Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
CuT, Cc+Py vs Cc+Cpy+Py, Domain 1
CuT, Cc+Py vs Cc+Cpy+Py, Domain 3
8.00
8.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
CuT Min=Cc+Py
CuT Muestras Min=Cc+
Fig. 4.11
Q-Q plot of TCu (%), Cc + Py vs. Cc + Cpy + Py, Structural
Domain 3
Fig. 4.9
Q-Q plot of TCu (%), Cc + Py vs. Cc + Cpy + Py, Structural
Domain 1
CuT, Cc+Py vs Cc+Cpy+Py, Domain 2
CuT, Cc+Py vs Cc+Cpy+Py, Domain 4
8.00
8.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
CuT Min=Cc+Py
CuT Muestras Min=Cc+
Fig. 4.12
Q-Q plot of TCu (%), Cc + Py vs. Cc + Cpy + Py, Structural
Domain 4
Fig. 4.10
Q-Q plot of TCu (%), Cc + Py vs. Cc + Cpy + Py, Structural
Domain 2
4.3.3
Tcu Grade Correlogram Models
by Structural Domains
ably due to the relative abundance of chalcocite vs. chalco-
pyrite in the LE unit. The analysis of the relative movements
of each structural block explains this observation, since the
enrichment process also reached deeper levels for structural
Domain 4.
In conclusion, the TCu grade distribution shows differ-
ent statistical characteristics in each structural domain. The
structural control on mineralization explains the relationship
between high enrichment and low enrichment mineralization
for different parts of the deposit.
In developing Table
4.2
it was assumed that supergene en-
richment mineralization (HE and LE) do not show potassic
or biotite alteration. This is based on a geologic assumption.
Assay intervals logged as HE or LE with K-B alteration were
dismissed as incorrectly logged intervals.
Another perspective of the differences between domains
can be gained by analyzing the spatial continuity of the TCu
grade distribution, considering again HE mineralization
(Cc + Py) as an example. Correlograms (Chap. 6) were run
and modeled for all main geologic variables and for each
structural domain.
There are practical aspects that need to be considered
when analyzing correlogram models within the scope of es-
timation domain definition. Correlograms and other spatial
continuity models are affected by the amount of data avail-
able. At Escondida, this implies that the models for structural
domain 2, primary mineralization, and some of the low en-
