Since founding Objectivity I’ve discovered that resource drill planning is mostly being done with the assumption that more drilling will lead to more resource classification/definition. More drilling isn't always better in mining. Here is why. Like many things in mining this is not quite correct and the current process leaves a lot of value on the table. Budget is often set before a full technical assessment (as these tend to evolve during budgeting), there are no clear KPIs, boards/management tend to reduce budgets (because drilling is often the first casualty of cost control) and there are a limited number of options reviewed when making plans. Someone presents a plan with X number of holes, and often the only question asked is “can you add a hole here and there?” or “what can you do with half the budget?”. Resource development drilling and exploration drilling have very different value drivers. The former benefits from a QP/CP defined sampling criteria that will guide the resource drilling plan’s layout. Unfortunately spacing is a great criteria for a time when holes were planned in 2D on mylar. But what if I told you that in most cases, you could achieve the same expected resource conversion with 30% fewer drill holes, while meeting QP/CP sampling requirements? You'd probably say: "That's not possible." When we analyze resource conversion efficiency, we see a curve that looks like this: as you add more drill holes, the percentage of volume potentially converted increases, but not linearly. Drilling from 10,000 to 13,000 meters can improve resource conversion by 24%, but then adding another 3,000 meters yields only an additional 7% (data courtesy Adventus Zinc @Curipumba). The curve always flattens dramatically after a certain point, reducing incremental value. This is the investment curve that highlights a critical point of diminishing returns that most drilling programs blow right past. This is sensitivity analysis for your resource drilling - sensitivity analysis is always expected at the feasibility study stage yet seldom used for an activity that is on every mining/late stage exploration project’s critical path. Would you make better decisions with multiple plans objectively assessed against key criteria, or with just a single plan? The answer seems obvious, yet most companies stick to the single-plan approach citing, “no time”, “no people”, “shifting criteria”. Still skeptical? Good, skepticism is healthy. But why not put us to the test? We are confident that we can change how you think about resource drilling and the value that it produces. Increasing conversion efficiency, while respecting QP/CP requirements, will make our industry more financially efficient. Show us your data and we'll show you a range of solutions to help make objective based investment decisions. Begin optimizing your investment here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe8JdRWRB5MK9gnzJbk3FQZu17dFmWyUkre8S2yXo_k0l2HIw/viewform