Discussions - Reserves, Resources, And Pie-In-The-Sky - Technical Papers, Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 10, October, 1984, pp. 1446 -1450 – Grace, K. A.

A. Cook K.A. Grace's article advocates usage of the terms describing resources as defined by the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). Originally recommended in 1943, the terms were revised in 1976 and again in 1980. Mr. Grace further recommends that the term reserves should be severely restricted and that it should encompass mining and processing factors. The list of references quoted in the article does not, however, mention the study concerning reserves that was made over a period of almost four years by a joint Committee on Definitions. This committee was sponsored by three societies - the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), the Society of Economic Geologists (SEG), and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG). Most of the detailed work was done by a working party appointed by the Society of Mining Engineers (SME) of AIME. After studying previous definitions in the US as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and other European countries, the following definitions were proposed and accepted in 1974 by the SME board of directors. (Ore reserve definitions in Rhodesia, South Africa, or New Zealand were not mentioned as having been reviewed. Table 1 lists definitions from MINING ENGINEERING, July 1975. Notice in Table 1 it was mentioned, under Resources, that the definitions of reserves were recommended for the purposes of commercial evaluation. It was further stated that the terminology adopted by the USBM and the USGS, as released to the public, covering resources, was recognized as such. Mr. Grace also recommends that reserve calculations should allow for future losses in ore tonnage, ore grade, milling, and smelting. Unfortunately, it might take years to develop a prospect after it has been discovered. Mining methods have to be tested before being finalized in order to know what tonnage of ore is going to be lost, or how much dilution is likely to occur. The same problems are present in concentrating or in smelting. Operating mines usually know how mined grade compares with ore reserve grade. They can usually predict fairly closely what their final metal recoveries are probably going to be. It is, however, expecting too much to have to delay quoting reserves from say a recently drilled prospect. Any responsible mining geologist or mining engineer (or company for that matter) should state several things about an ore reserve calculation: that it is or is not a preliminary estimate only; that estimated grades have not been diluted to allow for a future, as yet unknown, mining method; that metal recoveries are or are not only tentative, based perhaps on drill hole samples only or on no metallurgical testing at all. [ ] Reserves of a partially explored prospect are always quoted when it becomes necessary to raise capital. If they are described as preliminary only (really just tonnage and grade estimates and not true "reserves") in addition to being accompanied by some of the items just mentioned, nobody is going to be misled. If, on the other hand, a report by a member of the SME or SEG is intentionally misleading, the individual must be reported and eventually disbarred from his or her society. To summarize, let us stay with the definitions of ore, ore reserves, and related terms as recommended and accepted by SME. I might add that on occasion I have used a fourth category in my ore reserve calculations, namely Geologically Possible Ore. This category is more or less the same as Inferred ore defined by the USBM and USGS. I have never given a grade to this category, which may be based only on geological mapping, geochemical sampling, or geophysical traversing. ?