Scholarly record

LOCAL VARIABILITY OF COBALT ACCUMULATION INDEX BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE Cu-Ag DEPOSIT (THE LUBIN-GLOGOW MINING DISTRICT, POLAND)

Justina Auguscik

Abstract

The paper presents the results of the study on the local variability of accumulation index of cobalt in the shale series of part of the "Rudna" Cu-Ag deposit (the Lubin-G?ogпїЅw Copper District, LGOM). The Lubin-G?ogпїЅw mining district is a world-class copper-silver, stratabound ore deposit located in the SW Poland, in the area of the Fore-Sudetic Monocline. The average cobalt content for the sandstone and carbonate series was about 30 ppm. Meanwhile, the highest value of this parameter (280 ppm) was found for the shale series, which was selected for experimental study. In this paper, the local variability is understood as variation of reservoir parameters in samples collected in the immediate vicinity, one by one (while keeping the samples separate). Cobalt was selected for analysis due to its use in the high-tech industry. The fact that cobalt is included in the list of critical raw materials for the EU confirms its strategic importance. In order to analyze the results of experimental sampling, statistical and geostatistical methods have been used. It has been found that the relative variability of accumulation indexes of cobalt in the shale series for the whole deposit is very high (with a coefficient of variation of 120%), while locally the variability of this parameter is slightly lower, at a level of 80%. The evaluation of the statistical significance of differences between cobalt accumulation indexes for paired samples, performed using the t-test and signed rank test, has shown that the results obtained were not subject to a systematic error. The geostatistical analysis has shown that the variability of local cobalt accumulation indexes was affected by the natural variability of the element rather than the errors associated with the sampling process. No significant differences between the results of cobalt determination carried out in two independent laboratories have been shown. The mean random error (???R) was 18%, while the mean systematic error (???R) was about 4.0%.

Publication Impact Profile

• Captures
• Mendeley - Readers: 2

PLUMX see details

DOI resolver: doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/11/s01.036

Publication details

Back to publication list