<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GIS Dreams for Mine Modeling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alloneriver.mining.com/2008/06/02/gis-dreams-for-mine-modeling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alloneriver.mining.com/2008/06/02/gis-dreams-for-mine-modeling/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michele Murray</title>
		<link>http://alloneriver.mining.com/2008/06/02/gis-dreams-for-mine-modeling/#comment-1004</link>
		<dc:creator>Michele Murray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alloneriver.mining.com/?p=86#comment-1004</guid>
		<description>You are right, Isobel.

The incremental ore theory would be useful to engineers who have to make a cut off for an estimated resource of an undeveloped property but can you imagine if this was used for an operating mine? The Ore Control Staff would not only have to go out and flag the shot muck based on the daily NSR but I am pretty sure they’d also have to defend what they did over and over again to critics up the ladder on a daily basis.

Let’s say we allow real-time technology into the exploration and development side of mining and keep a more static model (based on short term and long term planning) in an operating facility.

Outside of the one geostatistician, I haven’t heard too much input as to this idea but I also realize it may be too technical at this point in time for a more general audience. You are the person I was trying to communicate with when I wrote this blog. Thanks for your contribution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right, Isobel.</p>
<p>The incremental ore theory would be useful to engineers who have to make a cut off for an estimated resource of an undeveloped property but can you imagine if this was used for an operating mine? The Ore Control Staff would not only have to go out and flag the shot muck based on the daily NSR but I am pretty sure they’d also have to defend what they did over and over again to critics up the ladder on a daily basis.</p>
<p>Let’s say we allow real-time technology into the exploration and development side of mining and keep a more static model (based on short term and long term planning) in an operating facility.</p>
<p>Outside of the one geostatistician, I haven’t heard too much input as to this idea but I also realize it may be too technical at this point in time for a more general audience. You are the person I was trying to communicate with when I wrote this blog. Thanks for your contribution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Isobel</title>
		<link>http://alloneriver.mining.com/2008/06/02/gis-dreams-for-mine-modeling/#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator>Isobel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alloneriver.mining.com/?p=86#comment-994</guid>
		<description>What I would like to see are real-time changes to the NSR values on drillhole intersections on plans and sections, although perhaps on a monthly or as-needed basis, as drastic changes can play havoc with short-term and long-term planning and scheduling. Maybe something akin to the "incremental ore" idea to take advantage of mineralization on the ore / non-ore boundary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I would like to see are real-time changes to the NSR values on drillhole intersections on plans and sections, although perhaps on a monthly or as-needed basis, as drastic changes can play havoc with short-term and long-term planning and scheduling. Maybe something akin to the &#8220;incremental ore&#8221; idea to take advantage of mineralization on the ore / non-ore boundary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
