Journal of Mining Science, Vol. 45, No.

2, 2009

MINERAL MINING TECHNOLOGY

STOPE DESIGN AND GEOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY: QUANTIFICATION OF RISK IN

CONVENTIONAL DESIGNS AND A PROBABILISTIC ALTERNATIVE

Roussos Dimitrakopoulos and Nikki Grieco UDC 622.013

This paper adopts risk-based concepts developed in open pit mining to the underground stoping
environment and shows examples using data from Kidd Creek Mine, Ontario, Canada. Risk is quantified
in terms of the uncertainty a conventional stope design has in expected: contained ore tones, grade and
economic potential. In addition, a new probabilistic mathematical formulation optimizing the size,
location and number of stopes in the presence of grade uncertainty is outlined and applied, to demonstrate
the advantages of a user-defined level of acceptable risk.

Stope design, risk analysis, optimization, stochastic simulation, economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION
Risk is present in all facets of mining be it technical, financial or environmental [1]. When
determining the feasibility of a project the uncertainty associated with all sources must be considered
and contingences are made. Geological uncertainty is a major component of technical uncertainty along
with mining, and has been isolated as a primary source of a risk affecting the viability of projects, and
is recognized as the key factor responsible for many mining failures [2, 3]. Hence, the necessity to
quantify a geological risk is well appreciated. Modeling of geological uncertainty in a mineral resource
can be achieved through conditional simulation technologies. The last few years in open pit mining
these technologies have been coupled with methods for mine design optimization to assess a risk in
conventionally generated mine designs and production schedules. The approach allows planners to
anticipate fluctuations in key project parameters that would otherwise be impossible [4 – 6]. These
studies have also documented that conventional methods may be misleading in their forecasts as they
assume certainty. Recent developments in open pit mining show that direct integration and
management of inherent grade risk in mine design and planning have begun [7 – 9] and provides the
opportunity to generate substantially more profitable mine designs; for example, researchers in [10]
report a 28 percent higher NPV from managing a geological risk. It is logical to consider how to
develop concepts and similar risk-based technologies for underground mining methods.
Optimization in underground mine design has had a less routine application than for open pit
McGill University, E-mail: roussos.dimitrakopolos@mcgill.ca, Montreal, Canada. Translated from Fiziko-
Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh, No. 2, pp. 63-74, March-April, 2009. Original article
submitted June 20, 2008.
1062-7391/09/4502-0152 ©2009 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
152
mines. This is attributed to the diversity of underground mining methods that does not allow the
production of general optimization tools. In [11] authors considered the economic optimization of stope
geometry, a topic directly linked to the present study; and work on conventional stope optimizers can
also be found in [12, 13]. All these approaches do not consider risk and, hence, assume the inputs are
certain. Limited initial work reported combines simulated orebodies and grade risk models with
conventional optimizers [14]; these however are limited in their assessment as optimization
formulations are, in general, a non-linear process. Geological risk-based approaches to stope
optimization that directly integrate a risk have been recently introduced [15, 16] and open the
possibility to develop a risk-based underground mine design. Current efforts, however, focus on the
issue of grade uncertainty. In the future these developments will be fused with geotechnical issues
critical to underground mining (e.g. [17]).
This paper stems from the need to explore the contribution of geological uncertainty quantification
and the direct integration to stope optimization through a new, risk based approach to stope design. In
the following sections a conventional stope design in a part of Kidd Creek base metal mine, Ontario,
Canada, is assessed in terms of copper grade risk, to explore uncertainty in terms of upside potential as
well as downside risk. Subsequently, a probabilistic mathematical programming optimization formulation
is outlined and applied.
QUANTIFYING GRADE RISK IN CONVENTIONAL STOPE DESIGN: AN EXAMPLE

Grade risk quantification in a given underground stoping design is similar to that used in the design
and production schedule of an open pit mine (e.g. [7]). The quantification process requires two main
components:
— the design of a stoping outline generated using a conventionally estimated orebody model;
— a series of simulated realizations of the orebody, quantifying the uncertainty and in situ
variability.
By putting each realization through the stoping outline, as if the realization is the actual orebody
being mined, and accounting for potential production from the design, distributions or risk profiles for
the pertinent project indicators are generated, thus allowing the quantification of geological uncertainty
and risk assessment for the design being considered.
The Deposit and Study Area
Applying the concepts outlined for quantifying the grade risk in a conventional stope design is
presented with a case study involving data from Falconbridge Ltd’s Kidd Creek Mine. Kidd Creek is
a volcanic massive sulphide deposit located in Ontario, Canada and produces about 7 000 tonnes per
day [18] from two major orebodies containing silver, copper, zinc and lead, the main commodities.
Production began in 1966 via an open pit mine and has extended into three underground mines
reaching depths of over 2 000 m and employing various mining methods including sublevel caving,
open stoping and sublevel stoping.
The focus of this study is a densely drilled area located in the copper concentrated stringer ore
1 400 m below the surface in Phase I of Mine No. 3. The drillhole configuration consists
of 37 drillholes with 1.5 m copper composites in nine vertical fans that are spaced approximately four
meters apart. The resulting samples show a high grade zone in the central region. Statistics of 2723
153
 TABLE 1. Declustered Data Statistics of Copper
Statistic Declustered data set, %
Average 2.43
Standard deviation 3.17
Maximum 27.59
75th percentile 3.00
Median 1.34
25th percentile 0.54
Minimum 0.0

declustered copper samples is given in Table 1. Mining in this region is via open stoping methods with
stope sizes typically 15 m wide by 20 m long by 40 m high. Blast rings are spaced generally every
three meters and have a copper cut-off of three percent.
Generating Estimated and Simulated Orebody Models
Conditional simulation methods aim at modeling the in situ spatial variability of a given attribute
and, unlike the equivalent estimation approaches, reproduce the data histogram and spatial continuity.
At Kidd Creek, the study area is first geostatistically estimated, producing 16 236 blocks within the
orebody model. Blocks are estimated with a block size of 3.0 m by 3.0 m by 4.5 m, spanning 123 m in
the East, extending 51 m in the North and reaching 99 m in the vertical direction. A horizontal section
of this estimated model is shown in Fig. 1a. The same area of the deposit is then geostatistically
simulated using the well established sequential Gaussian simulation method or SGS [19, 20]. Forty
realizations of the deposit are generated on a 1.5 m by 1.5 m by 1.5 m grid of 19 880 nodes. Figure 1b
shows a simulated realization of copper grades of the same horizontal section as in Fig. 1a. Both the
estimated and simulated models reproduce the regions of high grade mineralization in the drillhole
configuration. The figures also show the typically smooth representation of reality by the estimated
model whilst the simulated realization reflects the likely in situ copper variability.

Fig. 1. Horizontal section of the (a) estimated orebody model and (b) simulated orebody model

154
 Fig. 2. Vertical section of the stoping layout indicating two stoping levels

Risk Quantification
In establishing a conventional stope design, a conceptual stoping layout recognizing potential
development and stoping levels must be first determined. Due to the vertical extent of the orebody
models, two potential stoping levels are configured accounting for required drilling and hauling levels
(Fig. 2). It is assumed that the lower level will be mined and backfilled before the upper level is
extracted. Accounting for this stoping layout, a stope outline is produced given the estimated copper
grade model using DATAMINETM floating stope facility [21], hence providing a conventional design
for which a risk quantification and analysis can be performed. Figure 3 shows a three-dimensional view
of the conventional outline generated here incorporating both stoping levels.
For the quantification of copper grade risk in this conventionally generated stope design, first, the
simulated copper realizations are re-blocked into mineable rings by averaging the nodes contained
within consecutive ring dimensions (15 m by 3 m by 40 m). Then, the conventional design outline is
put through each of the orebody realizations and values pertaining to copper grades are recorded. It is
subsequently simple to calculate for a set of realizations, such as the 40 here, the ore tonnage, metal,
average grade, and revenues or any other project indicator, the corresponding histogram of possible
outcomes and from that histogram statistics of interest such as the various percentiles and so on. The
following discussion refers to the risk profiles of some project indicators.

Fig. 3. Conventional stope envelope

155
 Fig. 4. Quantifying the conventional stope envelope’s uncertainty in copper grade

Figure 4 depicts the risk profiles for the upper and lower stoping outlines providing a means of
quantifying copper grade risk in terms of the potential average copper grade the conventional design
could contain. The conventional design and approach tend to underestimate the likely contained grade
in the lower stoping level, while in the upper level tends to overestimate copper grade. For analysis
purposes only, the rings within the design outline that are less than three percent copper are removed to
uncover how the grade uncertainty within the orebody model effects the amount of ore tonnes, metal
and economic potential that could, in reality be realized. Figures 5 – 7 illustrate the resulting risk
profiles of these parameters respectively. Figure 5 also highlights the amount of material within the
original design outline before any waste rings are removed (black diamonds).
This demonstrates a potential for the conventional outline (both levels) to contain up to 32 percent
waste, significantly affecting the tonnes expected to reach the mill. Both Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate a generally
small risk the conventional outline presents in the amount of ore and metal tonnes expected from the upper
level, as the extreme grade values present a tight distribution in which the expected values fall.
Figure 7 shows the results of an economic evaluation of the stoping levels using values
representing the present value before tax. The figure illustrates significant risk in the conventional
outline’s ability to predict its potential economic value in each level. In addition, the single estimate in
the lower level is 17 percent less than the average predicted economic potential expected, while the
estimate in the upper level is 33 percent above this equivalent average value. Since each level will
likely be mined in separate periods, the profit made in the upper level cannot compensate for the
potential loss of 7 % in the lower level. This potential to incur monetary losses on production could, for
example, affect monthly profits expected from this part of the mine.

Fig. 5. Quantifying the conventional stope envelope’s uncertainty

156
 Fig. 6. Quantifying the conventional stope envelope’s uncertainty in contained metal

The conventional stoping design in this specific example is generally straightforward and is found
to provide a reasonable assessment of the average economic value of the design. However, several
points can be made, including the following: (a) the size of the study area is small and at the same time
uncommonly well drilled (nearly 3 times the density of fans normally expected), thus results are not
surprising; (b) if the ability to quantify risk was not available, the assessment would not be possible;
and most importantly, (c) conventionally, one is unable to foresee the significant upside potential
and/or downside risk the conventional design may actually produce (e.g., Table 2). In the example
presented here, quantifying the risk in terms of economic potential recognizes the potential to earn
62 percent more and the risk of earning 38 percent less than expected. In dollar terms, this conventional
design could be worth as little as 1.8 million dollars or as much as 5.9 million dollars. The above leads
to considerations such as: (a) can grade uncertainty be, not only quantified for a design, but also
employed during the design process to capture the upside economic potential of the deposit, or (b) can
designs be based on a minimum acceptable risk? And, generally, can the design process manage grade
risk directly and generate benefits?
In the last decades, major improvements have been made to the time consuming manual approach
to stope design; however, these computer-aided tools are limited in their ability to mathematically
optimize the location of designs under uncertainty similarly to the optimization methods in open pit
mine design. With a methodology in place for quantifying grade risk in conventional mine design, the
limitations of existing computer planning and optimization tools force the development of a new
optimization approach based on and integrating grade uncertainty directly into the optimization
process, essentially creating a more versatile computer-aided tool.

Fig. 7. Quantifying the conventional stope envelope’s uncertainty in economic potential

157
 TABLE 2. Project Indicators Based on the Conventional Stope Design

Reserves, t Economic
Economic potential,
Model Cu, % potential
$
ore metal difference, %
Estimate 196 830 9 490 4.82 3 412 999 —
Realization 3 191 909 8 769 4.57 2 285 625 – 33
Realization 18 167 306 8 228 4.92 1 858 484 – 46
Realization 31 216 513 11 187 5.17 5 905 110 + 73
Realization 35 211 592 10 492 4.96 4 820 407 + 41

GENERATING RISK BASED DESIGNS

Mathematical programming methods provide the means of optimizing an objective function subject
to a set of constraints through a mathematical formulation. Such methods allow the development of
formulations that integrate grade uncertainty directly into the optimization process, as well as allow the
consideration of a user selected minimum acceptable risk. In this section, a mathematical programming
formulation considering the above to optimize the location of stopes in the presence of grade uncertainty
is presented and used at Kidd Creek to produce a risk based design for comparisons and analysis.
Optimization Formulation
A mixed integer programming (MIP) formulation with the aim of locating an optimal stope layout
is presented here. This optimal layout is defined by the size, location and number of stopes within an
orebody model. Such a model is described as consisting of a series of layers for which each is
composed of a number of rows referred to as panels, where the panels are made up of a series of rings.
With multiple simulated orebodies available, each ring can be identified by a probability to be above
any cut-off grade and have an average grade, hence introducing grade risk into the process.
The objective function of the formulation focuses on maximizing the grade content within a layout
in the presence of grade uncertainty.
m n
Maximize ∑∑ gij pij Bij , where m is the number of panels within the orebody model; n is the
j =1 i =1

number of rings within a panel; pij is the probability of ring ij being above a specified cut-off; g ij is the
expected grade of ring ij above the cut-off; and Bij is a binary variable representing every ring within the
model and identifies whether it has been selected ( Bij = 1 ) or not ( Bij = 0 ) in the optimal layout.
The presence of simulated orebody models allows risk based designs to be generated for a given
minimum level of acceptable risk specified by the planner or decision maker. The following constraint
restricts the total average probability of selected rings within a panel to be greater than or equal to an
assigned value representing the minimum acceptable level of risk (PL):
n
∑ ( pij − PL)Bij ≥ 0 .
i =1
By changing the value of the minimum acceptable level of risk, PL, a number of different risk
based designs can be generated, compared and assessed. Risk profiles can then be generated for the key
project indicators by putting each outline through all simulated realizations, in the same procedure that
was used to quantify risk in the conventional design of the previous section. A design that best suits the
operational requirements can be selected with the risk being quantifiably assessed [15].
158
 The formulation above is also constrained by limitations on the stope size; both minimum and
maximum, which are a direct reflection of the geotechnical restrictions and production requirements of
the area. These stope size constraints are based on the number of consecutive rings allowed to form a
single stope. The size of the pillars between two primary stopes is also considered. This algorithm
determines the minimum number of rings to be left un-mined between stopes and is directly related to
the size of the stopes surrounding them. The larger a stope, the larger the pillar is.
Case Study at Kidd Creek
The MIP formulation for optimizing a stope as above is applied to the study area at Kidd Creek
mine. Geotechnical requirements in the region restrict a given stope to consist of a minimum of two
rings and a maximum of seven. Applying a cut-off grade of three percent, each ring within the re-
blocked orebody model (same configuration as the one used in simulation) is represented by the
probability of being above three percent copper and the average copper grade above this cut-off. A risk
based design with a minimum acceptable level of risk at 80 percent is generated. Figure 8 illustrates a
three dimensional aspect of the resulting design layout using the simulated model with dark grey rings
representing primary stopes and light grey rings the recoverable pillars. In comparing the size and
shape of the conventional design outline (Fig. 3) with the new, risk based design, a notable difference
in size is recognized. Introducing the minimum acceptable level of risk has limited the amount of waste
(tonnes) contained within the new design as it forces the stopes within a given panel to have an average
probability above 80 percent. This approach grants the planner control over the level of risk permissible
within a given design.
The conventional approach produces an envelope of rings for which some combination satisfies the
minimum grade and size requirements and further development of a mineable stope layout is needed.
The fluctuation in copper grade within the risk based design can be predicted by putting the outline
through all simulated realizations generated with the SGS method, similarly to the conventional design
in a previous section. Figure 9 illustrates the amount of contained material within the primary stopes
and recoverable pillars, and the potential grade variation within each. Although grade uncertainty has
been accounted for within these designs, the simulated realizations reflect the variability in grade
within this area. The additional information shown in Fig. 9 is discussed in the next section.

Fig. 8. LP stope design layout based on SGS and 80 % acceptable level of risk

159
EFFECTS OF THE SIMULATION METHOD
Conventional estimation approaches used for orebody modeling differ in their formulations as well
as orebody models they generate from the same original dataset. Similarly, different implementations
of the same method will result in somewhat different representations of the orebody being modeled.
The same is also true for simulation methods and the orebody models generated, including the average
ring grades and probabilities above the cut-off considered in the stope optimization approach used here.
Thus, it may be of interest to consider how the stope optimization results may differ, if the orebody
used was simulated independently and with a different simulation method. For this study, an alternative
method is the sequential indicator simulation method or SIS [22] and was implemented independently
from this study at Kidd Creek [23]. The latter study provides forty simulated realizations of the same
broader domain. Figure 9 compares the two designs (both with at an 80% acceptable level of risk) in
terms of the contained tonnage and grade for both the primary stoping and pillar recovery layouts. As
expected these design layouts contain the same amount of tonnes with only slight variations in potential
copper grade. The wider risk profile in the pillar recovery layout is not unexpected due to the limited
selection of rings remaining for the second pass of the optimizer.
The limited extent of pillar recovery can be explained using the same rationale. From the
observations made from Fig. 10, the difference in simulation method cannot be said to affect the
stoping optimizing process.
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate, on a given section, the location and size of the relative stoping (dark
grey) and pillar (light grey) layouts based on the simulated orebody with the two different methods at
80 % probability above cut-off set as the minimum acceptable risk. The figures reflect how the central
high grade zone evident in the drillholes is consistently reproduced by both simulation techniques, as
expected, and hence located by the optimization process at the specified probability constraint. The
lower level stoping layouts are almost identical. In the upper level, the SGS (Fig. 11a) based layout
considers a stope in the north-east part of the study area not included in the layout shown in the figure
based on SIS (Fig. 11b) at the same 80 percent probability. However, if the minimum acceptable level
of risk governing these designs is lowered to say, 70 %, the same part of the study area is highlighted as
the location of a possible stope by the optimization based on the SIS models. The stoping layout in the
upper level based on the SIS orebody models, recognizes a larger stope in the sixth panel whose extent
is not considered by the layout based on the SGS models.

Fig. 9. Primary stoping layout for LP designs based on SGS and SIS orebodies and 80% acceptable
level of risk
160
 Fig. 10. Horizontal section of the risk based stope designs in the upper level from the orebodies generated
with (a) SGS and (b) SIS for 80 % acceptable risk level

Fig. 11. Horizontal section of the risk based stope designs in the lower level from the orebodies generated
with (a) SGS and (b) SIS for 80 % acceptable risk level

These minor differences between designs are normal and not significant. Similarly to the various
conventionally used estimation methods for orebody modeling leading to variations in stope designs,
different simulation methods will perform somewhat differently from each other, as their specific
technical specifications and characteristics dictate. For example, SGS is based on one grade variogram
whilst SIS requires multiple variograms, each for a series of grade cut-offs [22]. The discrepancies
arising from different methods are more extensively documented in other areas of application of
simulations such as grade control that have long been in practice [23]. Independent implementations
provide a source of variance for the results, because the detailed specifications of the simulated
orebody models and the parameters for their generation are different; these deviations become apparent
in the stoping layouts generated.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper adopts and extends concepts and technologies used in managing geological risk in open
pit mines to underground mining methods. It shows that geostatistical simulation technologies allow
grade risk quantification in a stoping design. The example from the Kidd Creek mine, Ontario, Canada
illustrates how conventional technologies cannot quantify risk, thus are unable to foresee a significant
upside potential and/or downside risk for the conventionally produced designs. The example shows a
conventional design could be valued from as little as 1.8 million dollars to as much as 5.9 million
dollars. To provide the means of incorporating risk in stope design, geological uncertainty is integrated
into the design process through a new mathematical programming formulation that uses risk grades
above a cut-off value for rings within a stope, as well as geometric and other traditional constraints. An
additional constraint introduced is the minimum acceptable risk allowed in a design. The application
shows that the risk based approach has the ability to generate different designs that meet the pre-
161
specified minimum acceptable risk with a desired risk profile accommodating the selection of designs
with preferred upside/downside profiles. Grade uncertainty quantification may be based on different
simulation methods. A comparison of orebody models constructed independently with the sequential
Gaussian and indicator simulation methods show stope designs with some variation, which is not
significant and considered normal when different methods are used.
The work presented here could be further developed. Such developments could include (a) the
formulation of a stope optimization formulation that replaces the probability of grades above cut-off
with the direct use of all available simulated orebodies, and thus integrate more geological information;
(b) consider sequencing and thus accommodate risk management and/or geological risk discounting as
part of the stope design process; and (c) extend to integrate geotechnical uncertainties starting from
over-breaking and under-breaking.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are in order to Paul Roos and Arie Moerman from Falconbridge (now Xstrata), Kidd Creek
mine who supplied the data and provided support. Mark Noppe and Jörg Benndorf for their constructive
comments. Some support from McGill’s COSMO lab is acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. J.-M. Rendu, “Geostatistical simulations for risk assessment and decision making: the mining industry
perspective”, Int. J. Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 16 (2002).
2. M. Vallee, “Resource/reserve inventories: What are the objectives?” CIM Bulletin, 92 (1999).
3. C. K. Baker and S. M. Giacomo, “Resource and reserves: their uses and abuses by the equity markets,” in:
Ore Reserves and Finance, A Joint Seminar between Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and
ASX, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Sydney (1998).
4. P. J. Ravenscroft, “Risk analysis for mine scheduling by conditional simulation,” Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Technology, 101 (1992).
5. P. A. Dowd, “Risk in minerals projects: analysis, perception and management,” Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Technology, 106 (1997).
6. R. Dimitrakopoulos, C. T. Farrelly, and M. Godoy, “Moving forward from traditional optimization: Grade
uncertainty and risk effects in open-pit design,” Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy
Section A: Mining Technology, 111 (2002).
7. R. Dimitrakopoulos, L. Martinez, and S. Ramazan, “A maximum upside / minimum downside approach to
the traditional optimization of open pit design,” Journal of Mining Science, 43 (2007).
8. R. Dimitrakopoulos and S. Ramazan, “Uncertainty based production scheduling in open pit mining,” SME
Transactions, 316 (2004).
9. S. Ramazan and R. Dimitrakopoulos, “Traditional and new MIP models for production scheduling with in-
situ grade variability,” Int. J. Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 14 (2004).
10. M. C. Godoy and R. Dimitrakopoulos, “Managing risk and waste mining in long-term production
scheduling,” SME Transactions, 316 (2004).
11. J. Ovanic, “Economic optimization of stope geometry,” PhD Thesis, Michigan Technological University,
USA (1998).
12. M. Ataee-pour and E.Y. Baafi, “Stope optimization using the maximum value neighborhood (MVN)
concept,” in: Twenty-Eighth International Symposium on the Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry, Colorado School of Mines, Golden (1999).

162
13. G. Thomas and A. Earl, “The application of second-generation stope optimization tools in underground cut-
off grade analysis,” in: Strategic Mine Planning, Whittle Programming Pty Ltd., Perth (1999).
14. C. Standing, P. Myers, P. Collier, and M. Noppe, “Orebody modeling and strategic mine planning
uncertainty and risk management,” in: Proceedings of Orebody Modeling and Strategic Mine Planning
Symposium, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne (2004).
15. N. J. Grieco, “Risk analysis of optimal stope design: incorporating grade uncertainty,” PhD Thesis,
University of Queensland, Brisbane (2004).
16. N. J. Grieco, “Managing grade risk in stope design optimisation: probabilistic mathematical programming
model and application in sublevel stoping,” IMM Transactions, 116 (2007).
17. W. F. Bawden, “Risk assessment in strategic and tactical geomechanical underground mine design,” in:
Proceedings of Orebody Modeling and Strategic Mine Planning Symposium, The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne (2004).
18. P. Roos, Underground Tour Guidebook, Kidd Creek Mine, Ontario (2001).
19. R. Dimitrakopoulos and X. Luo, “Generalized sequential Gaussian simulation on group size v and screen-
effect approximations for large field simulations,” Mathematical Geology, 36 (2004).
20. A. Soares, “Direct sequential simulation and co-simulation,” Mathematical Geology, 33 (2001).
21. DATAMINETM, “Floating stope optimizer user guide edition 1.2,” Mineral Industries Computing
Limited (1995).
22. P. Goovaerts, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation, Oxford University Press, New York (1997).
23. M. H. Kay,”Geostatistical integration of conventional and downhole geophysical data in the metalliferous
mine environment,” MSc Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane (2001).
24. R. Dimitrakopoulos, “Applied risk assessment in orebody modeling and mine planning: decision-making
with uncertainty,” in: Professional Development Short Course Notes, Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Melbourne (2007).

163