So when did the “P” take over QA/QC?

The conversation with the client went something like this:

Client: We need a QA/QC procedure.

IMEx: So what are you doing?

Client: The lab is sending us rubbish results. They’re under-estimating the grades and it’s starting to impact the share price.

IMEx: I see. So do you currently submit standards or any other quality control material with your samples to the lab?

Client: Of course we do. And the lab results are almost always spot on! We’re convinced they know the values of the standards before they do the analysis.

IMEx: OK. So how will a QA/QC procedure assist?

Client: Currently our geos don’t have a standardised system.?With soils, they only insert a standard every 25/30/50 samples depending on the geologist and they refuse to do duplicates.?Rock chips the same.?With drilling samples, they have been instructed to insert a sample every 10 samples but most of them think that’s excessive so that’s why we need an independent QA/QC procedure to get them to do it properly!?Everyone should be doing the same thing and doing exactly what I’ve told them to do!

IMEx: Hmmm. I see your problem. We’re quite busy at the moment but I could recommend such and such because they specialise in this type of work….

I think the current word for adapting things to suit the conditions is "nimble".

A single standardised procedure for QA/QC that covers soils, rock, reconnaissance drilling, delineation drilling and grade control is probably not “appropriate”.?Oh in case you think I'm not being serious, yes, they do exist!

Process checklists, process standards, process documentation and project audit are potentially a more suitable approach than standardised, rigid methods or procedures.

I like the concept of the Pirate’s Code – less a rule book, more a set of guidelines….

Did I mention the grass roots drilling program where 1/3 of the assay budget was spent on quality control samples?

So what else are people seeing out there?

?