Control Sample Insertion Rate: Is There an Industry Standard?

Armando Simón, Ph.D., R.P.Geo.2

Keywords: QA/QC, insertion rate, industry standard, exploration, mining.

Abstract

There is no definite consensus in the mining industry about the existence of an industry
standard for the QA/QC sample insertion rate, which has a clear economic significance in the
budget of an exploration program. If a reasonably sound answer is required, the proper way to
approach this problem is to inquire the industry. Four sources have been consulted: well known
3
international QA/QC consultants, SEDAR -filed technical reports, regulatory organizations, and
information published in the Internet by exploration and mining companies in web sites and
press releases. This review demonstrates that there is a preference in the mining industry for
total insertion rates of QA/QC samples close to 20%, including duplicates, standards, blanks
and external checks.

Introduction

Quality Assurance/Quality Control in exploration geology is not a new invention.

However, according to the author’s experience in auditing exploration and mining
projects in various continents, rigorous geological QA/QC programs were uncommon
until recent years, even in projects and mines run by major mining companies.

After the infamous Bre-X affair, strict policies were implemented by all major regulatory
bodies. In spite of the fact that comprehensive QA/QC programs are not abundant yet,
junior and major companies are increasingly interested in implementing such
programs, particularly when public financing is required.

Unfortunately, their initial interest is often followed by shock and, sometimes, even by
anger, when project management realizes that the implementation of a QA/QC
program involves certain modifications, always upwards, in the exploration budget. The
insertion of various types of control samples within the ordinary batches implies a
directly proportional increase in the handling, preparation and analytical expenses of up
to 20% in average, not mentioning the extra cost for the acquisition of commercial
certified reference materials (CRM), or for the preparation of in-house CRM. Although
the overall cost increase of the implementation of a QA/QC program is relatively
reduced, not exceeding usually 1% to 2% of the total exploration costs, the
psychological impact of the first figure cannot be neglected.

Reluctance for implementation of QA/QC programs does not arise only from
management or from budgetary constraints. Control insertions also require improved
organization in the sampling process, database preparation, and data processing.

1
The Association of Applied Geochemistry. 23rd International Applied Geochemistry Symposium
(IAGS), Oviedo, Spain, 14-19 June 2007.
2
AMEC International Chile S.A. Ave. Américo Vespucio 100 Sur, Of. 203, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
Phone: (56-2)-210-9500. E-mail: [email protected].
3
SEDAR: System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval, Canadian Securities Administration.
www.sedar.com.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 1

Project geologists not always understand the need for such additional efforts, and often
complain about these supposedly “redundant” control measures.

The author emphasizes that the purpose of this note is not to discuss the QA/QC
principles, but to review some of the most commonly recommended and applied
practices regarding the insertion rate of control samples in the mining industry.

New Regulations on QA/QC

Technical reports written under the specifications of Canadian NI 43-101, for example,
should specify whether a Qualified Person has verified the data on which this
information is based, including sampling, analysis and tests. These reports should also
describe in detail the QA/QC program and the nature and limitation of the verification,
and should explain any problem encountered during data verification (CSA, 2005a,
2005b).

In another example, a Competent Person report following the Australian JORC Code
should thoroughly describe the nature, quality and appropriate selection of sampling
and analytical procedures, as well as the quality control procedures, including the
insertion of certified reference materials (CRM), blanks, duplicates and external
checks, and assess the actual accuracy and precision levels attained during the project
(JORC, 2004).

Nevertheless, the new regulations avoid suggesting precise figures for quality control
insertion rates, which remain at the latitude of the Qualified or Competent Person.
Consequently, the control sample insertion rate becomes a frequent source of
disagreement between auditors and QA/QC specialists, on one hand, and project
management and geologists on the other.

QA/QC Insertion Rate: Is There an Industry Standard?

The author has not found anywhere a clear definition of a QA/QC industry standard
regarding the control sample insertion rate. What is the meaning of industry standard?
What can be understood as a best practice? Rogers (1998) discusses the difference
between industry standard and best practices:

“So-called ‘widely accepted’ or ‘industry standards’ practices most neither be

confused with ‘best practices’ nor with standards. There are many procedures
widely accepted by the mining industry that are adequate in some situations but
inadequate in others. Moreover, such acceptance is not universal.”

However, if a reasonably sound answer is required, the proper way to approach this
problem is to inquire the industry. Four main sources have been consulted during the
preparation of this paper: well known international QA/QC consultants, SEDAR4-filed
technical reports, regulatory organizations, and information published in the Internet by
exploration and mining companies in web sites and press releases. In addition, general
recommendations from regulatory bodies were consulted, whenever available.

International QA/QC Consultants

The opinions of recognized international QA/QC consultants, condensed from papers

prepared during the last nine years, are summarized below (Table 1):

4
SEDAR: System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval, Canadian Securities Administration.
www.sedar.com.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 2

 • Rogers (1998) recommends an internal control using duplicates, CRMs and
blanks in a proportion of 1 in 20 samples, and submitting 5% of the samples to
an independent lab.
• Vallée (1998) stresses the importance of systematic verifications of the sub-
sampling and assaying protocols, and refers to a 10% of reference samples
(duplicates, blanks) inserted by many companies in lots sent for assaying, in
addition to a ‘somewhat lower figure for rock sampling’.
• Neuss (1998) refers the Outokumpu’s experience in QA/QC best practices. His
recommended program includes 2% to 5% field duplicates, 5% to 10% coarse
reject duplicates, 5% to 10% internal duplicates (assayed at the primary
laboratory) and 5% to 10% external checks (assayed at the secondary
laboratory), in addition to at least one CRM and one blank in every submission.
• Long (1998, 2000) suggest the following insertion rates: 5% coarse reject
duplicates, 5% pulp duplicates, 5% CRMs, one blank per batch (approx. 3% to
5%), and for check assays, a portion of the pulp duplicates (3%?).

• Sketchley (1999) considers that a batch of 20 samples should include at least

one CRM (5%), one blank (5%) and one duplicate (5%). If the laboratory control
of the analytical system is suspect and cross-contamination between samples is
likely, additional CRMs and blanks should be considered. In addition, he states
that all duplicate pulp samples should be also analyzed at an independent
facility to monitor accuracy and contamination.
• Bloom (1999) recommends inserting 5% blanks and 5% CRMs (control
samples) and routinely sending 10% of the pulps to an umpire lab (check
samples). In addition, she recommends the use of field duplicates, but does not
suggest any particular insertion rate. In her view, a minimum quality control
program would consist of a 15% insertion rate (5% control samples + 10%
check samples). She also quotes a study prepared by ACA Howe International
on ten exploration programs, for which the direct assaying costs contributed to
3.4% to 14.5% of the total budget, averaging 7%. On this basis, Bloom (1999)
estimates that the implementation of a minimum QA/QC program should
represent in average approximately 1% of the overall program.
• Lomas (2004) recommends that for a twenty-sample batch in a copper project,
one coarse reject duplicate (5%), one blank (5%), one CRM (5%) and one pulp
duplicate (5%) should be inserted. In addition, she recommends that 5% of the
pulp duplicates be submitted for control to an external lab.

Other authors (Davis, 1998; Voortman, 1998) are not specific about the insertion
frequency of control samples, but advocate for the insertion of field and pulp duplicates,
CRMs, coarse and pulp blanks, and the submission of check samples to reference
labs.

As observed in Table 1, a general agreement seems to exist between international

QA/QC consultants about recommending in average overall insertion rates of control
samples close to 20%.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 3

Table 1. QA/QC Programs: Suggested Insertion Rates by Various Authors

Source Details Suggested

Proportion of
Control Samples
Rogers (1998) Duplicates, CRMs, blanks: one in twenty; external Approx. 20%
checks: 5%
Vallée (1998) 10% duplicate plus CRMs, a ‘somewhat lower Approx. 15% (?)
figure’ for rock sampling (?)
Neuss (1998) 2%-5% field duplicates, 2%-5% coarse duplicates, Approx. 19% to
5%-10% internal pulp duplicates, 5%-10% external 25%
pulp duplicates, plus one CRM and one blank in
every submission
Long (1998, 5% coarse reject duplicates, 5% pulp duplicates, Approx. 21%
2000) 5% CRMs, one blank per batch (approx. 3%),
check assays, a portion of the pulp duplicates (3%)
Sketchley (1999) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one CRM, Approx. 20%
one duplicate; in addition, all pulp duplicates
should be re-assayed at check lab
Bloom (1999) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one CRM; in Approx. 20%
addition, sending one in ten sample pulps to an
umpire lab
Lomas (2004) In a twenty-sample batch: one blank, one CRM, Approx. 25%
one coarse duplicate and one pulp duplicate; in
addition, 5% of the pulps should be re-assayed at
check lab (including CRMs)

SEDAR-filed Technical Reports

A second source for commonly used insertion rates in the mining industry is
represented by technical reports published in the SEDAR system. The author reviewed
a random selection of recently published technical reports (16) resulting from placing
Google® queries5 for “technical report”, “insertion rate”, “qa/qc” and “43-101”, with no
preference for region, size of the company or type of mineral. Not all of the consulted
reports had definite figures to describe the QA/QC protocols, but those with detailed
data are listed below:

• Porcupine Project, Canada (GoldCorp): Coarse rejects: 5%; coarse blanks: 5%:
pulp duplicates: 5%; CRMs, 5%; check samples: 5%. Total: 25%. Source:
AMEC (2006)
• Modder East Load Project, South Africa (sxr Uranium One Inc. and Aflease
Gold Ltd.): Coarse blanks: 2%; CRMs, 9%; pulp duplicates: 11%; check
samples: 2%. Total: 23%. Source: SRK (2007).
• Perama Hill Project, Greece (Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation): Duplicates,
10%; other control samples: 9%. Total, approx. 19%. Source: RPA (2004).
• Nuestra Señora, Mexico (Scorpio Mining Corporation): Coarse duplicates,
2.5%; CRMs+blanks, 2.5%; pulp duplicates, 5%; pulp check samples, 5%;
coarse reject check samples, 2.5%. Total: 17.5%. Source: CAM (2006).
• Twangiza Project, Congo (Banro Corporation): 2% coarse blanks, 8% CRMs; in
addition, check assays (proportion not specified). Total: 15% (?). Source: Skead
(2006).
• Mirador Project, Ecuador (Corriente Resources): Coarse duplicates: 5%; pulp
duplicates: 5%; CRMs: 5%. Total: 15%. Source: MDA (2006).

5
Date of the queries: October 27, 2006.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 4

 • HC Property, Nevada (J-Pacific Gold): 5% twin samples, 5%; coarse duplicates,
5%; pulp duplicates, 5%. Total: 15%. Source: Durgin (2005).
• Pueblo Viejo, Dominican Republic (Placer Dome): 10% of CRMs and blanks.
Source: AMEC (2005).

A general trend for using a 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of control samples
(blanks, duplicates, CRMs, check assays) can be observed, although in some cases
particular sample subtypes are ignored. The insertion rate is less than 17% only when
check assays are not included. An acceptable average is approximately 18%, with
minor differences in some particular types of samples. The lack of duplicates in the
Pueblo Viejo program invalidates it as an element for comparison.

In many of the studied examples, only one CRM was included in the QA/QC program.
When various CRMs were considered, sometimes there was no correlation between
the grade levels of the CRMs and the actual sample grades. Not infrequently, the
author has reviewed projects where CRMs have below cut-off values, or even close-to-
detection-limit levels.

Information from Exploration and Mining Companies

This information has been obtained mainly from press releases published in the
Internet by a random selection of exploration and/or mining companies. The selection
resulted from placing Google® queries6 using “exploration”, “mining”, “qa/qc” and
“insertion rate” as key words. Unfortunately, most companies do not offer details of
their QA/QC protocols in the press releases, but the author could find some examples:

• Carpathian Gold (Colnic, Romania): Coarse blanks, 5%; CRMs, 4%; Check
samples, 20% (before AMEC’s Technical Report in 2006). Total: 29%. Source:
www.carpathiangold.com/site06/images/CheckCode.pdf.
• African Copper (Dukwe Project, Botswana): approx. 20% control samples.
Source: www.mineweb.net/co_releases/302480.htm.
• Aurelian Resources, FDN epithermal Au-Ag: CRMs, duplicates and blanks,
15%; in addition, samples from significant drill intercepts are sent to two
reference laboratories. Total: 18% (?). Source:
www.aurelian.ca/dynamic/press/pr-2006-08-21.pdf.
• GlobeStar Mining. Regular practice: Duplicates: 4%; CRMs, 4%; blanks, 4%;
check samples, 4%. Total: 16%. Source:
www.globestarmining.com/content/standards.php.
• Cambridge Mineral Resources: blanks, 5%; duplicates, 5%; CRMs; 5%. Total:
15%. Source: www.cambmin.co.uk/?page=press_releases&num=61.
• Scorpio Mining Corporation (Nuestra Señora, Mexico): Coarse duplicates,
2.5%; CRMs, 2.5%; check assays: 5% pulps, 2.5% coarse rejects. Total:
12.5%. Source: www.scorpiomining.com/i/pdf/QAQC-NS.pdf.
• Belvedere Resources: 12% control samples (only CRMs, blanks and
duplicates). Source: www.belvedere-resources.com/rss/

The same general trend for using a 4% to 5% insertion rate for each type of control
samples (blanks, duplicates, CRMs, check assays) is observed. With the exception of
the Nuestra Señora Project, the insertion rate is less than 16% only when check
assays are not included. An acceptable average is approximately 20%, with minor
differences in some particular types of samples.

6
Date of the queries: October 27, 2006.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 5

Regulatory Bodies

In 1999 the TSE and the Ontario Securities Commission prepared a document which
later became the basis of NI 43-101 (CSA, 2005a). The document, named Setting New
Standards (TSE-OSC, 1999), recommended that in a sample batch of 20 samples
there should be a duplicate sample, a coarse blank, and a CRM. The document also
recommended that previously assayed pulps be re-submitted to the same lab (rate not
stated) and to another lab as check assays (rate not stated). The first three control
samples would represent an overall 15% insertion rate, and the additional pulp re-
assays (internal and external to the primary lab) would probably take the total to a
figure close to 20%.

A Typical Example

A comprehensive QA/QC program should allow assessing the sampling, sub-sampling

and analytical variances, as well as analytical accuracy and possible contamination
during preparation and assaying.

The QA/QC programs should be tailored to the specific needs of each project.
Whereas an overall insertion rate of 20% can be in principle recommended, the
individual proportions of the various types of control samples should reflect the
problems with higher probability of occurrence. With the advance of the QA/QC
program and the identification and correction of those problems, the amounts and
relative proportions of control samples can be adjusted accordingly.

For an initial core drilling QA/QC program, AMEC would recommend the following
control sample insertion rates (Table 2):

Table 2. Core Drilling QA/QC Programs: AMEC’s Suggested Insertion Rates

Sample Type Sample Sub-Type QA/QC Label Insertion Rate

Twin Samples* TS 2%
Duplicates (6%) Coarse Duplicates* CD 2% 6%
Pulp Duplicates* PD 2%
CRMs (6%) CRMs* CRM 6% 6%
Coarse Blanks* CB 2%
Blanks (4%) 4%
Pulp Blanks* PB 2%
Check Samples (6%) Check Samples** CS 4% 4%
* To be assayed by the primary laboratory; ** To be assayed by the secondary
laboratory.

It should be emphasized that the external check batches should also include pulp
duplicates, CRMs and pulp blanks in appropriate proportions, so that precision,
accuracy and possible contamination at the secondary laboratory could be
independently assessed.

Conclusions

• A general agreement appears to exist between the consulted sources

(international consultants, SEDAR-filed technical reports, published company
information and documents from regulatory bodies) about an average
recommended insertion rate of control samples of approximately 20%.
• Most companies do not differentiate the duplicates subtypes (twin samples,
coarse and pulp duplicates) or blank subtypes (coarse and pulp blanks), all of

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 6

 them with different functions in a comprehensive and properly conducted
QA/QC program.
• In many of the studied examples, only one CRM was included in the QA/QC
program. When various CRMs were considered, sometimes there was no
correlation between the grade levels of the CRMs and the actual sample
grades. A common situation was using CRMs with below cut-off values, or even
with close-to-detection-limit levels.
• The implementation of a comprehensive QA/QC program would represent, in
average, an increase of 1% to 2% of the total exploration costs.

Recommendations

• The QA/QC programs should be tailored to the specific needs of each project.
Whereas an overall insertion rate of 20% can be in principle recommended, the
individual proportions of the various types of control samples should reflect the
problems with higher probability of occurrence. With the advance of the QA/QC
program and the identification and correction of those problems, the amounts
and relative proportions of control samples can be adjusted accordingly.
• It is essential that QA/QC programs are comprehensive, including all types and
subtypes of control samples, namely twin samples, coarse and pulp duplicates,
coarse and pulp blanks, CRMs corresponding to relevant grade values, and
external check samples, so that precision, accuracy and possible contamination
at the various points in the sampling-preparation-assaying sequence are
properly assessed.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 7

References

AMEC (2005): Pueblo Viejo Project, Province of Sánchez Ramírez, Dominican

Republic. NI 43-101 Technical Report. Report prepared by AMEC
Americas Limited for Goldcorp Inc. Project # 147107, October 16, 2005.
Published at www.sedar.com.
AMEC (2006): Review of Porcupine Joint Venture Operation, Ontario, Canada.
NI 43-101 Technical Report. Report prepared by AMEC Americas
Limited for Goldcorp Corporation. Project # 152236, August 28, 2006.
Published at www.sedar.com.
Skead, M. (2006): Twangiza Project, South Kivu Province, Democratic Republic
of the Congo. NI 43-101 Technical Report. Report prepared for Banro
Corporation. March 30, 2006. Published at www.sedar.com.
Bloom, L. (1999). The role of economic geologists in evaluating assay data
quality. Manuscript.
CAM (2006): Nuestra Señora Project, Sinaloa, Mexico. NI 43-101 Technical
Report. Report prepared by Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer, LLC. for
Scorpio Mining Corporation. Project # 047251, April 17, 2006. Published
at www.sedar.com.
CSA (2005a). National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects, Canadian Securities Administrators.
CSA (2005b). Companion Polity 43-101CP to National Instrument 43-101,
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, Canadian Securities
Administrators.
Davis, B. (1998). What is a sample? What does it represent? In: More
Meaningful Sampling in the Mining Industry. Australian Institute of
Geoscientists, Bull. Nr. 2, 1998, pp. 39-45.
Durgin, D. (2005): 2004 Year-End Technical Report Hc Property Eureka County,
Nevada. Report prepared for J-Pacific Gold, Inc. March 17, 2005.
Published at www.sedar.com.
JORC (2004). Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore
Reserves - The JORC Code 2004 Edition. The Joint Ore Reserves
Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Mineral Council of Australia.
Lomas, S. (2004). QAQC Program. General Discussion. AMEC Internal
document.
Long, S. (1998). Practical Quality Control Procedures in Mineral Inventory
Estimation. In: Quality Assurance, Continuous Quality Improvement and
Standards in Mineral Resource Estimation. Exploration and Mining
Geology, V.7, Nr. 1 and 2, 1998, pp. 117-127.
Long, S. (2000). Assay Quality Assurance-Quality Control Program for Drilling
Projects at the Prefeasibility to Feasibility Report Level (3rd. Ed.). MRDI,
Internal report.
MDA (2006): Technical Report Update on the Copper, Gold, and Silver
Resources and Pit Optimizations, Mirador Project, Ecuador. Report
prepared by Mine Development Associates for Corriente Resources Inc.
Project # 775-856-5700, May 18, 2006. Published at www.sedar.com.
Neuss, I. (1998). Sampling “Legends” – What Can We Learn from Busang? In:
More Meaningful Sampling in the Mining Industry. Australian Institute of
Geoscientists, Bull. Nr. 2, 1998, pp. 109-118.
Rogers, R.S. (1998). Forensic Geology and Mineral Exploration Projects. In:
Quality Assurance, Continuous Quality Improvement and Standards in
Mineral Resource Estimation. Exploration and Mining Geology, V.7, Nr. 1
and 2, 1998, pp. 25-27.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 8

 RPA (2004): Report on Perama Hill Gold Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate,
Greece. NI 43-101 Technical Report. Report prepared by Roscoe Postle
Associates Inc. for Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation. May 13, 2004.
Published at www.sedar.com.
Skead, M.B. (2006). NI 43-101 Technical Report, Twangiza Project, South Kivu
Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Report prepared by Banro
Corporation, March 30, 2006.
SRK (2007): Dominion Uranium Project North-West Province, Republic of South
Africa. NI 43-101 Technical Report. Report prepared by SRK Consulting
for sxr Uranium One Inc. Project # 370896, March 2, 2007. Published at
www.sedar.com.
TSE-OSC (1999). Setting New Standards: Recommendations for Public Mineral
Exploration and Mining Companies. Toronto Stock Exchange-Ontario
Securities Commission Mining Standards Task Force.
Vallée, M. (1998). Sampling Quality Control. In: Quality Assurance, Continuous
Quality Improvement and Standards in Mineral Resource Estimation.
Exploration and Mining Geology, V.7, Nr. 1 and 2, 1998, pp. 107-116.
Voortman, A.G.W. (1998). Avoiding Over- and Underestimation of Grade by
Using Correct Sampling. In: More Meaningful Sampling in the Mining
Industry. Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Bull. Nr. 2, 1998, pp. 39-
45.

Simón, Armando/Control Sample Insertion Rate/IAGS-June 2007 9