an undergroundalternative. Proceedings of 23th International Symposium on theApplication of Computers and Operations Research in the MineralIndustry (APCOM), Tucson, AZ, 7–11 April 1992. Kim, Y.C. (ed.). Societyof Mining Engineers of AIME. pp. 435–441.

CHEN, J., GUO, D., and LI, J. 2003. Optimization principle of combined surfaceand underground mining and its applications. Journal of Central SouthUniversity of Technology, vol. 10, no. 3. pp. 222–225.

CHEN, J., LI, J., LUO, Z., and GUO, D. 2001. Development and application ofoptimum open-pit limits software for the combined mining of surface andunderground. Proceedings of CAMI Symposium. Sweets & Zeitlinger,Lisse, The Netherlands. pp. 303–306.

CHUNG, J., TOPAL, E., and GHOSH, A.K. 2016. Where to make the transition fromopen-pit to underground? Using integer programming. Journal of theSouthern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 116, no. 8. pp. 801–808.

GHOLAMNEJAD, J., OSANLOO, M., anD KHORRAM, E. 2008. A chance constrainedinteger programming model for open pit long-term production planning.Scientific Information Database, vol. 21. pp. 407–418.

HALATCHEV, R. and LEVER, P. 2005. Risk model of long-term productionscheduling in open pit gold mining. Proceedings of the CRC MiningTechnology Conference, Fremantle, WA, 27–28 September 2005.

KOMLJENOVIC, D., ABDUL-NOUR, G., and POPOVIC, N. 2015. An approach forstrategic planning and asset management in the mining industry in thecontext of business and operational complexity. International Journal ofMining and Mineral Engineering, vol. 6, no. 4. pp. 338–360.

MACNEIL, J.A.L. and DIMITRAKOPOULOS, R.G. 2017. A stochastic optimizationformulation for the transition from open pit to underground mining.Optimization and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-017-9361-6

NEWMAN, A., YANO, C.A., and RUBIO, E. 2013. Mining above and below ground:timing the transition. IIE Transactions. pp. 865–882.

NILSSON, D. 1982. Open pit or underground mining, Underground MiningMethods Handbook. AIME, New York. pp. 70–87.

NILSSON, D. 1992. Surface vs. underground methods. SME Mining EngineeringHandbook.Hartman, H.L. (ed.). Society for Mining, Metallurgy andExploration, Littleton, CO. pp. 2058–2068.

NILSSON, D. 1997. Optimal final pit depth once again. International Journal ofMining Engineering. pp. 71–72.

OPOKU, S. and MUSINGWINI, C. 2013. Stochastic modelling of the open pit tounderground transition interface for gold mines. International Journal ofMining, Reclamation and the Environment, vol. 27, no. 6. pp. 407–424.

RAO, S.S. 1996. Engineering Optimization (Theory and Practice). Wiley, NewYork. p. 903.

SODERBERG, A. and RAUSCH, D.O. 1968. Pit planning and layout. Surface Mining.Pfleider, E.P. (ed.). American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, andPetroleum Engineers, New York. pp. 142–143.

TULP, T. 1998. Open pit to underground mining. Proceeding of Mine Planningand Equipment Selection (MPES) 1998. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 9–12.

VISSER, W. and DING, B. 2007. Optimization of the transition from open pit tounderground mining. Proceeding of the Fourth Aachen InternationalMining Symposium - High Performance Mine Production, Aachen,Germany. RWTH Aachen. pp. 131–148.

i: Index for blocks (i=1,2,…,N)N: Total number of blockst: Index for planning period (t=1,2,…,T)T: Total number of planning periodsd: Discount ratexi

t: A binary integer variable; 1, if block i to beplanned for extraction, and 0, otherwise

Toi: Total amount of ore in block i to be extracted inperiod t

Twi: Total amount of waste in block i to be removedin period t

Copi: Unit open pit cost of ore extraction for block iCWi: Unit open pit cost of waste removal for block iCugi: Unit underground cost of ore extraction for block

iPt: Unit selling price of metal in period t

�

1152 VOLUME 117

CSt: Unit selling cost of metal in period t

ropi: Total metal recovery of block i using open pitrugi: Total metal recovery of block i using

underground miningQt

max: Maximum capacity of the available equipment inperiod t

Q tmin: Minimum capacity of the available equipment in

period ta: The total number of blocks overlaying block i in

period t

Cit: NPV resulting from combined openpit and

underground mining of block i in period t

t: A confidence level in the form of the leastprobability of fulfilling the demand in period t

g~i: Grade of block i, which is a random variable

E(g~i): Expected value of the random variable g~i

var(g~i): Variance estimation of the random variable g~i

cov(g~ti, g

~tj ): Covariance between g~i and g~j �


VOLUME 117 1153 �

BACKGROUND

B eing the seventh conference in the series, the Diamonds – Source to Use conferences target the fullspectrum of the diamond pipeline from exploration through to sales and marketing. The last conferencein this series (Diamonds – Still Sparkling) was held in Botswana in 2016 and it is now returning to Jo-

hannesburg, where it was last held in 2013

11 June 2018 — Workshop: SAMREC/SAMVAL Reporting – Diamond Projects

12–13 June 2018 — Conference • 14 June 2018 — Technical Visits

Birchwood Conference Centre (Jet Park, Johannesburg)

The State of the Diamond Market

E. Blom, Blom Diamonds (Pty) LtdFinancing Diamond Projects

J. Campbell, Botswana Diamonds PLC

Sponsors:

For further information contact:

Camielah Jardine • Head of Conferencing · SAIMMP O Box 61127 • Marshalltown 2107

Tel: (011) 834-1273/7 •n Fax: (011) 833-8156 or (011) 838-5923E-mail: [email protected] • Website: http://www.saimm.co.za

>> 6–7 June 2018

>> Johanneburg, South Africa

Whatever terminology you wish to use, it is obvious isthat the world of work is changing rapidly.

The Mining Industry, along the Mining Value Chain, hasto be a part of this in order to remain competitive, and toreach its ambition of Zero Harm.

Mining businesses in Africa need to join this journey, tostay alive, or be left behind. This event is a showcase andlearning experience for everyone people associated withthe Mining Industry, to learn about Global Best Practices,to network with global leaders in mining and otherbusinesses, and to do so in an exciting and interactiveformat that we have never used before.

Be prepared to be BLOWN AWAY and to come awayexcited, informed and modernized!

DON’T MISS THE BOAT!

THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION JOURNEYThe Internet of Things

FOURTH INDUSTRIALREVOLUTION

INN

OV

AT

ION

Mining Value Chain

COMPETITIVE

Zer

o H

arm

Glo

bal B

est

Prac

tices

Mining

Mining

DIGITAL REVOLUTION

global leadersexciting

netw

ork

INTERACTIVE

AMBI

TIO

N

informed

futureCOMPUTER

SHOWCASE

Digitalization in MiningConference 2018

‘Mining business make-over –Exploiting the digital revolution’

Contact: Head of Conferencing, Camielah Jardine · Tel: +27 11 834-1273/7

Fax: +27 11 833-8156 or +27 11 838-5923 · E-mail: [email protected] · Website: http://www.saimm.co.za

Call for papers/presentations>> Submission of abstracts 28 February 2018

>> Submission of papers/presentations 9 April 2018

Conference Announcement

Brandt (2017) recently undertook a study todetermine the near-surface wave attenuationfactor (kappa) of Far West Rand micro-events and Sasolburg coal mine explosions.The values of = 0.048 seconds (micro-events) and = 0.098 seconds (explosions)were found to be much higher than for a stablecontinental region where = approximately0.0006 seconds (e.g. Atkinson, 1996; Douglaset al., 2010). Brandt (2017) ascribed thishigher value obtained for to (1) additionalnear-surface wave attenuation at the shallowfocus of both micro-events and explosions;and (2) the effect of the implosive component(micro-events) or explosive component(explosions) not accounted for in the Brunesource model (Brune, 1970, 1971). These twofactors differentiate mining-related events andexplosions from tectonic earthquakes thathave (1) deeper focal depths (Brandt, 2014)and (2) a source mechanism that may bedescribed by a double couple (McGarr, 2002).The purpose of the initial investigation by theauthor (Brandt, 2017) was to derive a valuefor mining-related that will be useful in

determining the attenuation relation requiredby spectral analysis when calculating momentmagnitude, Mw, for S-waves using theseismograms recorded by the South AfricanNational Seismograph Network (SANSN).

However, no analyses are available for from tectonic earthquakes in South Africa forcomparison. Some doubt remains whether thevalue of = 0.048 seconds for mining-relatedevents is appropriate for shallow, non double-couple sources. Recently, a unique opportunitypresented itself when the seismic waves,originating from a magnitude 3.8 earthquakeoff the coast of Durban on 6 February 2016 at09:00:01 GMT, were clearly recorded by fivestations of the SANSN, including station Parys(PRYS), with which Brandt (2017) hadpreviously determined for micro-events andexplosions. In this study, the author used theSEISAN earthquake analysis software(Havskov and Ottemöller, 2010) and Scilabopen-source software (2012) to determine for eastern South Africa using data from thisearthquake. The author employed a Fourieracceleration spectral analysis of the seismicsignals in eastern South Africa recorded bynearby regional, suitably calibratedseismograph stations that had been properlyinstalled on bedrock. This study follows themethod by Douglas et al. (2010), who deriveda kappa model for France, but has adapted thisapproach for vertical component seismograms.The advantage of using this adapted approachis that the spectral analysis will be backwardlycompatible to the 1990s, when waveformrecording by the SANSN was carried out onvertical-component seismographs only(Saunders et al., 2008). It was envisaged thatthe resultant would be useful for a

Near-surface wave attenuation (kappa)of an earthquake near Durban, SouthAfricaby M.B.C. Brandt

The near-surface wave attenuation factor (kappa), which describes theattenuation of seismic waves over distance in the top 1–3 km of theEarth’s crust, was determined for eastern South Africa using data recordedby five stations of the South African National Seismograph Network. Theauthor carried out the analysis on data from an earthquake withmagnitude 3.8 that occurred off the coast of Durban on 6 February 2016 at09:00:01 GMT. For the analysis, the author selected a 30-second windowfor the S-phase portion of the vertical component seismogram. The resultwas an average = 0.021 ± 0.0007 seconds, which is lower than = 0.048seconds for micro-events in the Far West Rand and much lower than =0.098 seconds for explosions at Sasolburg coal mines (Brandt, 2017).Kappa was found to be higher than for a stable continental region ( =approx. 0.0006 seconds). This is likely due to the narrow frequency rangebetween 4 Hz and 9 Hz, as well as the small data-set employed during thisanalysis.

kappa, near-surface seismic attenuation, tectonic earthquake, spectralanalysis.

* Council for Geoscience, Geophysics Competency,South Africa.

© The Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, 2017. ISSN 2225-6253. Paper receivedJul. 2016; revised paper received Aug. 2017.

1155VOLUME 117 �


Near-surface wave attenuation (kappa) of an earthquake near Durban, South Africa

comparison with the of Far West Rand micro-events andSasolburg coal mine explosions, as well as for the calculationof Mw for tectonic earthquakes in South Africa. However,owing to the limited frequency range of 4–9 Hz of theauthor’s analysis, this derived should not be extrapolatedfor strong ground motion engineering applications.

The present study is a continuation of the work previouslycompleted by Brandt (2017). The reader is referred to thatarticle for the definition of near-surface wave attenuation, ,the two routine methods used to determine , the advancedmethod to determine , and how shapes the sourcespectrum of a small earthquake. In this study, isdetermined by means of definition (1) in Brandt (2017). Thisis the original definition given by Anderson and Hough(1984), but modified here for signals originating from amoderate size earthquake of ML 3.4 rather than for eventslarger than magnitude 5. Figure 1 is a map showing theepicentre of the magnitude 3.8 earthquake off the coast ofDurban that occurred on 6 February 2016 at 09:00:01 GMT,together with the seismograph stations that recorded thesignals at the time. The analyses were performed using thesignals recorded by seismograph stations in eastern SouthAfrica with epicentral distances of 271–640 km. The stationswere suitably calibrated up to a maximum frequency of 9 Hz(beyond which the anti-alias filter influences the signal,which is difficult to calibrate). Moreover, the stations hadbeen properly installed on bedrock, the purpose of which wasto ensure that no unwanted signal distortions oramplifications would occur at the site. Station Parys (PRYS)had been used in the previous study to derive for Far WestRand micro-events (Brandt, 2017) and is included in thepresent data-set for comparison.

The first step in the analysis was to select suitable signalsrecorded by nearby regional stations for further processing.Examples of the semi-automatic selection procedure areshown Figure 2. The S-phase portion of the verticalcomponent seismogram was identified and the correspondingFourier acceleration spectra calculated. The Fourieracceleration S-spectrum and noise spectrum for a 30-second

�

1156 VOLUME 117

(a)

(b)

window preceding the P-phase were plotted together toidentify signals with a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 2.Next, the high-frequency linear downward trend (above 4Hz) in the acceleration spectrum was identified visually bycomparing this spectrum to the theoretical signal spectrumthat had not been corrected for near-surface attenuation.Based on this comparison, Fourier acceleration spectrawithout an obvious high-frequency linear trend were rejected.Finally, three lines were semi-automatically fitted (with alinear regression) over the high-frequency linear trendbetween 4–9 Hz, 5–9 Hz, and 4–8 Hz, with = - / , where is the measured slope of the fitted line. Kappa wasdetermined over the frequency range 4–9 Hz. Signals with anunacceptable high-frequency linear downward trend wererejected from further processing if the standard deviation / of the three slopes exceeded 0.01. Figure 3 demonstrates howa signal recorded at station Senekal was rejected. The noisespectrum displayed unwanted signal distortions at 1 Hz, 2.5 Hz, and 8 Hz, which were attributed to a local factor(man-made or geological) that distorted the signalacceleration spectrum.

The average spectrum of all five selected Fourieracceleration spectra (in view of deriving the average =0.021 ± 0.0007 seconds) is shown in Figure 4, together withthe linear fits to the acceleration spectra for thoseseismograph stations not included in Figure 2. Three lineswere again semi-automatically fitted over the averagespectrum high-frequency linear trend to derive averagekappa. Lines were also fitted over the standard deviation perfrequency of the average spectrum and compared with the

arithmetic mean of for stations SOE, PRYS, SLR, NWCL,and POGA to test the consistency of average (i.e. the slopeof the fitted line) with individual analyses. This test requiredthe normalization of the different signal amplitudes to acommon level to account for the attenuation over theepicentral distances ranging from 271–640 km.

Determining average from a tectonic earthquake hasprovided a viable comparison to evaluate whether the valueof = 0.048 seconds is appropriate for mining-related eventswith shallow, non double-couple sources. The result of thisanalysis has yielded a = 0.021 seconds, which is lower than

for micro-events in the Far West Rand, and much lowerthan for explosions at Sasolburg coal mines. However,kappa is higher than for a stable continental region where =approximately 0.0006 seconds (Atkinson, 1996; Douglas etal., 2010). This may be ascribed to the narrow frequencyrange between 4 Hz and 9 Hz as well as the small data-setemployed during the present analysis. Douglas et al. (2010)determined over a broad frequency range between 3 Hz and50 Hz. For their study, the start of the linear downward trendin the acceleration signal spectrum (fE) was generally at 3 Hz,but with a large scatter within the 2–12 Hz range, as hadoriginally been observed by Anderson and Hough (1984).However, it would appear from the present study that fE is


1157VOLUME 117 �

consistently at 4 Hz for all five the stations and that thenarrow frequency range between 4 Hz and 9 Hz is likelydetrimentally affected by broad, local signal distortions (incomparison to the 2 Hz–50 Hz range). Nevertheless, since themoment magnitude for regional earthquakes is calculated bymeans of a spectral analysis of the S-wave using frequenciesbelow 9 Hz, Mw for tectonic earthquakes can now beassigned with more confidence than before.

The result of = 0.024 seconds for a tectonic earthquake,derived by station Parys (PRYS), as shown in Figure 2b, is inagreement (i.e. is lower) with the analysis of Brandt (2017),which yielded a value of = 0.048 seconds for Far WestRand micro-events, using the same station.

The result of the present study is based on a small data-set derived from one earthquake with hypocentre nearDurban, South Africa, and narrow frequency range signalsrecorded by five nearby regional stations. However, thecomparison of derived before for Far West Rand micro-events and Sasolburg coal mine explosions with derived inthis study for the tectonic earthquake using the same station,PRYS, indicates that the analysis techniques are sound. Oncemore earthquake signals are analysed, and specifically whensignals over the frequency range between 3 Hz and 50 Hzbecome available for analysis from suitable tectonic andmine-related events, a more accurate understanding of near-surface wave attenuation for South Africa will emerge.

ANDERSON, J.G. and HOUGH, S.E. 1984. A model for the shape of the Fourieramplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America, vol. 74. pp. 1969–1993.

ATKINSON, G.M. 1996. The high-frequency shape of the source spectrum forearthquakes in eastern and western Canada. Bulletin of the SeismologicalSociety of America, vol. 86. pp. 106–112.

BRANDT, M.B.C. 2014. Focal depths of South African earthquakes and mineevents. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, vol. 114. pp. 1–8.

BRANDT, M.B.C. 2017. Near-surface wave attenuation (kappa) of Far West Randmicro-events. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, vol. 117. pp. 511–516.

BRUNE, J.N. 1970. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves fromearthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 75. pp. 4997–5009.

BRUNE, J.N. 1971. Correction. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 76. p. 5002.DOUGLAS, J., GEHL, P., BONILLA, L.F., and GÉLIS, C. 2010. A kappa model for

mainland France. Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 167. pp. 1303–1315.doi. 10.1007/s00024-010-0146-5

HAVSKOV, J. and OTTEMÖLLER, L. 2010. SEISAN earthquake analysis software forWindows, Solaris, Linux and Macosx. Ver. 8.3. University of Bergen,Norway.

MCGARR, A. 2002. Control of strong ground motion of mining-inducedearthquakes by the strength of seismic rock mass. Journal of the SouthAfrican Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 102. pp. 225–229.

SAUNDERS, I., BRANDT, M.B.C., STEYN, J., ROBLIN, D.L., and KIJKO, A. 2008. TheSouth African National Seismograph Network. Seismological ResearchLetters, vol. 79. pp. 203–210. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.2.203

SCILAB ENTERPRISES. 2012. Scilab: Free and open source software for numericalcomputation (Windows, version 5.5.2). http://www.scilab.org �


�

1158 VOLUME 117

SUBSCRIBEof the SAIMM Journal

TO 12 ISSUESJanuary to December 2018

ORR2157.10LOCAL

US$551.20OVERSEAS

per annum per subscription

For more information please contact: Tshepiso Letsogo

The Journal Subscription Department

Tel: 27-11-834-1273/7 • e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

� Less 15% discount to agents only

� PRE-PAYMENT is required

� The Journal is printed monthly

� Surface mail postage included

� ISSN 2225-6253

� with cutting-edge research � new knowledge on old subjects � in-depth analysis

201825–28 February 2018 — Infacon XV: InternationalFerro-Alloys CongressCentury City Conference Centre and Hotel, Cape Town,South AfricaContact: Gugu CharlieTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

12–14 March 2018 — Society of Mining Professors6th Regional Conference 2018Overcoming challenges in the Mining Industry throughsustainable mining practicesBirchwood Hotel and Conference Centre, Johannesburg,South AfricaContact: Camielah JardineTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

6–7 June 2018 — Digitalization in Mining Conference ‘Mining business make-over –Exploiting the digitalresolution’Johannesburg, South AfricaContact: Camielah JardineTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

11–14 June 2018 — SAIMM: Diamonds — Source toUse 2018 Conference ‘Thriving in Changing Times’Birchwood Conference Centre (Jet Park) Contact: Camielah JardineTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

9–12 July 2018 — Copper Cobalt Africa inassociation with The 9th Southern African BaseMetals ConferenceAvani Victoria Falls Resort, Livingstone, ZambiaContact: Gugu CharlieTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

6–8 August 2018—Geometallurgy Conference2018Johannesburg, South AfricaContact: Camielah JardineTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

10–11 September 2018 — ASM Conference 2018‘Fostering a regional approach to ASM transformationin sub-Saharan Africa’Nasrec, Johannesburg (Electra Mining)Contact: Camielah JardineTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

15–17 October 2018 — Furnace Tapping 2018ConferenceNombolo Mdhluli Conference Centre, Kruger NationalPark, South Africa Contact: Gugu CharlieTel: +27 11 834-1273/7Fax: +27 11 838-5923/833-8156 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

VOLUME 117 �xi

Company AffiliatesThe following organizations have been admitted to the Institute as Company Affiliates

3M South Africa (Pty) Limited

AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd

AEL Mining Services Limited

Air Liquide (Pty) Ltd

AMEC Foster Wheeler

AMIRA International Africa (Pty) Ltd

ANDRITZ Delkor(Pty) Ltd

Anglo Operations Proprietary Limited

Anglogold Ashanti Ltd

Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd

Atlas Copco (SA) (Pty) Ltd

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Aveng Engineering

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground

Axis House (Pty) Ltd

Bafokeng Rasimone Platinum Mine

Barloworld Equipment -Mining

BASF Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd

BCL Limited

Becker Mining (Pty) Ltd

BedRock Mining Support (Pty) Ltd

Bell Equipment Limited

BHP Billiton Energy Coal SA Ltd

Blue Cube Systems (Pty) Ltd

Bluhm Burton Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Bouygues Travaux Publics

CDM Group

CGG Services SA

Chamber of Mines

Concor Opencast Mining

Concor Technicrete

Council for Geoscience Library

CRONIMET Mining Processing SA( Pty) Ltd

CSIR Natural Resources and theEnvironment (NRE)

Data Mine SA

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

Digby Wells and Associates

DRA Mineral Projects (Pty) Ltd

Duraset

Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd

eThekwini Municipality

Expectra 2004 (Pty) Ltd

Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd

Exxaro Resources Limited

Filtaquip (Pty) Ltd

FLSmidth Minerals (Pty) Ltd

Fluor Daniel SA (Pty) Ltd

Franki Africa (Pty) Ltd-JHB

Fraser Alexander (Pty) Ltd

Geobrugg Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Glencore

Hall Core Drilling (Pty) Ltd

Hatch (Pty) Ltd

Herrenknecht AG

HPE Hydro Power Equipment (Pty) Ltd

Impala Platinum Limited

IMS Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Ivanhoe Mines SA

Joy Global Inc. (Africa)

Kudumane Manganese Resources

Leco Africa (Pty) Limited

Longyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Lonmin Plc

Lull Storm Trading (Pty) Ltd

Magnetech (Pty) Ltd

Magotteaux (Pty) Ltd

MBE Minerals SA (Pty) Ltd

MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd

MD Mineral Technologies SA (Pty) Ltd

MDM Technical Africa (Pty) Ltd

Metalock Engineering RSA (Pty)Ltd

Metorex Limited

Metso Minerals (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Minerals Operations Executive (Pty) Ltd

MineRP Holding (Pty) Ltd

Mintek

MIP Process Technologies (Pty) Ltd

Modular Mining Systems Africa (Pty) Ltd

MSA Group (Pty) Ltd

Multotec (Pty) Ltd

Murray and Roberts Cementation

Nalco Africa (Pty) Ltd

Namakwa Sands (Pty) Ltd

Ncamiso Trading (Pty) Ltd

New Concept Mining (Pty) Ltd

Northam Platinum Ltd - Zondereinde

PANalytical (Pty) Ltd

Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers(Pty) Ltd

Perkinelmer

Polysius A Division Of ThyssenkruppIndustrial Sol

Precious Metals Refiners

Rand Refinery Limited

Redpath Mining (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Rocbolt Technologies

Rosond (Pty) Ltd

Royal Bafokeng Platinum

Roytec Global (Pty) Ltd

Runge Pincock Minarco Limited

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited

Salene Mining (Pty) Ltd

Sandvik Mining and Construction Delmas(Pty) Ltd

Sandvik Mining and Construction RSA(Pty) Ltd

SANIRE

Sasol Mining

Sebilo Resources (Pty) Ltd

Sebilo Resources (Pty) Ltd

SENET (Pty) Ltd

Senmin International (Pty) Ltd

Smec South Africa

SMS group Technical Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Sound Mining Solution (Pty) Ltd

SRK Consulting SA (Pty) Ltd

Technology Innovation Agency

Time Mining and Processing (Pty) Ltd

Timrite Pty Ltd

Tomra (Pty) Ltd

Ukwazi Mining Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Umgeni Water

Webber Wentzel

Weir Minerals Africa

Worley Parsons RSA (Pty) Ltd

�

xii VOLUME 117

SSociety of Mining ProfessorsSocietät der Bergbaukunde

The Mining Engineering Education South Africa (MEESA) will hostthe Society of Mining Professors (SOMP) 6th Regional Conferencewith the theme: Overcoming challenges in the Mining Industrythrough sustainable mining practices. The Society of MiningProfessors is a vibrant Society representing the global academiccommunity and committed to making a significant contribution to thefuture of the minerals disciplines. The main goal of the Society is toguarantee the scientific, technical, academic and professionalknowledge required to ensure a sustainable supply of minerals formankind. The Society facilitates information exchange, research andteaching partnerships and other collaborative activities among itsmembers. MEESA is comprised of the School of Mining Engineeringat the University of Witwatersrand, the Department of MiningEngineering at the University of Pretoria, the Department of MiningEngineering at the University of Johannesburg and the Departmentof Mining Engineering at the University of South Africa.The 6th Regional Conference gives a platform to academics,researchers, government officials, Minerals Industry professionalsand other stakeholders an opportunity to interact, exchange andanalyse the challenges and opportunities within the MineralsIndustry. For any country to develop technologically andeconomically there must be a strong link between its industry,government & academic institutions. This conference will puttogether the role-players of the Mineral Industry from within andoutside South Africa.

The main aim of this conference is to facilitate information exchange.It is known that the mining industry is currently faced with bigchallenges ranging from the technical skills shortage, deep orebodies, declining ore grades, challenges linked to processing oreswith complex mineralogy, water quality and supply to the everescalating energy costs and sustainability amongst others(Musiyarira et al., 2014). To address some of these challenges theremust be a strong link between its industry, government & academicinstitutions. This will only happen when all the role-playerscollaboratively work together. The set-up of this conference is suchthat it allows the interaction between the Minerals Industry playersand the academics.

The conference will feature peer reviewed technical presentationsfrom academic, government and Industry professionals on a widerange of topics. While outlining the Conference programme, greatemphasis is laid on participants’ interaction in addition to thepresentations. The conference will be structured as follows:

� Two-day technical programme with peer-reviewed papers � Relevant discussion workshops� Field trips and site tours� Networking opportunities� Keynote lecturers

The Conference is being organised by Society of Mining Professors(SOMP) in collaboration with the Mining Engineering EducationSouth Africa (MEESA) and The Southern African Institute of Miningand Metallurgy (SAIMM). The Conference presenters are well-knownand highly respected experts in their fields, and will cover a widerange of topics. Presentations will be followed by discussions.

The Conference will be of benefit to the Minerals Industryprofessionals, academics, non-government, government officers andother stakeholders.

For all enquiries please contact:Chair: Associate Prof Rudrajit MitraTelephone: +27 (011) 717 7572 | Email: [email protected] of SOMP Committee on Capacity Building: Dr HarmonyMusiyariraHead of Conferencing: Camielah Jardine SAIMM, P O Box 61127, Marshalltown 2107Tel: +27 (0) 11 834-1273/7 · E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.saimm.co.za

Society of Mining Professors 6th Regional Conference 2018Overcoming challenges in the Mining Industry through sustainable mining practices

12–13 March 2018 — Conference

14 March 2018— Technical Visit

Birchwood Hotel and Conference Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa

The Society of Mining Professors (SOMP) in collaboration with the Mining Engineering Education South Africa (MEESA) andThe Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM)

is proud to host

Fraser Alexander is your trusted mining services partner, delivering world-

class outsourced services across the entire mining value chain. Operating

in the mining industry since 1912, the company has been growing its

innovative business across the globe.

OUR FOOTPRINTOur presence spans across Botswana, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mali, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

VISION‘To be the preferred outsourcing mining services partner in Africa’

MISSION‘We provide outsourced services and solutions to mining & heavy industry’

OUR TOTAL SERVICE OFFERING

We provide outsourced services and related infrastructure to move, manage and add value to minerals, waste and water.

Mining• Hydraulic mining of

tailings• Mechanical remining

of tailings and coal discards

ProcessingOperation and maintenance of:• Mineral processing

plants• Crushing and

screening plants• Water treatment plants

Moving• Load and haul of

waste and tailings• Dry bulk materials

handling• Slurry pumps and

pipelines

DepositionOperation and maintenance of:• Tailings disposal

facilities• Discard dumps

Construction• Pre-deposition works

for tailings and waste facilities

• Civil infrastructure• Bulk, engineered

earthworks

[email protected] | South Africa: +27 11 929 3600 | Zambia: +260 968 3229 68 | www.fraseralexander.co.za

volume 117 no. 12 december 2017 - saimm · 2018-01-16 · iso 9001 iso 18001 iso 14001 postal...

Documents