The poorly specified sampling, composited by poor laboratory sub-sampling is considered to bring about questionable geostatistics as well as generating relentless conciliation problems betwixt the geological model, the plant estimation and the mine. These challenges are also considered to affect the price of commodities and the validity of environmental evaluation. The outcomes of thus sampling can lead to huge loss of money for the company involved, and this can likely lead to litigation. It is of core benefit for geologists, chemist, miners, and environmental specialists to retrieve maximum information from the available data including large investments and significant decisions depending on it. Indeed, the poorly estimated sampling is considered to fuel devastating incidences including exploitation of unprofitable things; abandonment of viable properties; leading to incompetence within the fraud detection; and mismanagement of practicable properties (Kanj, Joshi & Nassif, 2006).
Apparently, it is significant to quantify the heterogeneity of the imperative constituents for every new property. With regard to this, the failure to do the suitable testing can lead to invalid sub-sampling and sampling procedures, excessive drilling, as well as biased database which can later fuel false geostatistics. Moreover, this can lead to staggering cost of data which are deemed as irrelevant variability that are not easily detectable, quantifiable, or corrected. The strategy for effective execution of variability can fuel managers to determine and lessen the annoying conciliation weaknesses between theoretical reality and models (Kanj, Joshi & Nassif, 2006).