26 Sep Maxwell GeoServices | Digging into the data
Maxwell GeoServices works with many mining and exploration companies from all around the globe, helping to manage their data. This means we get to see a lot of data – and see just what’s happening in our industries.
We thought some of the trends we see might be of interest to our clients and other professionals in mining and exploration. How are you performing? Where could you improve?
Did you know?
- 10% of companies do not review their QAQC even if it is collected.
- 80% of QC analysis is typically analysed in its entirety for a denoted time period only (1 week, 1 month, 1 campaign etc.), instead of looking at data results based on lithological domains and/or sample types.
- 5% of assay results are received without having matching sample intervals.
- 15% of drill holes do not record the tenement at all.
- The most common database error is unmatched or inconsistent library codes (e.g. 3 different ways of recording the same person say: JS, J. Smith, John Smith).
- Very few clients review significant grade intersections in diamond drill samples in conjunction with core recovery.
- Routine data auditing is usually only conducted at times of resource estimation studies/feasibility (if it is even done at all), often creating hold ups in programs as data is hastily reviewed and remediated only when/if necessary.
- Data most commonly not recorded for logging is Logged_By/Sampled_By and Logged_Date/Sampled_Date.
- Drill metadata (drilling contractor, changes in drill type down a hole, hole diameters, casing used etc.) is recorded poorly across the majority of exploration and mining sites/companies, although there is an indication that this is gradually improving with the increased use of smart logging platforms such as Logchief.
These stats have been kindly compiled by Maxwell GeoServices Senior Data Management Consultant, Lenore Jepsen.
If you would like to discuss any of your data management requirements, please contact Maxwell here.