Assay Maps and Sections

Assay plans may be prepared in various ways, depending on the types of the ore bodies.
Whatever the method employed, the position of each sample, its length, and its assay value should
be posted on the maps or sections. If the plans are to be submitted as part of a report that is to be
or may be checked by another estimator, it is important that they be posted in this detail. Engineers
often are called upon to check reports in which these details are omitted and only the results of
computations of the original estimator are given. In some instances the figures merely show the
computed tonnage and average grade of each of several blocks of ore. In others, the computed
average assay values of each of the sides of the ore blocks or averages of groups of samples
covering given lengths of ore exposures are shown, as, for example, “50 feet, 10 samples, average
value $9.50, average width 6.5 feet.” In such instances, the calculations cannot be checked in their
entirety and the check estimator is left in the dark on such points as the treatment that has been
accorded erratic high assays. As will be shown later, one erratic high assay averaged with several
assays well below average ore grade may give an erroneous result considerably above the actual
grade. Assay plans may consist of plan maps of the workings, drill holes, and ore bodies, vertical
cross sections and longitudinal sections, or projections on the planes of the veins, or combinations
of these.

Volume and Tonnage Estimates

The plans are drawn to scale, and from them areas may be scaled or measured with a planimeter.
Areas are commonly figured in square feet and ore volumes in cubic feet (except where the metric
system is employed). Volumes in cubic feet are then converted into tons by dividing by the number
of cubic feet in a ton of the rock or ore in place as determined by specific gravity or other tests.

Ore Volume Calculation

For flat-lying, bedded deposits of uniform thickness, volume computations involve merely scaling or
measuring with a planimeter the areas of the different blocks of ore bounded by mine workings and
the margins of the ore bodies and multiplying the area of each block by the average thickness of
the ore in that block. Summation of the volumes of all blocks gives the total volume of the ore.

For broad, basin-shaped deposits, plan maps, vertical or horizontal cross sections or both may be
used. If the deposit has been explored by vertical drill holes or test pits, a common method is to
plot the holes in plan and divide the area into a series of triangles, squares, or irregular polygons,
each of which represents the horizontal cross section of an imaginary vertical prism of ore
extending from the top to the bottom of the deposit. The volume of the prism is the area of the
cross section multiplied by the depth, if the top and bottom of the prism are plane parallel surfaces.
Since in deposits of this type the top and bottom may be very uneven, this method is an
approximation; the closer the spacing of the holes, and thus the greater the number of prisms, the
more closely will the approximation approach the actual volume. The sum of the volumes of all the
prisms is then the total volume of ore in the deposit.

Sometimes holes are drilled at regular intervals at the apexes of equilateral triangles or at the
corners of equal squares. More often, on account of topography or irregularities of the deposit, this
is not possible and the arrangement is very irregular. The areas of influence or “weights” of the
different holes then vary, sometimes considerably, with respect to both volume and ore-grade
calculations. Complicated methods for constructing geometric figures to determine these factors
have been described and discussed in textbooks and the technical press. However, competent
mathematicians consulted by the authors agree that none of them is mathematically correct for all
drill-hole arrangements and variations in grade. On the other hand, simple constructions are
possible from which results may be obtained that are well within the order of accuracy of other
factors entering into ore-reserve calculations; for example, errors in sampling and in assumptions
as to ore boundaries may exceed the errors in approximations derived from these simpler
methods.

Since the method of constructing these figures also affects the calculations of ore grade, this
subject will be discussed further under the caption, Estimation of Grade of Ore.

The volume of large basin-shaped deposits may also be estimated from parallel cross sections on
which are plotted intersections or projections of mine workings, drill holes, and ore boundaries. It is
often convenient to draw vertical cross sections through lines of drill holes, raises, and winzes, for
which purpose it may be necessary to prepare longitudinal sections and plans, or bottom- and top-
of-ore contours from which points on the cross sections may be derived by interpolation. Having
prepared a series of parallel cross sections, the area of each is computed or is measured by
planimeter. If the variation in size and shape of adjoining sections is small, the volume in cubic feet
of the block between them may be taken, for all practical purposes, as their average area
multiplied by the distance between them in feet. If there is a series of such sections spaced
equidistantly, the total volume may be expressed by the “end-area” formula:

V = ½ H (A1 + 2A2 + 2A3 + An)

where A1, A2, A3 An are the areas of the several sections,

H is the perpendicular distance between them,
and V is the total volume.

If the ore body is very irregular and adjoining sections exhibit marked dissimilarity in size and
shape, the volume between two adjoining sections may be approximated more closely by using the
prismoidal formula:

V = H/6 (A1 + 4M + A2).

where V = volume of the block,

H is the perpendicular distance between A1 and A2, A1 and A2 are the areas of the two sections,
and M is the area of a parallel section halfway between A1 and A2.

M is determined by constructing a midsection interpolated from corners of sections A1 and A2,

modified by any information available concerning outlines between A1 and A2 that may be
obtained from mine workings or geological data.

Figure 10 shows two adjacent sections that are quite dissimilar in shape. By using the end formula,
the volume is 17,737,500 cubic feet, but by using the prismoidal formula it is 18,162,500, a
difference of 425,000 cubic feet, or 2.5 percent.

If enough data are available to construct sections at close intervals, the prismoidal formula may be
used, making each alternate section a midsection.
For dipping veins or lenses and other tabular forms of deposits, estimates are made from level
plans, cross sections, and longitudinal projections on the plane of the dip, drawn to scale. All the
assay widths and values are shown on these drawings, together with mine workings and outlines
of blocks of ore remaining as determined by development or assumed from geological and other
controlling data. The areas of the different blocks of ore multiplied by the corresponding average
thickness of each, as determined from measurements normal to the dip, give the volumes of the
respective blocks.

Ore Tonnage Calculations

Tonnage estimates are derived from those of volume by applying a specific gravity or “tonnage”
factor. The specific gravity of the mineral mass may be calculated roughly from the specific gravity
and percentage of each of the constituent minerals and the porosity of the ore, or by making direct
specific-gravity tests on representative samples from various parts of the ore body. Cubic feet per
ton is then obtained by dividing 2,000 (2,240, if long tons are desired) by the product of 62.5
(weight per cubic foot of water) multiplied by the specific gravity of the ore (2,000/62.5 x sp. gr.). A
more accurate tonnage factor may be determined by actually weighing the ore from measured
volumes of excavation and averaging the results. A precise factor cannot, as a rule, be obtained for
most large ore bodies because of the
variations in mineral composition and in porosity from point to point, but a factor accurate enough
for all practical purposes usually can be derived by the methods described.

In some instances there may be enough variation in the specific gravity of different grades of ore to
require different factors for each. Thus, in the Lake Superior iron-ore districts curves have been
constructed showing the variation in cubic feet per ton with variations in iron content. One of these
is shown in figure 11, A. At Cananea, Mexico, the specific gravity has been found to vary
considerably with the copper content (fig. 11, B).

When these variations are substantial and are approximately known, it may be advisable, first, to
calculate from the assay plans the average grade of each block of ore and then calculate the
tonnage by employing the tonnage factor applicable to each grade. The tonnage in each block of
ore is, of course, the volume in cubic feet divided by the cubic-feet-per-ton factor (or similar
calculations for metric units).

When it comes to actual mining, it often happens that the tonnage is greater and the grade of ore
lower than estimated. This often is due
largely to dilution from the walls in stoping, though it may be due partly to mining of marginal ore of
lower grade than that included in the estimates. There may be compensating factors, such as
offshoots of high-grade ore not known to exist at the time of the estimate or unexpected inclusions
of waste within the ore bodies. Allowance usually is made for possible or probable inclusion of
waste and loss of ore in mining, by deducting a certain percentage from the calculated tonnage.
Probable dilution from the walls may be compensated for by adding a certain percentage to the
tonnage estimate and correspondingly reducing the calculated grade of ore. These percentages
may be arbitrary or may be based upon experience with deposits of the particular type in question
and with the mining method to be used. Thus, in one district experience has shown that a 10-
percent deduction should be made for loss of ore in mining and another 10 percent for inclusion of
waste. In another district it is necessary to allow for 20 percent dilution from the walls during
mining; that is, the calculated tonnage must be divided by 0.80 and a corresponding reduction
made in the calculated grade of ore.

Ore Grade Estimation

As previously indicated, the accuracy of ore-grade estimates will depend on the accuracy of the
samples, accuracy in assaying, the method of combining and weighting the different samples, and
the estimator’s judgment.

It has been shown that individual samples may be relatively inaccurate, but the weighted average
of a large number may closely approximate the actual grade of the ore. Accuracy in assaying may
be achieved with care and correct laboratory technique. The proper combining and weighting of
sample assays may require considerable thought, and correct mathematical principles should be
employed, at least up to the point where the mathematical precision equals the accuracy of the
data upon which the calculations are based.

Estimates based on Drill-Hole Data

Sometimes it may be necessary, before combining and averaging the assay values of the different
samples, to make some preliminary computations. This applies particularly where the samples
have been obtained by core drills, if the core recovery is incomplete, or if there is an appreciable
difference between core and sludge assays. In such instances it becomes necessary to average
the assays of core and of sludge and in doing so to assign proper weight to the value of each. In
weighting, certain assumptions must be made, and therefore the results will not be precise. If it is
assumed that the hole and core are uniform in diameter over the length of the sample, that there
have been no additions of material by caving in the upper portions of the hole, and that all of the
cuttings (sludge) have been caught, simple arithmetical calculations can be made. In such case the
cuttings will represent all that part of the material removed that is not core, and the weights
assigned to core and sludge assays will be proportional to their respective masses. The relative
masses have been calculated for standard sizes of diamond-drill bits and different lengths of core
recovery from a 5-foot hole and tabulated. Table 10 has been prepared by the E. J. Longyear Co. It
is seen that even with complete core recovery the mass of the cuttings is greater than that of the
core when the smaller bits are used.

When the core from a given

section or “pull” is broken into a number of pieces it may not be possible to measure accurately the
length of core recovered. As a check against the measurement, the core may be weighed, and this
weight divided by the weight per inch of a core of the same diameter (calculated or determined
from actual weighing) will give the equivalent length of core recovery.

The method of using the table may be illustrated by a hypothetical example. Assume a 5-foot
section of EX diameter hole, 48 inches of core, a core assay of 3.0 percent copper, and a sludge
assay of 3.6 percent copper. The core assay would receive a weight of 28.4 and that of the .sludge
71.6. The calculation then becomes:

Average assay = 1/100 (28.4 x 3.00 + 71.6 x 3.6) = 3.43 percent copper

If a portion of the cuttings is lost or other material is added from above a section of the hole under
consideration, or if the hole is larger in diameter in softer portions of drill-hole section than in the
harder sections, the weightings indicated by the table will not give correct average values when
there is considerable difference between the assay-values of core and cuttings. Stated another
way, and quoting from Longyear:

If a portion of the cuttings is lost or other material is added, the sample will be correct only to the
extent that the material analyzed represents a true sample of the actual cuttings.

In actual practice complete sludge recovery, entire absence of salting by caving, and holes of
uniform diameter probably are the exception rather than the rule. These conditions, however, may
be approximated in many instances so that no serious error is introduced by employing the
proportional-volume method of combining sludge and core assays.

When there is considerable deviation from these ideal conditions, the estimator must use his
judgment in combining core and sludge assays. At some mines it is the practice to disregard the
sludge entirely, in others to apply a factor to the assays of core or sludge, or a combination of both,
this factor being based upon experience already gained with the particular ore in question.

A serious error may be introduced in some cases if sludge assays are ignored. For example,
consider an ore composed of alternate hard and soft layers, in which the soft layers contain a
considerably higher percentage of valuable mineral than do the hard layers. In this instance, the
core usually will be of smaller diameter and the outside diameter of the hole will be larger in the
soft layers than in the harder layers. There will then be too small a porportion of the high-grade
material in the core and too large a proportion in the sludge.

At Morenci, Ariz., the practice was to calculate the average copper content by combining the
assays of core and sludge in proportion to their respective weights. If the weight of the sample did
not correspond with the calculated weight of the corresponding section of drill hole, the results
were not given full weight and adjustments were made in the calculated grades.

In Northern Rhodesia a method of combining core and sludge assays based upon the following
formula was developed:

Percent copper in core and sludge equals (weight of total core times percentage of copper in
combined core plus weight of sludge times percentage of copper in sludge) divided by (weight of
core plus weight of sludge).
Having prepared the necessary plans and cross sections and placed thereon the assays of the
drill-hole samples, Which may have to be computed in some instances as outlined above, the next
step is the combining of assays to obtain the average grade of different blocks or layers of ore and
finally the average grade of the calculable ore reserves.

There are two general types of deposits of large area prospected by vertical drill holes: (1)
Massive, irregular, basin-shaped, or flat-lying deposits with irregular or uniform mineralization, and
(2) basin-shaped deposits in which different grades of ore are present in distinct layers.

Ore Reserve Estimate EXAMPLE 1

In the first case, the triangular or polygonal prism method may be employed for computing
tonnages and grades of ore. With this method each prism of ore is assumed to have the average
grade of the drill hole around which it is constructed, and the geometrical construction should be
such that this assumption will produce a result as nearly in accordance with the actual facts as
possible.

There are two general methods of construction based on somewhat different hypotheses, viz: A.
“That between any two sampling columns, the grade of ore of either one is assumed to extend
halfway, and halfway only, to the other; and that in any prism, the grade of ore at any point is
assumed to be that of the nearest assayed sample.” B. That variations in grade from one assayed
sample point to the next are “straight-line” variations; that the grade at any point in a plane through
three assayed sample points is influenced by the grade of all three in inverse ratio to the distance
from each.

The constructions based on these two hypotheses are also different and produce different results,
as indicated by figure 12. With either construction, however, the procedure is mechanical and
eliminates the personal equation in computation, and two different estimators using the same
method will arrive at the same answer. Figure 12 shows in plan a number of drill holes forming part
of a larger drill-hole pattern. The broken lines show the construction and resulting polygon around
hole 66, based on hypothesis A, whereas the solid lines show the polygon resulting from
construction B.

In both constructions, the first step is to draw lines joining each hole to every other contiguous hole
to form a series of triangles. In construction A, perpendiculars are erected from the centers of each
side of each triangle intersecting at a common point as “a-a . . . a.” By joining these points, a
polygon is formed around each hole, which is assumed to represent the cross section of a prism of
ore of the same grade as the hole. It may be noted that with this construction, a may fall entirely
outside its triangle in certain cases, as at (obtuse triangles).

In construction B, a line is drawn from each apex of a triangle to the center of the opposite side, the
three lines intersecting at a common point, b, in the center of the triangle and dividing it into three
smaller equal triangles. If the grade at the center of the large triangle, as determined by relative
distances from each apex, be multiplied by the area of triangle, the result will be the same as that
obtained by multiplying the grade of each hole by one-third the area of the large triangle and
adding the products. The broken heavy and solid heavy lines show the respective polygons and
the light lines the constructions for A and B. The average grade of each hole is the sum of the
products of each sample length by its assay value divided by the sum of the lengths. This grade,
multiplied by the volume of the prism and divided by the volume-per-ton factor, gives the tons-
percent or ton-dollars in the prism, as the case may be. Adding these products for all the prisms
and dividing by the sum of the tonnages gives the computed average grade of the deposit.

Ore Reserve Estimate EXAMPLE 2

In the second case, vertical cross sections of the deposit are best adapted to making the
estimates. The drill holes are drawn on the sections, the samples and assay values are plotted,
and points in adjoining holes having similar analyses indicating portions of the same ore layer are
joined by lines, thus marking the tops and bottoms of the layers (fig. 13).

For any section, the average assay value of a layer is computed as follows: The average assay
value of each hole for the layer in question is assigned to the area extending from the hole halfway
to the holes on each side; the sum of the products of each area times the corresponding assay
value, divided by the sum of the areas, gives the average assay of the layer on that section. The
average assay value and area of the corresponding layer are calculated for all the cross sections in
the same manner. The volume of the layer in the block between two sections is found by the end-
area formula or by the prismoidal formula

and this divided by the volume-per-ton factor gives the corresponding tonnage. The average assay
value of this block is computed then from the formula V = (A1V1 + A2V2)/(A1 + A2) ; where V is
the average value of the block, V1 and V2 are the values of the respective sections, and A1 and
A2 are the corresponding section areas. Adding the products of the tonnages of the several blocks
by their corresponding average assay values and dividing this sum by the sum of the tonnages
gives the average assay value of the layer: V = V1T1 + V2T2 + VnTn/T1 + T2 + Tn where V is the
average value of the layer, V1 Vn, the average value of the several blocks, and T1 Tn, the
corresponding tonnages in the blocks. Values and tonnages of the other layers of ore are
computed similarly.
 Estimates based on Underground Sampling
It has been pointed out that in sampling mine workings, the samples should be taken at regular
intervals to avoid errors that might result from introduction of the human factor in the selection of
sampling points. With a regular interval the calculations of ore grade are simplified because no
weighting of assay values for ore length is required.

Weighting of Assays of Individual Samples

Each sample, however, must be weighted in proportion to the length of the sample cut across the
ore body. Thus, referring to figure 7, if samples 1 to 5 are, respectively, 1.0, 2.5, 3.0, 2.75, and 2.8
feet long and the assay values are, respectively, $0.50, $5, $20, $4, and $25, the average grade of
the face or section is computed as follows:

First compute the average grade of the band represented by samples 3 and 5.

Similarly, in averaging the assay values of a series of sample sections along the back of a drift, the
sum of the products of the assay values of the several sections times the respective section widths
divided by the sum of the section widths gives the average assay value of the series, provided the
sections are equally spaced. If not equally spaced, the average may be computed by the formula

where G is the average grade, G1, G2, etc., are the grades of the several sections, L1, L2, etc., the
lengths of ore, and W1, W2, etc., the widths represented by the corresponding sections. G1, G2,
etc., may be either assay values of single samples, where only one sample is taken for each
section across the drift, or may be computed weighted averages where the drift section is
composed of several samples representing different bands.
 Erratic High Assays
When posting the assays on the assay plans and sections, occasional so-called erratic high
assays may be found that require special treatment before they are entered in the computations.
Although recurrence of such assays indicates the probable presence of high-grade spots or
streaks in the ore body, which, if they occur often enough, may actually raise the average grade of
the ore body appreciably, experience has proved that, if taken at their full value, the resulting
estimates will be too high. When it is considered that in the majority of instances the erratic highs
represent a condition occurring at only the particular spot where the sample was cut and are much
higher than the average grade of the section or block of ore they influence, the need for caution in
evaluating them can readily be understood.

Therefore, although mathematically there may be no sound reason for eliminating or reducing the
high assays, the conservative practice is to reduce them in accordance with some empirical rule or
by re-averaging. Often check-sampling of a high section may be necessary before recalculating.

Empirical rules may be based upon experience with the ore in a particular deposit. Thus, at the
McIntyre mine in the Porcupine district of Ontario erratic high assays among average low ones
were arbitrarily cut to $50; where they are consistently high they are not reduced.

At the Hollinger mine, in the same district, erratic high assays were cut to $100 in stopes known to
be high-grade and to $50 in low-grade stopes. Where diamond-drill-hole assays are used in ore-
reserve estimates, high assays are cut to $10. Ore showings in isolated diamond-drill holes are not
included in ore-reserve estimates. Where the drill-hole sections are between faces of developed
ore, the assays may be included, but high assays are cut to $10.

At these mines, the practices described have proved, over a period of years, to give accurate
results.

Another practice employed at some mines is to average the erratic high assay with the assays of
the two adjoining samples and insert this average in place of the erratic high in the final
computation, as illustrated by the following example:

The figure $18.17 is then inserted in place of $50 in the final computation.
A method virtually the same as the foregoing has been employed at the Wright-Hargreaves mine,
Kirkland Lake, Ontario. In estimating the grade of a given block of ore or averaging the assays
along a section of a drift, all the assays, including the erratic highs at their full value, are first
averaged by the dollar-foot method. A second average is then made, the first average being
inserted in place of each erratic high. Values estimated in this manner have checked actual bullion
recovery plus tailing loss within 5 percent; in some months the estimates are high and in others
low, so that over a period of a year or more the average error is less than 5 percent (plus or
minus). Following is a sample calculation in which round figures were used for grades and lengths
of samples for the sake of simplicity.

Computation of Tonnage and Grade of Ore by Blocks

Developed ore usually is calculated first for each of the different areas or blocks bounded by drifts,
raises, winzes, and outlines of stoped areas. The volume of each block is its area times the
average thickness of the ore in the block. The volume divided by the volume-per-ton factor gives
the tons of ore in the block. Multiplying the tonnage in each block by its average assay value,
adding the products, and dividing this sum by the sum of the tonnages gives the average assay
value of all the blocks.

In computing average thickness and average grade, it is important to weight each sample or series
of samples in accordance with the length, area, or volume it represents.
Even where samples are spaced at regular intervals, serious error may result from incorrect
combining of assays if the grades of the individual samples or sections vary greatly. This is shown
by the example given in figure 14, where a and b are drifts 300 feet long between raises c and d,
100 feet long connecting a and b. The figures show the lengths and values in dollars of samples
that are cut at equal intervals around the block. The first figure is the length of the sample (equal to
the thickness or width of the ore in this case).

If, in this example, equal weight is given to the products (width times grade) for all the samples,
including the raise samples, the tonnage (using a factor of 12 cubic feet per ton) will be 17,812, the
average grade $7.98 per ton, and the total value of the ore in the block $142,140. The average
grade of the raise samples along c is seen to be higher than that of the other samples, and if given
equal weight to the drift samples by simple averaging, their weight would be out of proportion to
their actual influence and result in a value that is too high.

If, however, the block is divided as shown by the lines f f f f and g and the resulting triangular and
trapezoidal blocks are computed separately, the end or raise samples will then be weighted more
in accordance with their actual influence and a slightly greater tonnage, a

lower average
grade, and
smaller
total value will
be obtained.
The calculation
is as follows:
 Revision of Computations
In the foregoing discussions the computations are mathematical, and the results obtained generally
have to be modified to allow for mining and other factors peculiar to the particular deposit under
investigation.

Thus, where random, irregular horses of waste are known to occur within the ore bodies, a
deduction may have to be made from the calculated tonnage. This may be a percentage deduction
based on past experience in mining the particular deposit or other similar deposits in the district, or
it may be an engineering safety factor to provide for possible waste inclusions.

The computed figures may indeed be quite accurate as to tonnage and grade of ore actually in the
deposit but may be quite different from the tonnage and grade of ore that actually can be
recovered by mining. Thus, support of the surface may require that a considerable percentage of
the total ore be left permanently in the form of pillars. In structurally weak ore bodies, in particular,
it is seldom possible to prevent the loss of some ore in mining. This loss will depend on the
irregularity of the ore margins and other characteristics of the deposits and may vary with the
particular mining method employed, which may depend, in turn, on economic considerations,
safety in working, and other factors. It is clear, therefore, that computed tonnages usually must be
reduced by amounts based on these considerations to determine the amount of recoverable ore in
the deposit. Reductions to take care of ore losses may or may not affect the resulting average
grade of the recoverable ore. When pillars must be left, it is often possible to leave them in leaner
ore, thus resulting in a higher than average grade for the ore that can be extracted. Conservative
engineers, however, seldom would raise the computed grade on this account.

On the other hand, dilution from the walls of the deposit in stoping may considerably increase the
total tonnage that will be mined, but this results definitely in reduction of the recoverable grade
below the computed grade in proportion to the amount of dilution. The amount of dilution will vary
with the nature of the deposit and the enclosing wall rocks and with the stoping method employed.

Frequently, hand sorting underground or on the surface is resorted to for the purpose of raising the
grade of the ore shipped or sent to the mill. Some loss of ore almost invariably results, and
although the grade of the product is raised, the tonnage to be treated is reduced, and, other things
being equal, the total amount of metal recovered may be less. Actually, the total recovery in some
instances may be more, since sorting may enable profitable mining of considerable tonnages of
ore of too low-grade to be included as ore in the ore-reserve estimates.

Another problem often met is the recalculation of tonnages and grades where the vein width is less
than the practicable stoping width. In vertical veins having firm walls it is sometimes possible to
mine widths as narrow as 2 feet with little overbreak. More often, however, 36 to 40 inches is the
narrowest average width that can be mined. If the vein is narrower than the practicable stoping
width there must obviously be an overbreak in mining, and values of samples cut only over the vein
width must be reduced to equivalent values over stoping width. Thus, assuming a vein averaging 2
feet in width and $60 per ton and a minimum stoping width of 3 feet, the $60 grade spread over 3
feet then becomes two-thirds of $60, or $40. That is, the grade of the material broken will be $40,
and if no sorting is done, the grade of ore shipped or sent to the mill will not exceed $40 per ton.

All such factors must be considered in making the final estimates of recoverable ore and later in
comuting probable future profits and in appraising the value of the property, a subject that will be
discussed in a later chapter.
 Mine Development
The term “mine development” is employed to designate the operations involved in preparing a
mine for ore extraction. These operations include tunneling, sinking, crosscutting, drifting, and
raising.

In most mines, both exploration and development continue after ore extraction by stoping has
begun and often nearly to the end of the life of the mine. Although exploration and development
operations are similar, the emphasis is placed on ore finding in the former, whereas in the latter
operations are directed mainly toward preparation for economical extraction and removal of the ore
from the mine.

As previously pointed out, it may often be possible to drive exploratory openings in such positions
and in such a manner that they may be utilized later for ore extraction. In other instances, however,
openings driven with a view to expeditious and economical exploration may not be well-adapted to
meet economical development and ore extraction.

Thus, an exploratory shaft may be too small for hoisting ore, men, materials, and supplies during
the productive period and to provide room for pipes, electric-power cables, and ladderways.
Exploratory drifts and crosscuts may be too small in cross section or too crooked for economical
motor haulage, or they may be situated improperly with respect to stope centers. In other instances
they may be in a lode that is structurally weak and in which, therefore, their maintenance cost
would be so excessive that permanent haulageways must be driven in one or the other of the
walls.

In mines situated in rugged mountainous districts and explored through shaft openings it may
sometimes be desirable, for operating purposes, to drive a long adit to replace the shaft as the
main extraction opening to eliminate high pumping and hoisting charges or to provide the most
economical means of transporting the ore to an ore- dressing plant. Sometimes it is necessary or
desirable to replace an exploratory inclined shaft by a vertical-operating shaft or to substitute one
in the footwall of the lode for one in the lode itself.

Among the important factors to be considered in planning mine development for economical
operation are the following:

1. Location of the main extraction opening.

2. Shaft vs. adit or tunnel development and inclined vs. vertical shafts.
3. Time required to prepare for production and anticipated maximum rate of production.
4. Level interval.
5. Level-development plans and their adaptation to the physical characteristics of the deposits
and to the stoping method to be employed.
6. Life expectancy of the mine, total tonnage to be mined, and comparative costs of different
development schemes.

Obviously, the type of ore deposit, its size, shape, and dip, distribution of ore shoots or separate
ore bodies, strength of ore and wall rocks, and surface topography are conditions imposed by
nature. It becomes necessary, therefore, to fit the development plan to these conditions, taking the
utmost advantage of those that are favorable. It is apparent that the more complete the information
obtained from previous exploration, the more intelligently can development be planned.