Week 9th, TA3201 Resource Modelling and Reserve Evaluation

Geological Modelling & Resources

Classification based on Geostatistical
Method
 After Hansen, et al. (1978), there are three key factors controlling the validity of resource
appraisals:
(a) Experience of the estimators
(b) Information about the area being studied
(c) Method of estimation

• There is little doubt these factors will continue to control geologically based resource
estimates.
• However, new and improved techniques have been and are being developed. One new
technique is deposit modeling.
• Deposit modeling employs essentially the same factors as outlined above for the more
conventional methods except that to a large extent the deposit model takes the place of the
experience of the estimator, or at least makes it more objective.
• Of course, subjective judgment based on experience still plays a most important role, but it
can be assisted by systematically collected data that can be analytically compared to a
deposit model. This is the greatest advantage of the method.
• Deposit modeling is a computer task. It can be accomplished without the aid of a computer
for a geologically simple area but the complexity of the problem increases exponentially as
more data are added; Access to a computer is therefore recommended.
The deposit model is a generalization of a deposit type distinguished by:
1. geological attributes;
2. host rock environment;
3. processes of formation;
4. characteristic amounts of specified commodities.

• The assessment of mineral resource potential using the deposit modeling

method is made by predicting the existence of generalized deposit models in
recognized favorable geological environments within an area of interest.
• For the purposes of the description of this method of resource assessment, the
area to be assessed or area of interest will be referred to as the appraisal area.
• The two main components of this method are the deposit model and the
appraisal area.
There are two kinds data required for the construction of the deposit model:
(a) explicit or observed characteristics, such as measurements, assays, and so forth, and
(b) implicit, or those characteristics that can be assigned on the basis of their occurrence in
other deposits.

Data Required for a Deposit Model (Hansen et al., 1978)

Note: E = essential; D = desirable

*In many cases genesis may not be fully understood and should be used with
caution. If it is improperly interpreted and is given too great an importance in
model construction, it could render the model useless or of little value.
Data required for an appraisal area (Hansen et al., 1978)

Note: E = essential; D = desirable

a)May be plotted on geologic maps

b)Same note as for previous table

Geologic Data

• Geologic maps represent the most basic form of information about the appraisal area,
and are a prerequisite to the use of deposit models.
• They should be at a scale that provides resolution appropriate to the models used, and
the regional geological environmental characteristics of the model must be suited to the
details identifiable on the maps. For example, for the location of ultramafic bodies, a
scale of 1:15.000 or greater would ensure sufficient precision, but maps at larger scales
may be adequate when models use characteristics that extend outside the appraisal area.
• The basic geologic maps should be as complete as Possible. The most recent
investigations should be included, even if maps at different scales are required.
• Other geologic data, such as cross-sections and sketches, should be processed with the
geologic map.
• If geologic maps of a region have not been published, unpublished maps such as areal,
topographic, or geologic, may be found in offices, libraries, and private files outside the
national Geological Survey.
• All available unpublished geologic information should be added to the published data.
 Staff support (Hansen et al., 1978)

Note:
E = essential; D = desirable
(a) A project leader; (b) Specialist engaged for the duration of the project; (c) Experts
engaged part-time with the project
 Physical support (Hansen et al., 1978)

Note: E = essential; D = desirable

a) Deposit models can be constructed from a mineral inventory even if it is not complete, requiring

only that for those deposits exhibiting specific features (e.g., structure, mineralogy, commodity,
geology), the data are retrievable from the inventory file.
b) It is recommended that all appraisal systems develop a computerized capability, even though the

first efforts maybe quite small

There are six essential steps in
the construction and
specification of a mineral
deposit model:
1. Data base construction;
2. Specification of relationships
between model components;
3. Quantification of model
characteristics;
4. Determination of economic
characteristics;
5. Model testing and
adjustment;
6. Iteration of the above five
steps for several specific
pertinent models.
Flow diagram for deposit modeling
(Hansen et al., 1978)
Spatial modeling of discontinuous geologic attributes with
geotechnical applications (Koike & Matsuda, 2005)

• Geologic data obtained by drilling investigations, field measurements, and

laboratory tests are irregularly distributed with respect to location both
horizontally and vertically. Spatial discontinuities impact soil classification,
hydraulic conductivity, and chemical content.
• In this study, a three-dimensional modeling method, which combines the
optimization principle method and a stochastic simulation method, was
developed (OPTSIM).
• This method consists of three steps: the transformation of geologic
attributes into binary (0 or 1) under certain thresholds, the three-
dimensional interpolation of these transformed binary data, and the
construction of conditional cumulative distribution functions (CCDF) by
repeatedly changing the threshold and interpolation analysis. The Monte
Carlo method was then used to inversely determine the attributes from the
constructed CCDFs.
• Three types of attribute expressed by value, code, and class were
examined. The OPTSIM was applied to spatial modeling of
geotechnical structures in the Kumamoto plain, southwest Japan,
using two kinds of data, lithologic units and physical soil properties.
• Resistivity data obtained by electric logging and the locations of
screens were linked to geologic distribution. The constructed model
contributed to the location of chief aquifers and estimates of amount
of shallow groundwater.
• A combination of granular composition, N value, and water content
was examined. Transgression and regression patterns following the
last glacial stage were also inferred through this analysis.
• In both applications, discontinuities in lithologic units and soil
properties resulting from fault movements and sea-level changes
were successfully expressed in the distribution models.
(a) An example of the geologic
cross section in the Osaka plain
provided by the Kansai Branch of
the Japanese Geotechnical
Society and
Kansai Geotechnical Consultants
Association (1987). Comparison
of the reconstructed cross
sections from four geologic
columns in the (a) section by (c)
using the OPTSIM.
Horizontal cross sections of geologic distributions estimated at
depths of 30 and 50 m.
(a) Distribution of 151 drilling sites with electric well logging, and (b)
drilling sites that have N values and/or laboratory soil-test data in the
Kumamoto plain. The cross sections are shown in next figures.
Vertical cross sections of (a) geologic and (b) resistivity distributions along the
northeast and southwest (A–A‟) and northwest and southeast (B–B‟) sections. The
locations of the cross sections are shown in previous figures.
Vertical cross sections of the granular compositions, N values, and water contents
along three cross-section lines: C–C‟ running from the mouth of the Shirakawa river
to the Ezu lake, D–D‟ running along the coastline near the Ariake bay, and E–E‟
crossing the Shirakawa river. The locations of the cross sections are shown in the
previous figures. Black lines indicate the estimated unconformities.
 Total volume of chief aquifers
estimated in each lithologic unit
Distribution of the chief aquifers estimated
using the resistivity in each lithologic unit, as
superimposed on the geologic cross sections
in the previous figures
 3D geological modelling of asphalt deposit at Blok X

Reserve boundary

100 m

Aspal kadar tinggi

Aspal kadar sedang
Batugamping
Tanah penutup
Lain-lain
 3D geological modelling of asphalt deposit at Blok Y

Reserve boundary

100 m

Aspal kadar tinggi

Aspal kadar sedang
Aspal kadar rendah
Konglomerat
Batugamping
Tanah penutup
Lain-lain
3D geological modelling of asphalt deposit at Blok Z

Reserve boundary

100 m

Aspal kadar tinggi

Aspal kadar sedang
Aspal kadar rendah
Batugamping
Tanah penutup
Lain-lain
150 150
BK. 1-4
BK.1-1 BK.1-2 BK. 1-7
BK.1-2A BK.1-2B BK.1-3 BK. 1-6 BK. 1-8
100 Seam P2 BK. 1-5 100

?? ??
Seam P ??
?? Seam O
50
??
Seam P 50

0 0

150 150

BGK.2-1 BGK.2-2 BGK.2-3

100 100

Seam P
50 50

0 0

150 150
BKT. 3 BKT. 5
BKT. 3P
BKT. 2 BKT. 4 BKT. 6
BKT. 1
100 Seam P2 100

Seam P1
50 Seam P 50

Seam O ?? ??
0 0

150 BK. 2-1 BK. 2-2 150

??
?? BK. 2-3 BK. 2-3A

BK. 2-4 BK. 2-5

100 100
Seam P2 ??
?? ??
50 Seam P1 50
?? ??
Seam P
?? Seam O
0 0

150 150

BK. 3-1
BK. 3-2 BK. 3-3
100 BK. 3-4 100
Seam P2
??
50 50
?? ??
Seam P ?? Seam O
0 0

150 150

BK. 4-6A BK. 4-7P

BK. 4-1 BK. 4-2 BK. 4-3 BK. 4-4 BK. 4-5
BK. 4-6 BK. 4-8
100 100

?? Seam P2
Seam P1 ??
50 50

Seam P Seam O
??
0 0

2D section of coal seam correlation based on drillhole and

outcrop data
2D seam model based on drillhole and outcrop data
Interpretation of hydrothermal alteration distribution at North Cikoret-Ciurug,
Pongkor
Estimation model of Cu porphyritic assay estimated from drillhole
data, associated with the pit limit
750 750

700 j 700

k
r
l

m s
n
t
650 o 650
p u
q
b
eoh 173.35

c
d

600 e 600
f
g-h v

i x CUT 1 (N 240ºE/49º)
550 550
CUT 1A (N 240ºE/33º)
eoh 241.15m z
CUT 1B (N 240ºE/60º)
eoh 238.80 m
X = 9502.065
Y = 8660.626
Interpretation on Au vein distribution Z = 744.011
500 based on drilling data 500
Two different interpretation of geological model of a mineral deposit
derived from the same drillhole data
Fence diagram to show the
correlation and continuity of coal
seam at Campbell County,
Wyoming (Peters, 1978)
3D block diagram for coal deposit modeling controlled by drillhole data
(Peters, 1978)
3D block model for resource estimation of mineral deposit
Use of Transition Probability to Improve
the Geostatistical Simulation of Facies
Architecture
(isotropy direction)
 (in vertical direction) (in lateral direction)

3D simulation
model of fluvial
sediments consist
of: SM (silty
sand), ML (silt),
CL/ML (clayey
silt or silty clay),
CL/CH (clay or
“fat clay”)
3D model of folded structures in sedimentary environment
 Area of Influence for Resources Classification (Case of Coal Deposit)

• USGS Circular 891 (0 - 400 m = measured, 400 - 1200 m = indicated, 1200

- 4800 m = inferred, > 4800 m = hypothetic)
• SNI (Indonesian):

Geological Criteria Resources

Condition
Measured Indicated Inferred Hypo-
thetic
Simple Information X300 300<X500 500<X1000 Infinite
spacing (m)

Moderate Information X200 200<X300 300<X800 Infinite

spacing (m)

Complex Information X100 100<X200 200<X400 Infinite

spacing (m)

36
37
 Subdivisions for Reserve Estimates (after Valee, 1986)

Approximate
Category Data Condition Margin of
Error
Developed:
Ore or mineralization exposed and sampled in volume in 0 – 10 %
addition to detailed drilling
Measured  Proven
Drilled Defined:
Ore or mineralization whose location, grade and continuity are 5 – 20 %
established by regular and close-spaced drilling and sampling
Class I:
Ore or mineralization whose continuity and grade have been 20 – 40 %
defined by regular, but fairly wide-spaced drilling or sampling
Indicated  Probable Class II:
Ore or mineralization whose continuity and grade have been
40 – 70 %
defined by somewhat regular, wide-spaced drilling and
sampling
Potential Reserve:
Mineralization interpreted on the basis of expected continuity
Inferred  Possible 70 – 100 %
from known exposures, and whose location and grade are only
poorly surmised from a few irregular drillholes or exposures
 Yamamoto (1999): The classification scheme proposed by Diehl and David (1982),
with different confidence levels, is not acceptable, because ore-reserve estimation
is carried out using a given exploration data. On the other hand, except for the use
of OK standard deviations, the Wellmer„s ore-reserve classification seems to be
reasonable. Note that this scheme uses a unique confidence level (90%), which is
suitable for geological data as recommended by Koch and Link (1971).
References:
1. Yamamoto, J.K., Quantification of Uncertainty in Ore-Reserve Estimation: Applications to Chapada Copper
Deposit, State of Goias, Brazil, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, p. 153-163.
2. Diehl, P., and David, M., 1982, Classification of Ore Reserves/Resources Based on Geostatistical Methods, CIM
Bull., v. 75, no. 838, p. 127-136.
3. Wellmer, F. W., 1983, Classification of Ore Reserves by Geostatistical Methods, ERZMETALL, v. 36, no. 7/8, p. 315-
321.
4. Koch Jr., G. S., and Link, R. F, 1971, Statistical Analysis of Geological Data, Dover Publ., New York, v. 1, 375 p.
Normal distribution of estimation error
Blackwell (1998)  demonstrated a practical use of relative-
kriging variance (or relative-kriging standard deviation, RKSD)
as an important component of resources classification scheme
for porphyry Cu and large epithermal gold deposit:
1. Identify mineralized blocks (i.e. verify geologic continuity)
2. Identify mineralized blocks above cut-off grade.
3. Classify the blocks above cut-off grade based on the
selected RKSD:

Measured 0.3  Indicated 0.5  Inferred

41
Case: Resources Classification of Ni Laterite in Different
Block Area
South Block Central Block

North Block
42
 Estimation on Cu porphyritic deposit using Ordinary Kriging (OK)
Utara-Selatan

Level 680m Barat-Timur

43
 Geostatistical Coal Resources Classification

By assuming distribution of estimation error is normal with 95% of

confidence level, relative error is calculated by estimation variance of
Ordinary Kriging method:
% error = ± 1.96σ/z*  100%

Based on % relative error as addressed in de Souza et al. (2002) which was

modified from JORC 1999 and Diehl and David (1982), coal resources are
classified to be:
1. Measured resources  relative error ≤ 10%.
2. Indicated resources  relative error 10-20%.
3. Inferred resources  relative error > 20%.
Estimated thickness (a) and its relative error (b); estimated
sulphur content (c) and its relative error (d)
(m)

(a) (b)

(%)

(c) (d)
Difference on Coal Resources Estimation vs. Geological Condition
(Heriawan et al., 2010)

35
Measured
% Difference Geostat vs. SNI 1999

30 Indicated
Inferred

25

20

15

10

0
Simple Moderate Complex
(Mulia Mine) (Senakin Mine) (Abigat Mine)

Geological Condition