ASTM E901-82(1995)e1
(Classification)Classification System for Uranium Resources (Withdrawn 2001)
Classification System for Uranium Resources (Withdrawn 2001)
SCOPE
1.1 This classification system covers all naturally occurring uranium-bearing materials and is based on level of geologic knowledge and economic producibility of the resource at a given time.
1.2 Assessments of uranium resources are made for two purposes: ( ) to provide aggregate information on the resources of a region or country and ( ) to provide information needed for decisions concerning the resources of specific properties or deposits.
1.3 For regional appraisals, broad categories of uranium resources defined in general terms are the most useful.
1.4 For specific consideration of an individual property or to establish the availability of producible resources for commercial purposes, the terms and definitions used require a narrow construction and place emphasis on reliability and the quantification of mineral values in known deposits.
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
e1
Designation: E 901 – 82 (Reapproved 1995)
Standard Classification System for
Uranium Resources
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 901; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
e NOTE—Keywords were added editorially in June 1995.
INTRODUCTION
Background
The problems of estimating the reserves of a mineral on a property or the extractive resources yet
to be found in a region have vexed the mineral professions for over one hundred years. How to classify
various types of estimates and how to define the terms used have not been solved. The problems date
from at least as far back as 1909, when Herbert Hoover agonized over them in his Principles of
Mining.
In uranium resource evaluation, there can be found all of the traditional differences between
advocates of various points of view relative to the problems. In addition, inconsistencies exist among
the three U.S. government groups (Department of Energy and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of
Mines and Geological Survey) active in the appraisal of uranium resources as well as among the
various practitioners of the private sector and between them and the government groups. The terms
and classifications that have evolved are a reflection of the needs or perspectives of the user or the
mineral professions involved.
Therefore, those who are seeking current information about uranium resources in general, or about
the recoverable reserves of a specific property or properties, find a multiplicity of data and
terminology. Perhaps most disconcerting is frequent disparity in the quality and character of the data
expressed in identical terms. Information issued by the U.S. Department of Energy employs
terminology and classifications according to a system that has evolved over many years, starting with
the Atomic Energy Commission. The U.S. Department of Interior uses a different terminology and
classification for the various mineral commodities under study by the agencies within that Department.
The Steering Group on Uranium Resources of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Nuclear Energy Agency has developed still another approach seeking to accommodate a diversity of
practices by many nations. If mineral resource professionals are to be consistent in categorizing the
uranium resource data they produce, then it is important to standardize practices.
ASTM Task Group E10.14.01
ASTM was approached by the U.S. Department of the Interior in late 1976 to undertake
development of standards required in the area of raw material resources. Arising from the general
interest in the President’s National Energy Plan of April 1977, ASTM decided to undertake such an
effort for domestic uranium resources. Task Group E10.10.38 was constituted and assigned the task
of identifying the need for standards in the areas of: (1) definitions and classification for Uranium
Resources, (2) calibration of bore hole logging devices, and (3) airborne sensors. Scope of work for
items No. 2 and No. 3 was prepared and the standards writing activity was assigned to ASTM
Committee C-26. Subcommittee E10.14 on Uranium Resource Evaluation was formed to undertake
the planning/development of needed standards in the area of Uranium Resource Evaluation. Task
Group E10.14.01 continued the work begun by E10.10.38 and as a result, developed a Standard
Classification System for Uranium Resources.
Approach to Classification
The task group decided to avoid adopting any previously established system, but rather to begin
with the examination of concepts and fundamentals of uranium resource estimation. From this, grew
the recognition that there are two basic perspectives which are not always compatible or readily
related. There is the perspective of the mineral engineer who is trying to estimate and describe the
Copyright © ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E 901
quantities of uranium that may be recoverable from a specific uranium deposit at various costs.
Usually, this will tend toward conservative judgments made about the quantities that might be found
and recovered beyond present workings. This contrasts sharply with a geologist’s regional appraisal
across the entire spectrum, from densely drilled prospects to totally unknown territory.
It was the decision of the task group to deal first with the problems of a resource classification
system that would encompass the total availability of primary uranium resources above a specified
minimum concentration and deposit size. This involved a conceptual approach somewhat similar to
that of the Department of Interior published in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831. However, in so
doing the task group was mindful of the fact that it would eventually need to provide a classification
system that would include standards for the estimates that fall within each category. This next stage
has been undertaken by Task Group E10.14.02 on Uranium Resource Classification Estimation
Criteria.
ASTM Task Group E10.14.02
Using the classification framework of the draft standard developed by Task Group E10.14.01, Task
Group E10.14.02 is formulat ) level of knowledge, including mineralization continuity, and (2)
economic producibility. Establishment of the degree of certainty in mineralization continuity will
require the development and application of statistical and other mathematical and geologic
considerations. Estimation of the economic or noneconomic producibility of a resource will require
considerations such as: (1) costs, prices, and cash flows, and (2) the interrelationships of grade, cost,
resource depth beneath the surface, and other factors.
While the approach of E10.14.02 is to consider independently the two components, mineralization
continuity and economic producibility, it is recognized that a relationship exists between the two
components. The relationship is brought into focus by the necessity of involving the disciplines of
geology, mining engineering, geostatistics, and mineral economics in the work of E10.14.02.
1. Scope in such form and amount that economic extraction of uranium
is currently or potentially feasible, irrespective of legal, regu-
1.1 This classification system covers all naturally occurring
latory, environmental, political, or other considerations. Unless
uranium-bearing materials and is based on level of geologic
otherwise justified in particular situations, the uranium concen-
knowledge and economic producibility of the resource at a
tration of naturally occurring materials must be equal to or
given time.
greater than 0.01 % U O (100 ppm) to be included in a
3 8
1.2 Assessments of uranium resources are made for two
resource. Quantities of uranium found in processed or manu-
purposes: (1) to provide aggregate information on the resources
factured materials are not included in the resource categories
of a region or country and (2) to provide information needed
defined in this classification system.
for decisions concerning the resources of specific properties or
3.1.2 uranium occurrence—a naturally occurring anoma-
deposits.
lous concentration of uranium which can be demonstrated to
1.3 For regional appraisals, broad categories of uranium
exist.
resources defined in general terms are the most useful.
3.1.3 uranium deposit—a volume of naturally occurring
1.4 For specific consideration of an individual property or to
uranium bearing material represented by occurrences either
establish the availability of producible resources for commer-
with continuity of mineralization between them, or a system-
cial purposes, the terms and definitions used require a narrow
atic pattern of recurring mineralization. Continuity or system-
construction and place emphasis on reliability and the quanti-
atic recurrence of mineralization must be based on the geologic
fication of mineral values in known deposits.
character of the occurrences and must be consistent with the
2. Referenced Documents
distribution of uranium bearing minerals and geologic charac-
ter of similar known deposits. The volume of rock constituting
2.1 ASTM Standards:
the uranium deposit must contain at least one ton of U O .
E 583 Practice for Systematizing the Development of 3 8
3.1.4 by-product uranium—that material economically
(ASTM) Voluntary Consensus Standards for the Solution
available only through incidental recovery with other products
of Nuclear and Other Complex Problems
and is not included in this classification system. Such material
3. Terminology
can be accounted for separately, provided the economic con-
ditions for its producibility are specified.
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 uranium resources—quantities of uranium in naturally
4. Basis of Classification
occurring uranium bearing materials on or in the earth’s crust,
4.1 Classification of a resource is based on (1) the level of
knowledge and (2) the economic producibility of the resource
This classification system is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E10 on
at a given time. The level of knowledge determines the degree
Nuclear Technology and Applicationsand is the direct responsibility of Subcommit-
of reliability in establishing the size, shape, depth, distribution,
tee E10.93on Editorial.
and mineral content of the resource. Economic producibility is
Current edition approved Oct. 29, 1982. Published April 1983.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 12.02. based on existing technology and on costs and prices specified
E 901
Undiscovered Undiscovered
Discovered or
Unsubstantiated
Demonstrated
Continuity Presence Favorable
Continuity Favorability
Virtually of Geologic
Assumed Known
Assured Deposit Environment
Occurrences
1234 5
Economic A
Uneconomic B
Undetermined C
Totals
NOTE 1—Decreasing Level of Knowledge
FIG. 1 Classification System for Uranium Resources—In-Place
at the time of determination. See Fig. 1 for a diagram of the geologic characteristics of nearby deposits, or on comparison
classification system. with areas of known deposits that exhibit similar geologic
4.2 Resource categories are formed by combining the iden- characteristics.
tifiers used to define the different levels of knowledge and 5.5 Class 5 Resources—Those undiscovered in-place quan-
economic producibility. tities of uranium that may exist in geologic environments, the
4.3 Alphanumeric identifiers are used rather than words in characteristics of which indicate a potential for uranium
order to avoid confusion with existing terms, definitions, and deposits but do not meet the criteria for demonstrated fa-
classifications. This approach has been in increasing favor in vorability of Class 4 resources. There are few, if any, known
recent years, as evidenced by work in USSR, Canada, and the occurrences of uranium. Estimates are based primarily on
United Nations. geologic analogy.
5. Classification by Level of Knowledge
6. Classification by Economic Producibility
5.1 Class 1 Resources—Those in-place quantities of ura- 6.1 Type A Resources— Those in-place quantities of ura-
nium in known deposits computed from the results of sampling
nium estimated to be economical at the time of classification
of outcrops, trenches, workings, or drill holes, or combination under specified prices or costs or under equivalent physical
thereof. The sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement
criteria.
are so spaced and the geological character is so well defined 6.2 Type B Resources— Those in-place quantities of ura-
that size, shape, depth, distribution, and mineral content are
nium estimated to be uneconomical at the time of classifica-
well established. Continuity of mineralization between sample tion, but which would be economical under different but
points is considered as virtually certain.
specified prices or costs or under equivalent physical criteria.
5.2 Class 2 Resources—Those in-place quantities of ura- 6.3 Type C Resources— Those in-place quantities of ura-
nium in known deposits, estimated from types of information nium for which an economical classification has not been
similar to those identified for Class 1 resources, but with wider determined.
spacing of the sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement. 6.4 Category r Resources—That portion of the in-place
Continuity of mineralization between sample points can be quantities of uranium estimated to be recoverable by mining,
assumed, but with less certainty. disregarding any losses due to processing, under specified
5.3 Class 3 Resources—Those in-place quantities of ura- prices or costs. See Fig. 2 for an example. The use of the term
nium for which available data, such as from drill holes and
outcrops, confirm the presence of a deposit or an extension of
a known deposit, but the data are inadequate to satisfy the
1Ar
mineral continuity criteria for Class 2 resources.
Recoverable
A
1A Minus 1Ar
5.4 Class 4 Resources—Those undiscovered or unsubstan-
Not Recoverable
tiated in-place quantities of uranium that lie within geologic
FIG. 2 Example of a Category r Resource
environments of demonstrated favorability. Uranium occur-
rences are known, but data are inadequate to establish the
physical existence of a deposit or an extension of a known
“reserves” is restricted to 1Ar and 2Ar resources.
deposit. Resource estimates are based on extrapolation of
7. Significance
7.1 All naturally occurring uranium-bearing materials above
Criteria for degrees of certainty are being developed by ASTM Task Group
a specified concentration can be classified. At the present time
E10.14.02.
the specified concentration is 0.01 % U O (100 ppm).
An environment of “demonstrated favorability” must include the presence in
3 8
the same geologic setting of known deposits which in aggregate contain at least 10
7.2 For any assessment, a quantity of uranium can be
tons (20 000 lb) of U O as evidenced by any combination of past production and
3 8
classified into only one class and type.
present Class 1, 2, or 3 resources. The relationship of the resource under
7.3 Quantities in different classes and types may be summed
consideration to known deposits must be consistent with the spatial distribution and
character of known deposits in that geologic setting. as appropriate. For example, the sum of the quantities of
E 901
uranium in Types A, B, and C resources constitutes a total of light of new geologic knowledge, progress in science and
uranium resources within a given class. However, the sums of
technolo
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.