Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoscience Frontiers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsf

Research Paper

A comparative study of geometric and geostatistical methods for qualitative

reserve estimation of limestone deposit
Thomas Busuyi Afeni a, Victor Oluwatosin Akeju a, Adeyemi Emman Aladejare b, *
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
b
Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Biswajeet Pradhan Mining projects especially relating to limestone deposits require an accurate knowledge of tonnage and grade, for
both short and long-term planning. This is often difficult to establish as detailed exploration operations, which are
Keywords: required to get the accurate description of the deposit, are costly and time consuming. Geologists and mining
Geostatistics engineers usually make use of geometric and geostatistical methods, for estimating the tonnage and grade of ore
Geometric
reserves. However, explicit assessments into the differences between these methods have not been reported in
Triangular block
literature. To bridge this research gap, a comparative study is carried out to compare the qualitative reserve of
Limestone
Quality maps Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit located in Nigeria, using geometric and geostatistical methods. The geometric method
Ordinary kriging computes the reserve of the limestone deposit as 74,536,820 t (mean calcite, CaO grade ¼ 52.15) and 99,674,793
t (mean calcite, CaO grade ¼ 52.32), for the Northern and Southern zones of the deposit, respectively. On the
other hand, the geostatistical method calculates the reserve as 81,626,729.65 t (mean calcite, CaO grade ¼ 53.36)
and 100,098,697.46 t (mean calcite, CaO grade ¼ 52.96), for the two zones, respectively. The small relative
difference in tonnage estimation between the two methods (i.e., 9.51% and 0.43%), proves that the geometric
method is effective for tonnage estimation. In contrast, the relative difference in grade estimation between the
two methods (i.e., 2.32% and 1.26%) is not negligible, and could be crucial in maintaining the profitability of the
project. The geostatistical method is, therefore, more suitable, reliable and preferable for grade estimation, since it
involves the use of spatial modelling and cross-validated interpolation. In addition, the geostatistical method is
used to produce quality maps and three-dimensional (3-D) perspective view of the limestone deposit. The quality
maps and 3-D view of the limestone deposit reveal the variability of the limestone grade within the deposit, and it
is useful for operational management of the limestone raw materials. The qualitative mapping of the limestone
deposit is key to effective production scheduling and accurate projection of raw materials for cement production.

1. Introduction
The desires for developmental projects globally will continue to
expand the construction industries, and subsequently increase the use
and exploration of limestone deposits. The economic evaluation of
mineral deposits is an important factor for making decisions about
opening new mines, or in planning future investment for operating
mines. However, this economic evaluation relies on the accuracy of the
reserve estimation of the associated mineral deposit (e.g., Wellmer et al.,
2007; Yünsel, 2012; Jafrasteh et al., 2018; Lilford et al., 2018; Daya,
2019; Truong et al., 2019; Yasrebi and Hezarkhani, 2019). Moreover, the
profitability of a mining project is often dependent on the results of grade
(or quality) evaluation, obtained during reserve estimation of the mineral
deposit (e.g., Kapageridis and Denby, 1998; Jalloh et al., 2016; Jafrasteh
and Fathianpour, 2017; Maghsoudi et al., 2018; Gholampour et al.,
2019). Therefore, reliable reserve and grade estimation of a mineral
deposit (e.g., limestone) is vital for successful and profitable mining
operations.
The reserve estimation of mineral deposits is one of the problems
frequently facing geologists and mining engineers due to the geological
complexities of ore body formation (e.g., Dunlop, 1979; Jalloh et al.,
2016; Olea, 2018; Gholampour et al., 2019; Shurygin et al., 2019; Yasrebi
and Hezarkhani, 2019). Nevertheless, mining operations require accu-
rate knowledge of tonnage and grade for both short and long-term

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adeyemi.aladejare@oulu.fi (A.E. Aladejare).
Peer-review under responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.02.019
Received 27 June 2019; Received in revised form 19 December 2019; Accepted 28 February 2020
Available online 8 April 2020
1674-9871/© 2020 China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
T.B. Afeni et al.
planning. Detailed and extensive exploration operations are required to
get accurate description of a mineral deposit, but they are costly and
require a lot of resources (e.g., Wellmer et al., 2007; Lilford et al., 2018).
The objective of reserve estimation may be different for the exploration,
development, and production stages of a mining project, with need for
increasing accuracy for each new investment requirement (Appleyard,
2001; Dominy et al., 2002; Wellmer et al., 2007). During the develop-
ment and production stages of mine, accurate predictions of spatially
distributed values are particularly important. In latter stages of mining
operation, modern mathematical techniques made possible by contem-
porary computer advancement play an increasingly important role in
reserve estimation.
Geometric and geostatistical techniques are widely adopted by geol-
ogists and mining engineers in evaluating mineral deposits (e.g., Wang
and Huang, 2012; Yünsel, 2012; Abzalov, 2016; Jalloh et al., 2016;
Madani and Ortiz, 2017; Mery et al., 2017; Silva and Almeida, 2017;
Wang et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Osterholt and Dimitrakopoulos,
2018; Abdessattar et al., 2019; Truong et al., 2019). The classical polygon
method is the most popular application of geometric method in reserve
estimation. It includes special cases such as square blocks, rectangular
uniform blocks, triangular blocks, and polygonal blocks. These methods
are usually applied at an early exploration stage when a sufficiently large
data base is not available (e.g., Dominy et al., 2002; Truong et al., 2019).
They can be used to get an approximate estimate of potential grade and
tonnage of a mineral deposit (e.g., Wellmer, 1998; Wellmer et al., 2007;
Truong et al., 2019). On the other hand, geostatistical techniques provide
powerful tools for modelling an ore deposit, using the spatial distribution
of the ore grades (e.g., Webster and Oliver, 2007; Erarslan, 2012; Silva
and Almeida, 2017; Abdessattar et al., 2019). The basic concept of geo-
statistics is regional variability of parameters using semi-variograms and
spatial interpolation techniques (e.g., Matheron, 1962, 1971; Krige,
1984; Webster and Oliver, 2007; Wang and Haung, 2012; Jacob et al.,

2014; Swito n, 2015; Silva and Almeida, 2017; Olea, 2018; Daya, 2019).
It is, therefore, a robust method for estimating the grade of in-situ
mineralization. However, published researched works have not pro-
vided explicit assessments into the comparison or differences between
these two commonly-used reserve estimation methods.
The application of geostatistics for the estimation of limestone reserve
is quite extensive in the literature (e.g., Onur et al., 2008; Yünsel, 2012;
Akeju and Afeni, 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Ovinnikov et al., 2018; Gusman
et al., 2019). There are also published works on the characterization and
simulation of limestone deposits (e.g., Almedia et al., 2004; Marcotte
et al., 2005; Yünsel, 2018; Liu et al., 2019). Artificial neural network has
also been applied for grade estimation of limestone deposits (e.g.,
Chatterjee et al., 2006; Patel and Chatterjee, 2016; Elium et al., 2017;
Martin et al., 2017; Wang, 2019). However, published case studies,
which involve the application of geometric methods for evaluating
limestone deposits, are quite rare.
The objective of this study is to provide an explicit assessment into the
comparison between geometric and geostatistical methods for estimating
the reserve and grade of a limestone deposit. For this study, the geo-
statistical techniques adopted consists of exploratory data analysis, semi-
variogram analysis and ordinary kriging. Also, the geometric method
based on triangular blocks, is applied to calculate the reserve and grade
estimate of the limestone deposit. Subsequently, the results from both
methods (i.e., geostatistical and geometric) are compared, and the
observed differences are evaluated and analysed. For illustration pur-
pose, this paper adopted the limestone deposit located in Oyo-Iwa, Kogi
State, Nigeria as the case study.
2. Study area
The study area is situated in Oyo-Iwa village, Kogi State, which is
approximately 466 km Northeast of Lagos, a major city in Nigeria. The
mining lease for the exploration and mining of limestone in Oyo-Iwa
244
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253
village, is located by grid reference longitude 07 59.8160 N and latitude
06 26.5110 E. Presently, the mining lease of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit
belongs to Dangote Cement Plc, which owns the largest cement plant in
Sub-Sahara Africa.
Geologically, the study area lies within the basement complex of the
southwestern part of Nigeria as shown in Fig. 1. The three broad tectono-
stratigraphic units of the Precambrain basement complex rocks include:
the reworked and multiply metamorphosed ancient migmatite-gneiss-
quartzite complex; metasediments (Schist Belts); and the Pan-African
intrusive series (Van Breemen et al., 1977; Rahaman, 1988; Dada et al.,
1998; Elueze, 2000; Elueze et al., 2015). The basement rock exposures in
the study area are dominated by gneissic and metasedimentry rocks
(Hockey et al., 1986; Okunlola, 2001). Fig. 1 also illustrates the local
geology of the study area. Specifically, the rock type found in the study
area includes quartz-mica schist, pegmatite, quartzite, limestone
(marble), granite and phyllites (Hockey et al., 1986; Okunlola, 2001;
Elueze et al., 2015). Other metasediments in the area comprise the sili-
cate facies iron-formations and graphite schists. The limestone is grey to
white in colour, and medium to coarse grained in nature with few mica
specks. In some places within the formation, mica schist and granulite
intrude the limestone deposit. As obtained from the data of boreholes
drilled in this area, the limestone is overlaid by overburden soil of about
2–8 m thickness and its occurrence is up to 70 m from the surface.
3. Materials
3.1. Borehole data
The data utilised in this study consists of information obtained from
core samples, which are acquired from 53 selected exploratory boreholes
of the Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit. The selected exploratory boreholes
span over an estimated area of 124 ha and the distribution of these
boreholes is shown in Fig. 2. The borehole logs obtained during the
exploratory stage of the mining project contain information such as the
thickness of the intersections, chemical contents, geological description
of the raw materials, depth and the coordinates of the drill holes. Ac-
cording to the borehole logs, the exploratory boreholes were drilled to
varying altitudes above sea level due to ground water problem. To specify
a consistent depth for all the selected boreholes, a reduced level of 170 m
is adopted as the target depth of the study area. Due to the geologic and
lithological arrangement of the Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit, the area
covered by the exploratory boreholes is divided into two zones, named
Northern (NZ) and Southern (SZ) zones, prior to data analysis. The two
zones are shown in Fig. 3. Before any data analysis can be carried out, it is
important to define and determine the limestone quality parameters
against which the quality of the Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit must be
evaluated. This is discussed in the next subsection.
3.2. Limestone quality parameters
In cement manufacturing, a set of quality parameters is usually used
to characterize the quality of cement raw materials and ensure the quality
of the produced cements. In this study, the most common limestone
quality parameters (i.e., lime standard (LSt), silica modulus (SiM) and
aluminium modulus (AlM)) are evaluated from the exploratory borehole
data of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit. The exploratory data consists of
concentrations of CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, Na2O, K2O and loss on
ignition (LOI), which were determined using the X-ray fluorescence test
in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards (ASTM, 2003). LSt, SiM and AlM can be calculated using Eqs.
(1)–(3), respectively (e.g., Moore, 1982; Onur et al., 2008; Yünsel, 2012):
100ðCaOÞ
LSt ¼ (1)
2:8ðSiO2 Þ þ 1:18ðAl2 O3 Þ þ 0:65ðFe2 O3 Þ
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

Fig. 1. Geological map of Nigeria showing the local geology of the study location, Oyo-Iwa (modified after Akeju and Afeni, 2015 and Elueze et al., 2015).

ðSiO2 Þ
SiM ¼ (2)
ðAl2 O3 Þ þ ðFe2 O3 Þ

ðAl2 O3 Þ
AlM ¼ (3)
ðFe2 O3 Þ
Note that CaO is used together with the limestone quality parameters
(i.e., LSt, SiM and AlM) in this study to evaluate the quality, and subse-
quently estimate the reserve of the cement raw materials in the limestone
deposit. The next section presents the methodology for computing the
reserve and grade estimation of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit using geo-
metric and geostatistical methods.

4. Methods

4.1. Reserve estimation using geometric method (triangular block)

There are various geometric methods available for estimating the

Fig. 2. Map showing the location of the exploratory boreholes in the study area.
reserve of a deposit (e.g., Wellmer, 1998; Truong et al., 2019). One of the
most common geometric methods is the triangular block method and will
be applied in this study. The triangular block method is a traditional
method, which involves the division of the study area into triangles,
using the borehole points as the edges (e.g., Wellmer, 1998; Wellmer
et al., 2007; Truong et al., 2019). Subsequently, several triangles with
varying dimensions are produced after the division of the study area. The
total tonnage of the deposit can be obtained by adding up all the

245
T.B. Afeni et al.
Fig. 3. Base maps showing the distribution of borehole points for the lime-
stone deposit.
individual tonnage of the available triangular blocks. The tonnage of
each triangular block in the deposit can be obtained using:
T ¼ At  ThA  Dlt (4)
where T is tonnage in tonnes, ThA is the average thickness in meters, At is
the area of the triangle, and Dlt is the density of the deposit. ThA can be
estimated by obtaining the average value of all the limestone thicknesses
for the associated three borehole points forming the triangular block. A
mathematical formula such as the Hero’s formula can be used to obtain
At :
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
At ¼ ðsðs  aÞðs  bÞðs  cÞÞ (5)
where a, b and c represent the lengths of the triangle and s ¼ 1 2 ða þb þcÞ
=
represents a factor obtained from the three lengths of the triangle.
The grade of the limestone (e.g., CaO) in each borehole can be esti-
mated using the principle of weighted average whose mathematical
formula is given as (Webster and Oliver, 2007):
246
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253
P
n
G i fi
G1 f1 þ G2 f2 þ … þ Gn fn
Gw ¼ i¼1
P ¼
n (6)
f1 þ f2 þ … þ f n
fi
i¼1
where Gw is the weighted average, G1 , G2 , …, Gn are the grade values
whose weighted average are to be determined and f1 , f2 , …, fn are the
weighting factors. The successive thicknesses of limestone along the
borehole was used as the weighting factors for an associated borehole.
Subsequently, the grade of limestone in a resulting triangular block, after
calculating for the associated three borehole points, is computed using
Eq. (6). In this case, the total thickness of limestone in each borehole is
used as the respective weighting factor. Similarly, the grade of the entire
limestone deposit can then be obtained by applying Eq. (6), using the
thicknesses of the available triangular blocks as the weighting factors.
4.2. Reserve estimation using geostatistical method
The application of geostatistical techniques for ore modelling and
reserve estimation can be broadly divided into quantification of the
spatial variability of the deposit, and grade (or spatial) interpolation
(Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989; Webster and Oliver, 2007; Silva and
Almeida, 2017). However, it is important to carry out statistical analysis
on the exploratory data before geostatistical analysis. The subsequent
subsections describe the steps involved in the application of geostatistical
techniques for ore modelling and reserve estimation.
4.2.1. Statistical analysis and normal score transformation of exploratory
data
It is important to establish if the exploratory raw data belongs to the
same parent population before modelling and interpolation (e.g., Dunlop,
1979; Vizi, 2008; Salman et al., 2009; Yünsel, 2012; Silva and Almeida,
2017; Abdessattar et al., 2019). Based on this, there is a need to perform
statistical analysis of raw data for the limestone quality parameters (i.e.,
CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM). Apart from the descriptive statistics (such as
mean, variance and measure of dispersions), the frequency distributions
and statistical correlations between the parameters must also be
computed to establish the relationship among them. In geostatistical
modelling, it is expected that a variable is normally distributed before
applying kriging, which is a common interpolation technique in geo-
statistics (Dunlop, 1979; Chatterjee et al., 2006; Yünsel, 2012; Silva and
Almeida, 2017; Daya, 2019). To achieve this, normal transformation
must be applied to the raw data of such variable to normalize its skew-
ness. This transformation must be later reversed at the end of the
modelling process to produce results back in the raw scale.
4.2.2. Spatial variability of the limestone deposit
The spatial variability of the limestone deposit in terms of the quality
parameters (e.g., CaO) is investigated by performing semi-variogram
analysis on the exploratory data. The experimental semi-variogram, γ
(gamma) function is computed as (e.g., Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989;
Webster and Oliver, 2007; Akeju and Afeni, 2015; Wang et al., 2017):
n 
X 
ðGx  Gxþh Þ2
γ¼ (7)
x¼1
2n
where n is the number of sample points, h is the distance between sample
points, Gx is the sample grade at point x, and Gxþh is the sample grade at a
point of h distance from Gx. A parametric model (e.g., exponential,
spherical, nested) is usually fitted to the experimental semi-variogram
plot (i.e., a plot of h vs. γ). After fitting, the parameters of the fitted
semi-variogram model like sill, range and nugget effect are evaluated and
noted. The next subsection discusses grade interpolation, which requires
the parameters of the fitted semi-variogram model as input variables.
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

4.2.3. Grade interpolation using ordinary kriging (OK)
Ordinary Kriging (OK) is a spatial interpolation method which can be
used to estimate a property of interest at unobserved locations (e.g.,
Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989; Webster and Oliver, 2007; Wang and Huang,
2012; Wang et al., 2017). Parametric geostatistical methods like the OK
work well in deposits with a coefficient of variation of around one or less
(e.g., Fytas et al., 1990; Webster and Oliver, 2007; Olea, 2018). The OK is
chosen as the interpolation method in this case study as the datasets fulfil
this condition. The OK uses the fitted semi-variogram parameters ob-
tained from spatial analysis to estimate the unknown grade of a block, by
using a weighted average of surrounding points (e.g., Isaaks and Sri-
vastava, 1989; Webster and Oliver, 2007; Wang et al., 2017).
In order to keep with sound engineering practice, there is need to
perform cross-validation of the OK block estimates to check the
compatibility between the set of data and the structural model (Clark,
1986; Webster and Oliver, 2007). In this cross-validation procedure, each
data point is sequentially considered, removed temporarily from the data
set, and predicted (through the OK procedure), using its neighbouring
information and the previously fitted semi-variogram model (Clark,
1986; Yünsel, 2012). Mathematically, the estimation error, z, from the
cross-validation procedure can be evaluated as:
Q  Q*
z¼
σε
where Q* represents the estimation values, Q represents the actual values
of the raw data and σ ε is the standard deviation of estimation.
4.2.4. Reserve estimation of the deposit
The tonnage and grade of the limestone deposit is estimated, using
the interpolation results obtained from the OK technique coupled with an
appropriate grid design for the deposit. The total tonnage above cut-off
grade can be calculated as (e.g., Yünsel, 2012):
X 
T Ti ¼ Vb  Dlt
P
where Ti is the total tonnage of one block in percentage, Vb is the
volume in m3 of one block and Dlt is the density (t/m3). Also, the mean
grade above cut-off can be estimated as (e.g., Yünsel, 2012):
1X
M¼ mi
nc
where mi is the mean grade unit and nc is the number of samples above
cut-off grade.
5. Results
5.1. Geostatistical modelling of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit
5.1.1. Statistical analysis and normal score transformation
Table 1 presents the summary of the descriptive statistics of the
regularized quality parameters CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM. The descriptive
statistics show that all the selected limestone quality parameters are very
stable in nature especially for calcite (i.e., CaO), which indicates a co-
efficient of variation of 0.03, for both Northern (NZ) and Southern (SZ)
zones. This also confirms that the limestone samples used for the
exploratory data come from the same parent population. This analysis
agrees with the works of Dunlop (1979), Asghari and Hezarkhani (2006),
Chatterjee et al. (2006), Yünsel (2012), and Silva and Almeida (2017).
Also, the histogram plots for the raw data of the CaO, LSt, SiM and
AlM are constructed. However, due to space limit, only those of CaO are
presented in this paper in Fig. 4. The histogram plots reveal that all the
quality parameters of the limestone deposit (NZ and SZ) skew, either
slightly or considerably. This indicates a remarkably different shape to
the symmetrical shape of normal distribution. To remove this skewness
and make sure the variables are normally distributed before the appli-
cation of the OK (e.g., Leuangthong et al., 2004; Asghari and Hezarkhani,
2006; Yünsel, 2012), a normal score transformation is carried out on all
the variables for both zones (i.e., NZ and SZ).
5.1.2. Semi-variogram modelling
After careful analysis, the experimental and respective fitted omni-
directional semi-variograms (horizontal plane) for the transformed CaO
(see Fig. 5), LSt, SiM and AIM are constructed. They show that the fitted
spherical, exponential, Gaussian and nested models are reasonably in
agreement with the data. The corresponding parameters of the fitted
(8)
semi-variograms for all the limestone quality are presented in Table 2. As
shown in Table 2, the fitted ranges of all the quality parameters in NZ and
SZ vary considerably. This indicates the difference in the spatial vari-
ability of both zones (i.e., NZ and SZ) and justifies their separate spatial
modelling based on the lithology and geology of the formation. In
addition, the omni-directional semi-variograms (vertical plane) and
directional semi-variograms are developed for all the limestone quality
parameters. All the resulting semi-variograms from the vertical and
directional planes exhibit similar trends and behaviours, which highlight
the absence of severe geometric or strong zonal anisotropy. The vertical
and directional semi-variograms obtained during the analysis are not
(9) presented in this paper due to page limit.
5.1.3. The OK and cross-validation
The OK is employed in this study for interpolating the limestone
quality parameters (i.e., CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM) using the fitted semi-
variogram models (i.e., Table 2). The models are cross-checked, and
(10) the data produced favourable results during cross-validation. The sta-
tistical results of the cross-validation on the estimation error and stan-
dardized error are presented in Table 3. Each model satisfies the global
unbiased condition reasonably, where distributions of errors are centred
on a zero mean. The mean error estimated in Table 3 proves that the
unbiased condition of the OK algorithm worked efficiently for the
models. The cross-validation tests on the models of all the limestone
quality parameters are carried out as a 98% confidence interval. The
cross-validation graphs of CaO for the Northern zone are presented in
Fig. 6. Though they are evaluated as part of the study, the cross-
validation graphs of the other quality parameters are not presented
here, since the results showed similar behaviour to those of CaO.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM for the study area.
Northern zone (NZ) Southern zone (SZ)
Variable
CaO LSt SiM AlM CaO LSt SiM AlM

Number 440.00 440.00 440.00 440.00 467.00 467.00 467.00 467.00

Minimum 44.97 132.46 0.41 0.07 43.02 106.81 0.58 0.87
Maximum 55.59 16249.81 11.20 29.20 55.91 8131.18 9.37 17.60
Mean 52.84 1233.78 3.94 3.44 52.53 742.21 3.60 2.96
Standard deviation 1.80 1599.01 1.47 2.25 1.65 648.18 1.20 1.46
Coefficient of variation 0.03 1.27 0.42 0.64 0.03 0.87 0.33 0.49
Skewness 1.13 4.39 1.83 4.13 1.54 5.21 0.71 3.30

247
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

Fig. 4. Histograms of CaO for the two zones in the exploratory dataset.

Fig. 5. Experimental and fitted omni-directional semi-variograms for CaO variable.

Table 2
Semi-variogram model parameters for the CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM variables.
Northern zone (NZ) Southern zone (SZ)

Model Nugget effect Range Sill Model Nugget effect Range Sill

CaO Spherical 0.42 31 0.46 Exponential 0.62 323 0.41

Gaussian 290 0.12
LSt Spherical 0.43 36 0.22 Exponential 0.60 62 0.30
Exponential 373 0.16 Spherical 283 0.09
SiM Exponential 0.51 146 0.38 Exponential 0.37 40 0.24
Spherical 355 0.38
AlM Spherical 0.55 156 0.36 Spherical 0.34 267 0.56

5.2. Reserve estimation of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit
5.2.1. Reserve estimation based on geometric method (triangular block)
As previously discussed in Section 4.1, the study area is divided into
triangles using borehole points as the edges, to calculate the reserve for
the triangular block method. Fig. 7 present the maps showing the for-
mation of triangles in the limestone deposit for the Northern zone (NZ).
Also, Table 4 shows the computations of the triangular block method,
which is used in obtaining the reserve estimate for the Northern zone
(NZ). The areas of all the formed triangular blocks (column 2 in Table 4)
are calculated using Eq. (5), while the total tonnage for each triangular
block (columns 5 in Table 4) are evaluated using Eq. (4). Also, the
weighted average composition for CaO and other minerals (columns 6–9
in Table 4) are evaluated using Eq. (6). Note that the formation of tri-
angles and computation of total tonnage of the triangular block are also
applied to the Southern zone (SZ), but they are not presented in this
paper due to page limit. Instead, only that of Northern zone (NZ) is
presented for illustration in this paper.

248
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

Table 3 The tonnage results of the two methods are remarkably similar. The
Statistical result of the cross-validation. relative difference between the geostatistical estimation and triangular
Standard error block estimation in the total tonnage of the Northern zone gives 9.51%,
while that of the Southern zone gives 0.43%. These close results of the
Variables Northern zone Southern zone
total tonnage could be because the exploratory dataset is viewed glob-
Mean Variance Mean Variance ally, while local differences and trends have not been compared in this
CaO 0.00148 0.97960 0.00003 0.99181 study. Since, the comparison yields a difference of less than 10%, both
LSt 0.00545 0.99965 0.00083 0.98002 methods could be said to be acceptable for tonnage estimation. However,
SiM 0.0079 0.9872 0.03357 1.0250
it could be argued that every cell or block in the geostatistical block
AlM 0.00039 0.98982 0.0058 0.99248
model represents all the data points contained within the search radius of
the OK parameters. The geostatistical (or OK) blocks are not dependent
5.2.2. Reserve estimation based on geostatistical method on one data point only, which is the case in the triangular block method.
The calculation of the reserve of Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit using Therefore, the geostatistical model reserve is more representative of the
geostatistical modelling in this subsection is based on the semi-variogram whole data set at any given point in the solid.
analysis (i.e., Section 5.1.2) and the OK (i.e., Section 5.1.3). The polygon On the other hand, the relative difference in grade estimation (i.e.,
boundary indicated in Fig. 3, is used for the volume estimation of the Table 6) gives 2.32% and 1.26%, for NZ and SZ, respectively. This dif-
limestone deposit. The results of the computed total reserve estimation of ference between two methods in grade estimation, cannot be overlooked,
CaO, LSt, SiM and AlM at selected cut-off grades are indicated in Table 5. as it could prove crucial especially during the production stage of the
From Table 5, it can be observed that the total tonnage of SZ surpasses mining project. Mining engineers and mine managers, often require ac-
that of NZ. The disparity in the mean grade of the two zones at a cut-off curate estimation of the grade of limestone, to help decision making
grade further justifies the separated modelling of the two zones. The during mining, production scheduling, stockpiling and mixing of lime-
results obtained can form the foundation of production design, future stone raw materials. Since the geostatistical method relies on the math-
planning of raw materials and clinker of cement production in the fac- ematical modelling of the spatial distribution/variability of the limestone
tory. Note that the statistical analysis, semi-variogram analysis, the OK deposit, its results (for grade estimation) are reliable and preferable. Note
and reserve estimation of the Oyo-Iwa deposit were carried out with the also that, the OK method used during the geostatistical modelling of the
aid of the geostatistical software, Isatis 2012.4 and Microsoft Excel 2007. limestone deposit, is also cross-validated. The triangular block method
does not involve spatial modelling and cross-validation. In addition,
5.2.3. Comparison between geostatistical estimates and triangular block unlike the triangular block method, geostatistical estimation method
estimates produces quality mapping of the limestone deposit, which is discussed in
Table 6 presents a comparison of the two reserve estimates for CaO the next sub-section of this paper.
using geostatistical method and geometric (triangular block) method.

Fig. 6. Cross validation graphs for CaO (NZ).

249
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

Fig. 7. Map showing the division of triangles for triangular block method (NZ).

Table 4
Tonnage estimation using triangular block method (Northern zone).
Average Total Weighted average composition %
Triangular Density
Area (m2) thickness tonnage
block (t/m3) CaO Fe2O3 Al2O3 SiO2
(m) (Tonnes, t)

T01 19,812.20 66.15 2.6 3,407,500 53.25 0.13 0.34 1.47

T02 14,682.32 62.63 2.6 2,390,967 53.69 0.12 0.41 1.95
T03 19,780.39 68.75 2.6 3,535,744 52.79 0.33 0.42 1.79
T04 20,599.70 67.47 2.6 3,613,462 52.85 0.35 0.51 2.50
T05 31,819.76 58.20 2.6 4,814,966 53.02 0.35 0.47 2.16
T06 41,467.70 56.20 2.6 6,059,261 52.95 0.18 0.52 2.74
T07 49,943.75 58.23 2.6 7,561,817 52.42 0.21 0.68 3.89
T08 15,380.67 56.63 2.6 2,264,752 52.70 0.18 0.61 3.44
T09 20,982.04 64.73 2.6 3,531,418 53.03 0.19 0.50 2.73
T10 19,220.42 70.43 2.6 3,519,772 52.78 0.20 0.56 3.11
T11 14,614.75 72.23 2.6 2,744,748 52.57 0.22 0.67 3.34
T12 15,889.50 61.87 2.6 2,555,880 52.44 0.23 0.69 3.45
T13 18,051.71 62.10 2.6 2,914,630 52.20 0.24 0.72 4.24
T14 8,332.48 47.37 2.6 1,026,173 49.27 0.67 1.52 7.17
T15 5,121.56 42.37 2.6 564,157 49.42 0.66 1.56 7.33
T16 17,814.78 50.63 2.6 2,345,256 52.70 0.20 0.63 3.05
T17 10,166.27 50.30 2.6 1,329,545 51.81 0.26 0.77 3.88
T18 23,389.35 50.30 2.6 3,058,859 50.61 0.31 0.82 5.73
T19 22,452.16 40.27 2.6 2,350,592 51.04 0.27 0.73 5.45
T20 5,245.00 43.97 2.6 599,573 52.66 0.23 0.63 2.89
T21 5,680.92 63.27 2.6 934,474 51.93 0.24 0.60 3.59
T22 8,680.82 55.53 2.6 1,253,395 51.86 0.26 0.55 3.77
T23 7,186.01 39.17 2.6 731,775 48.44 0.75 1.65 7.96
T24 3,691.45 34.17 2.6 327,924 48.50 0.74 1.71 8.28
T25 9,375.93 48.20 2.6 1,174,992 52.25 0.24 0.58 3.72
T26 10,443.45 50.77 2.6 1,378,466 52.15 0.25 0.58 3.85
T27 2,446.72 58.97 2.6 375,114 53.04 0.20 0.54 2.92
T28 2,804.21 78.27 2.6 570,637 52.36 0.21 0.53 3.48
T29 19,152.75 58.53 2.6 2,914,794 52.17 0.25 0.53 3.78
T30 8,731.44 51.20 2.6 1,162,329 52.15 0.21 0.49 3.63
T31 10,342.16 30.90 2.6 830,889 52.89 0.18 0.37 3.05
T32 3,656.11 48.97 2.6 465,471 52.18 0.30 0.63 4.14
T33 18,597.53 46.07 2.6 2,227,488 51.91 0.29 0.58 4.35
74,536,820 52.15 0.28 0.66 3.70

250
T.B. Afeni et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253

Table 5 6. Discussion
Total reserve of the limestone quality parameters at selected grade cut-offs.
Northern zone Southern zone As shown in this paper, the geometric method (See Sections 4.1 and
Grade 5.2.1) involves a traditional approach that is straightforward, easy-to-
Variables Total grade Mean Total grade Mean
cut-off Tonnage grade Tonnage grade compute and timesaving. In contrast, the geostatistical method (See
(Tonnes, t) (Tonnes, t) Sections 4.2, 5.1, 5.2.2 and 5.3) is more sophisticated, involves complex
CaO 50.00 97,130,956.68 53.10 144,878,559.68 52.62
calculations and analysis, and, could be time-consuming. But contem-
52.15 81,626,729.65 53.36 – 52.98 porary computer advancement has made the application of sophisticated
53.23 – 100,098,697.46 methods, like geostatistical method, better. Thus, geologists and mining
54.00 54, 449,218.48 54.21 813,080.06 54.25 engineers, usually adopt geometric methods at early exploration stage,
LSt 100.00 97,182,228.01 850.74 145,172,526.34 591.54
when a sufficiently large data base is not available. A more sophisticated
300.00 95,751,705.19 859.35 141,676,332.44 600.10
500.00 71,913,648.99 996.40 87,030,527.23 690.88 method like the geostatistical method is generally applied during
SiM 2.00 96,067,801.46 3.83 142,805,720.11 3.51 development and production stages of mining, when detailed and
AlM 2.00 80,994,216.91 3.47 136,838,447.51 3.09 extensive exploration operations has been carried out on the deposit.
From this study, the comparison between the two reserve estimation
methods (i.e., geostatistical and geometric) in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3,
Table 6 clearly shows that the geostatistical method is more reliable and pref-
Comparison of geostatistical estimates and geometric (triangular block) erable. However, under tonnage estimation (see Table 6), the relative
estimates. difference between the results of the two methods (i.e., 9.51% and
Geostatistical reserve Triangular Relative 0.43%, for the two zones) is small, and both methods are acceptable. This
(Grade cut-off ¼ 52.15) block reserve difference shows that, the geometric method is effective for the calculation of the
NZ Tonnage (t) 81,626,729.65 74,536,820 9.51% tonnage of a limestone deposit at any stage of the mining project.
Mean CaO 53.36 52.15 2.32% Although, the geometric method is a traditional method, geologists and
grade mining engineers are encouraged to adopt it for tonnage estimation. This
SZ Tonnage (t) 100,098,697.46 99,674,793 0.43% is, particularly useful when there is a need to validate the tonnage esti-
Mean CaO 52.98 52.32 1.26%
grade
mations obtained from more sophisticated methods.
On the other hand, the relative difference between the results of the
two methods (i.e., 2.32% and 1.26%, for the two zones) for grade esti-
5.3. Quality mapping of CaO and LSt variables in the limestone deposit mation (see Table 6) is not negligible. For example, a 1% or 2% change in
grade of a mineral deposit could have a large impact on, not only the
Based on the semi-variogram parameters and the OK method, the production scheduling, mixing and projections, but also the profitability
kriged maps of CaO and LSt variables at 227 m, 203 m and 179 m reduced of the entire mining project. This is the reason, geologists and engineers,
levels (RL) are constructed for the limestone deposit. However, for usually carry out grade estimations during development and production
demonstration, only the kriged maps at 203 m RL for CaO (Fig. 8) are stages of mining projects, when detailed and extensive exploration op-
presented in this paper. These maps do not only display the variability of erations had been established. The availability of such information and
the quality parameter’s grade from the Northern to the Southern zone of database at those stages increases the accurate predictions of the spatially
the deposit, but also reveal the variability of their quality across the distributed values, and, thus, the grade estimation. While the calculation
analysed RL. These maps as well as the three-dimensional (3D) of the grade estimation using geometric method is direct and requires no
perspective view of CaO (shown in Fig. 9), will assist the operational and mathematical modelling of the deposit, the geostatistical method offers a
production management of the limestone raw materials. They will also rational approach, which is systematic and reliable. The geostatistical
help in identifying mix and the proportions of the raw materials, for the approach considers the spatial variability of the limestone deposit, and its
cement manufacturing process. It is important to note that the triangular interpolation (i.e., the OK) is based on the surrounding data points. This
block method cannot be used to produce reliable quality maps or 3-D makes the geostatistical method more suitable and preferable for grade
perspective view of the considered quality parameter.

Fig. 8. Kriged map of CaO at 203 m R.L.

251
T.B. Afeni et al.
Fig. 9. 3D perspective view of the study area indicating the distribution of CaO.
estimation. Further research directions may compare these methods with
other existing reserve estimation methods, like the artificial neural
network and other soft computing techniques.
7. Conclusion
In practice, geologists and mining engineers, usually, make use of
geometric and geostatistical methods in estimating the tonnage and
grade of ore reserve. Due to their sophistication and spatial modelling,
geostatistical techniques are normally applied during the development
and production stages of mining projects. In contrast, geometric methods
are usually adopted during the early exploration stage of a project, when
there is relatively small data. However, published works have not pro-
vided explicit assessments into the differences between these two
commonly used reserve estimation methods. To bridge this research gap
and provide an explicit analysis, this study carried out a comparative
study between geometric and geostatistical methods for the reserve
estimation of a limestone deposit.
In this study, reserve estimation using geometric (i.e., triangular
block) and geostatistical methods are first reviewed, and their steps are
presented. Then, a comparative study was performed using exploratory
borehole dataset from Oyo-Iwa limestone deposit located in Nigeria. The
study area was divided into two zones, namely Northern (NZ) and
Southern (SZ) zones, due to geologic and lithology of the area. The
relative difference of the tonnage estimation between the two methods
yields 9.51% and 0.43%, for the NZ and SZ zones, respectively. The small
relative difference in tonnage estimation proves that the geometric
method is effective for tonnage estimation, and can be adopted by ge-
ologists and mining engineers, for validating sophisticated methods. On
the other hand, the relative difference for the calculated grade estimation
between the two methods gives 2.32% and 1.26%, for the two zones,
respectively. This relative difference is not negligible, and could prove
decisive in the profitability of the mining project. Since geostatistical
method provides a rational approach of modelling and interpolating the
reserve, its result is more suitable, reliable and preferable for qualitative
mapping of the limestone deposit. Additionally, the geostatistical method
is used to produce quality maps at different reduced levels (RLs) and
three-dimensional (3-D) perspective view. The quality maps and the 3-D
252
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253
view of the limestone deposit are useful for effective design in future
production scheduling and projection of the cement raw materials, for
geologists and mining engineers.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge and thank the management of Dangote
Cement Plc., Obajana Plant for granting the permission to use their
borehole exploratory data. Our gratitude also goes to Geovariances
Technical Support team especially Frederic Rambert and Julien Tan for
their guidance and technical support on Isatis the geostatistical software
by Geovariances Version 2012.4.
References
Abdessattar, L., Dimitriy, N., Messaoud, M., 2019. Geostatistical modeling by the
Ordinary Kriging in the estimation of mineral resources on the Kieselguhr mine,
Algeria. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 362 (1), 012051. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/362/1/012051.
Abzalov, M., 2016. Introduction to geostatistics. In: Abzalov, M. (Ed.), Applied Mining
Geology. Modern Approaches in Solid Earth Sciences, vol 12. Springer, Cham,
pp. 233–237.
Akeju, V.O., Afeni, B.T., 2015. Investigation of the spatial variability in Oyo-Iwa
limestone deposit for quality control. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 10 (8), 1065–1085.
Almedia, J., Rocha, M., Teixeira, A., 2004. Spatial characterization of limestone and marl
quality in a quarry for cement manufacturing, Geostatistics Banff. In:
Leuangthong, O., Deutsch, C.V. (Eds.), Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics, vol 14.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 399–408.
Appleyard, G.R., 2001. An overview and outline, in mineral resource and ore reserve
estimation. In: Edwards, A.C. (Ed.), The AusIMM Guide to Good Practice. The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 3–12.
Asghari, O., Hezarkhani, A., 2006. Geostatistical modeling and reserve estimation of
Choghart iron ore deposit through Ordinary Kriging method. In: Proceedings of the
5th International Scientific Conference - SGEM2005. Bulgaria, pp. 631–642.
ASTM, 2003. Standard test methods for chemical analysis of hydraulic cement. Annu.
Book ASTM (Am. Soc. Test. Mater.) Stand. 4 (1), C114-03.
T.B. Afeni et al.
Chatterjee, S., Bhattacherjee, A., Samanta, B., Pal, S.K., 2006. Ore grade estimation of a
limestone deposit in India using an artificial neural network. Appl. GIS 2 (1), pp.
2.1–2.20. https://doi.org/10.2104/ag060003.
Clark, I., 1986. The art of cross validation in geostatistical application. In: Ramani, R.V.
(Ed.), Proc. 19th International Symposium on the Application of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral Industry. Society of Mining Engineers, Inc.,
Littleton, Colorado, pp. 211–220.
Dada, S.S., Briqueu, L., Birck, J.L., 1998. Primordial crustal growth in northern Nigeria:
preliminary Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd constraints from Kaduna migmatite-gneiss complex.
J. Min. Geol. 34 (1), 1–6.
Daya, A.A., 2019. Nonlinear disjunctive kriging for the estimating and modeling of a vein
copper deposit. Iran. J. Earth Sci. 11 (3), 226–236.
Dominy, S.C., Nopp e, M.A., Annels, A.E., 2002. Errors and uncertainty in mineral resource
and ore reserve estimation: the importance of getting it right. Explor. Min. Geol. 11
(1–4), 77–98.
Dunlop, J.S.F., 1979. Geostatistical modelling of an Australian iron ore body, case studies
in geostatistical ore reserve estimation. In: 16th Applications of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral Industry, vol 21. SME Publications, pp. 226–239.
Elium, E., Grammer, G.M., Pranter, M., 2017. Combining sequence stratigraphy with
artificial neural networks to enhance regional correlation and determination of
reservoir quality in the “Mississippian limestone” of the mid-continent, USA. AAPG
Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas. April 2-5, 2017.
Elueze, A.A., 2000. Compositional appraisal and petrotectonic significance of the Imelu
banded ferruginous rock in the Ilesha schist belt, southwestern Nigeria. J. Min. Geol.
36 (1), 9–18.
Elueze, A.A., Jimoh, A.O., Aromolaran, O.K., 2015. Compositional characteristics and
functional applications of Obajana marble deposit in the Precambrian basement
complex of central Nigeria. IFE J. Sci. 17 (3), 591–603.
Erarslan, K., 2012. Computer aided ore body modelling and mine valuation. In:
Ahmad, Dar (Ed.), Earth Sciences. InTech, UK, pp. 345–372.
Fytas, K., Chaoval, N., Lavigne, M., 1990. Gold deposit estimation using indicator kriging.
Cim. Bull. 934, 77–83.
Gholampour, O., Hezarkhani, A., Maghsoudi, A., Mousavi, M., 2019. Delineation of
alteration zones based on kriging, artificial neural networks, and
concentration–volume fractal modelings in hypogene zone of Miduk porphyry copper
deposit, SE Iran. J. Min. Environ. 10 (3), 575–595.
Gusman, M., Muchtar, B., Syah, N., Akbar, M.D., Deni, A.V., 2019. Estimations of
limestone resources using three dimension block kriging method, a case study:
limestone sediment at PT Semen Padang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 314 (1),
012069. IOP Publishing.
Hockey, R.D., Sachi, R.L., Graff, W.P.F., Muotoh, E.O.G., 1986. The Geology of Lokoja –
Auchi Area. Ministry of Mines, Power and Steel, Federal Republic of Nigeria, p. 71.
Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M., 1989. Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Jacob, J., Prins, C., Oelofsen, A., 2014. Determination of sampling configuration for near-
shore diamondiferous gravel occurrence using geostatistical methods. J. S. Afr. Inst.
Min. Metall 114, 31–38.
Jafrasteh, B., Fathianpour, N., 2017. A hybrid simultaneous perturbation artificial bee
colony and back-propagation algorithm for training a local linear radial basis neural
network on ore grade estimation. Neurocomputing 235, 217–227.
Jafrasteh, B., Fathianpour, N., Suarez, A., 2018. Comparison of machine learning methods
for copper ore grade estimation. Comput. Geosci. 22 (5), 1371–1388.
Jalloh, A.B., Kyuro, S., Jalloh, Y., Barrie, A.K., 2016. Integrating artificial neural networks
and geostatistics for optimum 3D geological block modeling in mineral reserve
estimation: a case study. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 26 (4), 581–585.
Kapageridis, K.I., Denby, B., 1998. Neural Network Modelling of Ore Grade Spatial
Variability: AIMS Research Unit. In: Niklasson, L., Boden, M., Ziemke, T. (Eds.),
ICANN 98. Perspectives in Neural Computing. Springer, London, pp. 209–214.
Kim, K.H., Lee, K., Lee, H.S., Rhee, C.W., Shin, H.D., 2018. Lithofacies modeling by
multipoint statistics and economic evaluation by NPV volume for the early
Cretaceous Wabiskaw Member in Athabasca oilsands area, Canada. Geosci. Front. 9
(2), 441–451.
Krige, D.G., 1984. Geostatistics and the definition of uncertainty. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall.
93, A41–A47.
Leuangthong, O., Schnetzler, E., Deutsch, C.V., 2004. Geostatistical modeling of
McMurray oil sands deposits. In: CIM Conference and Exhibition, 390. Edmonton,
Canada, pp. 1–10.
Lilford, E., Jones, O., Chan, F., 2018. The Business of Mining: Mineral Project Valuation.
CRC Press/Balkema.
Liu, C., Kubo, T., Lu, L., Koike, K., Zhu, W., 2019. Spatial simulation and characterization
of three-dimensional fractures in Gejiu tin district, southwest China, using GEOFRAC.
Nat. Resour. Res. 28 (1), 99–108.
Madani, N., Ortiz, J., 2017. Geostatistical simulation of cross-correlated variables: a case
study through Cerro Matoso Nickel-Laterite deposit. In: 26th International
Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection. Nazarbayev University
School of Mining and Geosciences.
Maghsoudi, M.F., van der Meijde, M., Hewson, R.D., van Ruitenbeek, F.J.A., Asadi
Haroni, H., 2018. Data mining of remotely sensed datasets for ore grade estimation.
253
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 243–253
In: 29th Annual Conference of the Geological Remote Sensing Group 2018. London,
United Kingdom.
Marcotte, D., Naraghi, K., Bellehumeur, C., Gloaguen, E., 2005. An application of
multivariate simulation in the cement industry. Math. Geol. 37 (55), 493–512.
Martin, K.G., Totten, M.W., Raef, A., 2017. Characterization of a reservoir ooid shoal
complex and Artificial Neural Networks application in lithofacies prediction:
Mississippian St. Louis formation, Lakin fields, western Kansas. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
150, 1–12.
Matheron, G., 1962. Traite de geostatistique appliquee. Memoires du Bureau de
Recherches Geologiques et Minieres 14, 55 (in French).
Matheron, G., 1971. The Theory of Regionalized Variables and its Applications, vol 5.
National Superieure des Mines, Paris, p. 211.
Mery, N., Emery, X., Caceres, A., Ribeiro, D., Cunha, E., 2017. Geostatistical modeling of
the geological uncertainty in an iron ore deposit. Ore Geol. Rev. 88, 336–351.
Moore, C., 1982. Chemical control of Portland cement clinker. Ceram. Bull. 61 (4),
511–515.
Okunlola, O.A., 2001. Geological and Compositional Investigation of Precambrian Marble
Bodies and Associated Rocks in Burum and Jakura Area, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Ibadan, p. 256.
Olea, R.A., 2018. A practical primer on geostatistics. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2009–1103. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1103/ofr20091103.pdf.
Onur, A.H., Konak, G., Karakuo, D., 2008. Limestone quarry quality optimization for a
cement factory in Turkey. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall 108, 751–757.
Osterholt, V., Dimitrakopoulos, R., 2018. Simulation of orebody geology with multiple-
point geostatistics—application at Yandi channel iron ore deposit, WA, and
implications for resource uncertainty. In: Dimitrakopoulos, R. (Ed.), Advances in
Applied Strategic Mine Planning. Springer, Cham, pp. 335–352.
Ovinnikov, A.E., Kobzev, A.G., Pereverzeva, S.A., Berdichevskaya, T.A., Vaskova, N.A.,
2018. Use of methods of geostatistics and numerical modeling in the study of
fractured limestones. In: Conference Proceedings of European. Association of
Geoscientists & Engineers, Saint Petersburg, Russia, pp. 1–6.
Patel, A.K., Chatterjee, S., 2016. Computer vision-based limestone rock-type classification
using probabilistic neural network. Geosci. Front. 7 (1), 53–60.
Rahaman, M.A., 1988. Recent advances in the study of the basement complex of Nigeria.
In: Oluyide, P.O., Mbonu, W.C., Ogezi, A.E., Egbuniwe, I.G., Ajibade, A.C.,
Umeji, A.C. (Eds.), Precambrian Geology of Nigeria. Geological Survey of Nigeria
Special Publication, Kaduna South, pp. 1–23.
Salman, A., Ibrahim, K.M., Saffarini, G., Al-Qinna, M., 2009. Geostatistical calculation for
clay reserve in Azraq Basin in Jordan. J. Geogr. Reg. Plann. 2 (5), 144–153.
Shurygin, D.N., Vlasenko, S.V., Shutkova, V.V., 2019. Estimation of the error in the
calculation of mineral reserves taking into account the heterogeneity of the
geological space. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 272 (2), 022139.
Silva, D., Almeida, J., 2017. Geostatistical methodology to characterize volcanogenic
massive and stockwork ore deposits. Minerals 7 (12), 238.

Swito n, J.M., 2015. Geostatistical analysis of variability of silica dioxide content within
limestone deposit. Min. Sci. 22, 181–193.
Truong, X.L., Truong, X.Q., Nguyen, T.A., Raghavan, V., Nguyen, C.C., 2019.
Development of HUMGEOSTAT: a new geological tool for geostatistical analysis of
mineral deposit: a case study at sin quyen mine (northern vietnam). J. Geol. Soc.
India 93 (5), 574–582.
Van Breemen, O., Pidgeon, R.T., Bowden, P., 1977. Age and isotopic studies of some Pan-
African granites from North-central Nigeria. Precambrian Res. 4 (4), 307–319.
Vizi, L., 2008. A case study in uniform conditioning of local recoverable reserves
estimation for jelsava magnesite deposit – level 220. GeoSci. Eng. 54 (1), 41–53.
Wang, W., 2019. Three-dimensional Geological Modelling of the Lithofacies of Caddo
Limestone in Stephens County, North-Central Texas. Ph.D thesis. University of Texas,
Austin.
Wang, G., Huang, L., 2012. 3D geological modeling for mineral resource assessment of the
Tongshan Cu deposit, Heilongjiang Province, China. Geosci. Front. 3 (4), 483–491.
Wang, Y., Akeju, O.V., Zhao, T., 2017. Interpolation of spatially varying but sparsely
measured geo-data: a comparative study. Eng. Geol. 231, 200–217.
Webster, R., Oliver, M.A., 2007. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. John Wiley
and Sons, West Sussex, England.
Wellmer, F.-W., 1998. Statistical Evaluations in Exploration for Mineral Deposits.
Springer, New York.
Wellmer, F.W., Dalheimer, M., Wagner, M., 2007. Economic Evaluations in Exploration.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Xu, S., Sirieix, C., Marache, A., Riss, J., Malaurent, P., 2016. 3D geostatistical modeling of
Lascaux hill from ERT data. Eng. Geol. 213, 169–178.
Yasrebi, A.B., Hezarkhani, A., 2019. Resources classification using fractal modelling in
Eastern Kahang Cu-Mo porphyry deposit, Central Iran. Iran. J. Earth Sci. 11 (1),
56–67.
Yünsel, T.Y., 2012. A practical application of geostatistical methods to quality and
mineral reserve modelling of cement raw materials. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall 112,
239–249.
Yünsel, T.Y., 2018. Simulation of cement raw material deposits using plurigaussian
technique. Open Geosci. 10 (1), 889–901.