A historical review of recommendations for reporting exploration results, mineral resources and mineral reserves

This paper is a companion to, and amplification of, the ?History? section of the 2014 version of the SME Guide for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves (SME Guide). The need for the careful examination and evaluation of mineral deposits has long been recognized. In the book De Re Metallica, Georgius Agricola noted, ?Moreover, a prudent owner, before he buys shares, ought to go to the mine and carefully examine the nature of the vein, for it is very important that he should be on his guard lest fraudulent sellers of shares should deceive him? (1556, p.29). Agricola further stated, ?Now a miner, before he begins to mine the veins, must consider seven things, namely: the situation, the conditions, the water, the roads, the climate, the right of ownership and the neighbors? (1556, p. 30). The elements of Agricola?s seven things, much expanded, are incorporated into the 2014 SME Guide. As reflected in this quotation, veins were the primary concern of mining until 20th century technology permitted bulk mining techniques. The need for standardization of reserve descriptions arose along with the development of western mining in the United States and the concurrent development of mining engineering and mining geology as professions. By the turn of the century, debate about terminology of various classes of reserves was in full swing. Herbert Hoover noted in 1909 (p. 16-17), ?The old terms ?ore in sight? and ?profit in sight? have been of late years subject to much malediction on the part of engineers because these expressions have been so badly abused by the charlatans of mining in attempts to cover the flights of their imaginations. A large part of Volume I of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy has been devoted to heaping infamy on these terms, yet not only have they preserved their places in professional nomenclature, but nothing has been found to supersede them. ?Some general term is required in daily practice to cover the available field of visible ore, and if the phrase ?ore in sight? be defined, it will be easier to teach the layman its proper use than to abolish it. In fact, substitutes are becoming as badly abused as the originals ever were. All convincing expressions will be misused by somebody.? Hoover (1909) noted that the common terms at the time were: ? Positive ore or ore developed: Ore exposed on four sides in blocks of a prescribed size. ? Ore blocked out: Ore exposed on three sides within a reasonable distance of each other. ? Probable ore or ore developing: Ore exposed on two sides, ? Possible ore or ore expectant: Ore in whole or in part below or beyond the range of vision. Hoover stated that these, and similar terms, overlapped and had the difficulty of failing to account properly for geologic variation in metal distribution beyond the exposed face. Certainly assuming extension of values along a vein is reasonable, but how far? Also, these definitions are for vein deposits, not all types of deposits are in veins. Hoover (1909, p. 19), therefore, defined the following terms. ? Proved ore: Ore where there is practically no risk in failure of continuity. ? Probable ore: Ore where there is some risk, yet warrantable justification for assumption of continuity. ? Prospective ore: Ore that cannot be included in the above classes, nor definitely known or stated in any terms of tonnage.