Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89
DOI 10.1007/s10596-008-9106-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Simulation of mineral grades with hard and soft
conditioning data: application to a porphyry copper deposit
Xavier Emery · Lucía N. Robles
Received: 19 November 2007 / Accepted: 25 August 2008 / Published online: 4 October 2008
© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract This work deals with the geostatistical sim-
ulation of mineral grades whose distribution exhibits
spatial trends within the ore deposit. It is suggested that
these trends can be reproduced by using a stationary
random field model and by conditioning the realiza-
tions to data that incorporate the available information
on the local grade distribution. These can be hard data
(e.g., assays on samples) or soft data (e.g., rock-type
information) that account for expert geological knowl-
edge and supply the lack of hard data in scarcely sam-
pled areas. Two algorithms are proposed, depending
on the kind of soft data under consideration: interval
constraints or local moment constraints. An application
to a porphyry copper deposit is presented, in which it is
shown that the incorporation of soft conditioning data
associated with the prevailing rock type improves the
modeling of the uncertainty in the actual copper grades.
Keywords Geostatistics · Conditional simulation ·
Gibbs sampler · Soft conditioning data · Spatial trends
X. Emery (B)
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Chile,
Avenida Tupper 2069, Santiago 837 0451, Chile
e-mail: xemery@ing.uchile.cl
L. N. Robles
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering,
McGill University, 3450 University St., Montreal,
Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada
e-mail: lucia.robles@mail.mcgill.ca
1 Introduction and scope of the work
Geostatistics is widely applied to characterize the spa-
tial distribution of mineral grades in ore deposits. In
this respect, kriging techniques are used to predict the
grade at any location of the deposit by accounting for
the available neighboring data (e.g., drill hole or blast
hole data) and their spatial correlation, described by
a covariance function or a semivariogram [4, 17, 21].
However, since it relies on a weighted average of the
data values, kriging yields an oversmoothed image of
the true grade distribution in the deposit. This is an
important limitation when the quantity of interest is
defined in relation to a threshold, e.g., the resources
(mean grade and tonnage) that can be recovered above
a given cutoff, or when the main task is the characteri-
zation of the uncertainty in the actual grades.
To avoid these limitations, one can use conditional
simulation, which consists in constructing alternative
realizations of a random field representing the mineral
grade. The realizations are conditioned to the data
values and reflect the spatial variability of the actual
grades [4, 15]. So far, most geostatistical models used
for simulation assume that the random field is station-
ary, i.e., that the finite-dimensional distributions are
invariant under a translation in space. In particular,
stationarity implies that the expected mean grade is
constant in space, an assumption that is questionable
when the grade distribution presents systematic vari-
ations or “trends.” For example, one can think of
deposits in which the mean grades and patterns of
spatial continuity depend upon the rock type, porphyry
copper disseminated deposits with a high grade core
surrounded by lower grade zones, or gold vein deposits
80
with swarms of mineralized veins included in barren
rocks.
To account for these spatial variations of grades,
one approach consists in dividing the ore deposit into
subdomains (geological units), in each of which the
grades are assumed stationary and independent of the
grades in other subdomains. This division is particularly
interesting if the subdomains so defined correspond to
geological events with different geneses. However, it
may be problematical when the boundaries between
subdomains are not hard, i.e., if the grade transition
when crossing a boundary is gradual (in which case the
independence assumption is violated), or when their
exact position is uncertain [9, 20, 22].
Another option is to use nonstationary random field
models, i.e., models whose parameters (mean, variance,
semivariogram, etc.) vary in space. Commonly, the ran-
dom field is split into two components: a deterministic
drift that accounts for the spatial trend and a stationary
random residual. Possible approaches are simple krig-
ing with a local mean and universal kriging, depending
on whether the drift is considered known or not [7].
However, the dichotomy into drift and residual is often
tricky: a model with known drift may lack realism
because it does not account for any uncertainty in the
drift, while the inference of the model parameters (in
particular, the histogram, and semivariogram) becomes
difficult if the drift is unknown [4, 21].
A third option, which will be considered hereafter,
is to reproduce the trend via the definition of condition-
ing data. Indeed, although a random field is stationary
(thus, with a constant prior mean), the conditioning
process forces its realizations to honor the data and,
therefore, to reproduce their local properties, in par-
ticular, the local mean (trend) and local dispersion
(proportional effect; [17]).
In the following, we will denote by x a vector of
spatial coordinates and we assume that grades can be
represented by a stationary random field Z = {Z (x), x
∈ D} defined over a domain D (the ore deposit or a
portion of it). To reproduce spatial trends, two types of
conditioning data will be considered:
• Hard data, which provide the exact grade values at
sampling locations, for instance drill hole or blast
hole assays.
• Soft data, which consist of qualitative information
derived from expert knowledge of the mining geol-
ogist (e.g., expected rock types at given locations).
In scarcely sampled areas, these data will supply the
lack of hard information and ensure the reproduc-
tion of the trend.
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89
To include the data in the simulation process, a
random field model is required for Z . One option is to
use the indicator approach, in which the model is based
on the semivariograms of indicator variables [1, 16]. In
this study, we use another approach and assume that
Z is (up to a monotonic transformation) a stationary
Gaussian random field, i.e., all its finite-dimensional
distributions are multivariate Gaussian.
2 Proposed methodology
2.1 First approach: interval constraints
In this subsection, we consider the case when the con-
ditioning information consists of a set of hard data
located at {xα , α ∈ A} and another set of interval
constraints located at {xα , α ∈ B} [24]:

∀α ∈ A, Z (xα ) = zα
(1)
∀α ∈ B, Z (xα ) ∈ Iα
In such a case, one can use an iterative algorithm
known as the “Gibbs sampler” to convert the interval
constraints into a set of exact data that honor these
constraints ([10, 11, 14]; Appendix). These new data
(that will be referred to as soft data) have the same
semivariogram as the original hard data, i.e., the semi-
variogram of the Gaussian random field Z . The hard
and soft data are then used for conditioning the realiza-
tions of Z over domain D. At this stage, any algorithm
for simulating stationary Gaussian random fields can be
considered [4, 7].
Note that the algorithm described in Appendix must
be run as many times as there are realizations of Z
(using different random number seeds) so that the soft
data generated by the algorithm are different from
one realization to another. The realizations so obtained
are independent samples from the distribution of the
random field Z conditional to the data in Eq. 1.
2.2 Second approach: local moments approximated
by co-kriging
In some cases, the use of interval constraints may be
considered restrictive since it prevents the simulated
grades to be outside the assumed intervals at the soft
data locations. In this section, an alternative approach is
presented, in which the interval constraints are replaced
by conditions on the local mean value and covariance
function of the random field Z .
Denote by {xα , α ∈ A} the set of hard data locations
and Z 1 = [Z (xα )]α∈A the vector of hard data values.
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89
Also let {xα , α ∈ B} be the set of soft data locations
and pose Z 2 = [Z (xα )]α∈B . In the following, Z 2 will
be determined in order to incorporate geological infor-
mation (e.g., rock-type information) codified through
indicator variables.
The method consists of the following steps:
1. Model the simple and cross semivariograms of the
Gaussian random field Z and rock-type indica-
tors. To obtain mathematically consistent semivar-
iograms, a linear model of coregionalization can be
used [28].
2. Perform co-kriging of the Gaussian random vector
Z 2 by using the available hard data (Z 1 ) and rock-
type indicator data. In general, the latter data are
known at the hard data locations (drill holes), but
additional indicator data can be defined according
to the geological knowledge of the deposit. At this
stage, any type of co-kriging can be used, e.g.,
simple co-kriging (assuming known mean values
for the Gaussian and indicator data) or ordinary
co-kriging (with unknown mean values). The co-
kriging results consist of:
• the vector of prediction Z 2∗ ;
• the covariance–variance matrix of the predic-
tion error Z 2 − Z 2∗ . This matrix can be com-
puted once the semivariograms models and
data locations (hard and indicator data used as
co-kriging input, target soft data) are known. It
is a positive semidefinite matrix, provided that
consistent semivariograms models have been
defined at step 1.
3. Simulate Z 2 as a Gaussian random vector with
mean equal to the co-kriging prediction and
covariance–variance matrix equal to that of the
prediction errors. The simulation can be done by
using the matrix decomposition algorithm [2, 5].
4. Simulate Z over the domain of interest, condi-
tionally to Z 1 and Z 2 . Again, to obtain a set of
independent realizations of the random field Z
conditioned to the hard and geological (rock type)
information, step 3 must be run as many times as
there are realizations of Z , so that each realization
uses a different outcome of Z 2 .
The identification of the co-kriging prediction and
the covariance–variance matrix of co-kriging errors
with the conditional moments of Z 2 (step 3) is approxi-
mate. It would be justified only if the conditioning data
had multivariate Gaussian distributions, which is not
the case of the indicator data (binary data).
81
3 Application to a mining dataset
The proposed approaches are now illustrated with an
application to an exploration drill hole dataset from a
Chilean copper deposit.
3.1 Presentation of the data
The Río Blanco–Los Bronces porphyry copper deposit
is a breccia complex located in the Chilean Central
Andes at an elevation of between 3,500 and 4,100 m
above mean sea level. It is composed of multiple min-
eralized breccias of biotite, anhydrite, tourmaline, and
specularite with fragments of host rocks (granodioritic
pluton and andesitic lavas). Other breccias of this zone
have matrices dominated by tourmaline, anhydrite,
and/or specularite with sulfides [12, 25–27].
The available dataset consists of 1,333 exploration
drill-hole samples collected in and around the Don Luis
open pit, situated in the central part of the deposit and
owned by Codelco Chile. The extension of the area
under study is about 550 × 550 × 230 m. Each sample
(composited at 16-m length) contains information on
the assayed total copper grade and the rock type that
predominates in the sample (Fig. 1). Three main rock
types can be distinguished:
• Granitoid. Located in the eastern part of the sam-
pled area; this is one of the host rocks of the breccia
complex.
• Tourmaline breccia. It is located in the central part
of the sampled area and is composed of granodior-
ite clasts surrounded by matrix cement dominated
by tourmaline and sulfides (chalcopyrite, pyrite,
molybdenite, and minor bornite).
• Porphyry. It consists of low-graded bodies that
intruded in the central and western parts of the
sampled area.
The main statistics of the copper grades for each rock
type and for the whole dataset are indicated in Table 1.
3.2 Exploratory and semivariogram analyses
We are interested in reproducing the trends in the
copper grade distribution from the center (high-graded
tourmaline breccia) to the eastern and western borders
of the area under study (medium-graded granitoid and
low-graded porphyry). The study is achieved as follows:
1. Cell declustering of the data histogram in order to
account for irregularities in the sampling design [7]
82 Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89

Fig. 1 Copper grades and rock types for the drill-hole data located between elevations 3700 and 3750 m

2. Transformation of the grade data into normal
scores by using the declustering weights calculated
in the previous step
3. Semivariogram analysis of the normal scores data;
the experimental semivariogram is fitted by a
nested model composed of a nugget effect, an ex-
ponential, and two spherical structures:
γCu = 0.19 Nugget + 0.54 Exp (20 m, 115 m)
+ 0.26 Sph (200 m, 200 m)
+ 0.07 Sph(200 m,∞)
3.3 Location of soft conditioning data
To define the soft conditioning constraints, we will use a
rock-type model provided by Codelco Chile and based
on the geological interpretation of the ore body [27].
We consider a set of control points at the nodes of
a regular grid with mesh 50 × 50 × 32 m and, from
the geological model, we determine to which rock type
these points are expected to belong (Fig. 2).
(2) 3.4 Interval constraints

In the above expression, the distances into brack-
ets correspond to the practical ranges along the
horizontal and vertical directions (main anisot-
ropy directions), respectively. The semivariogram
model indicates that the spatial continuity of cop-
per grades is more pronounced along the vertical
direction.
4. Definition of soft conditioning data and simulation
of copper grades (see next subsections).
Interval constraints at the soft data locations (control
points) are defined in accordance with the local copper
grade statistics in each rock type for the area under
consideration (Table 1). It is found that, for the points
located in porphyry, copper grades should be less than
0.8%. In contrast, no restriction apply to the points
located in granitoid or in breccia, as the grades in both
rock types can reach an upper bound of about 2.3%,
which is the overall maximum grade.

Table 1 Statistics on original Granitoid Breccia Porphyry Total

(grade) data
Number of data 449 672 212 1333
Minimum (% Cu) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02
Lower quartile (% Cu) 0.51 0.65 0.11 0.47
Median (% Cu) 0.66 0.83 0.19 0.70
Upper quartile (% Cu) 0.87 1.03 0.31 0.93
Maximum (% Cu) 2.30 2.23 0.77 2.30
Mean (% Cu) 0.720 0.863 0.219 0.712
Standard deviation (% Cu) 0.291 0.318 0.143 0.364
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89 83

Fig. 2 Rock-type model for the bench with elevation 3,700 m and locations of soft conditioning data

3.5 Moment constraints 3.6 Results

Local moment constraints are defined by co-kriging In each case (interval or moment constraints), the hard
the Gaussian random field representing the copper and soft data are used to construct 500 realizations of
grade at the soft data locations, using as input data the copper grades over the area under study, by using
the normal score transform of copper grades known at the methodology described in Section 2.
the hard data locations, as well as the breccia (B) and Figure 4b and c show the average simulated grades
porphyry (P) indicators known at the hard data and soft over the bench with elevation 3,700 m. For compari-
data locations. Here, ordinary co-kriging is used, with son, Fig. 4a displays the average simulated grades of
the following simple and cross semivariogram models realizations conditioned only to the hard data (drill
(Fig. 3): hole grade data) for the same bench. One observes
that accounting for soft conditioning data yields a lower
⎛ ⎞
γCu γCu−B γCu−P average simulated grade in the southwestern sector of
⎝ γCu−B γB γ B−P ⎠ the area under study, in agreement with the geological
γCu−P γ B−P γP knowledge on the rock type distribution (presence of
⎛ ⎞ low-graded porphyry, as seen in Fig. 2), whereas the
0.19 0.03 −0.01 grade model obtained by using only the hard data is
= ⎝ 0.03 0.027 −0.01 ⎠ Nugget likely to overstate the actual grades in this sector.
−0.01 −0.01 0.004 Because interval constraints are not active in breccia
⎛ ⎞ and granitoid, the grade models obtained by accounting
0.54 0.16 −0.19
+ ⎝ 0.16 0.082 −0.09 ⎠ Exp (20 m, 115 m) for such constraints (Fig. 4b) and by using only the
−0.19 −0.09 0.10 hard data (Fig. 4a) show little difference in the central
⎛ ⎞ and eastern sectors, where one expects the presence
0.26 0.033 −0.038 of breccia or granitoid. More contrasts are observed in
+ ⎝ 0.033 0.06 0.004 ⎠ Sph (200 m, 200 m) the grade model obtained by using moment constraints
−0.038 0.004 0.007 (Fig. 4c), as the recourse to local means allows dis-
⎛ ⎞ tinguishing between high-graded breccia and medium-
0.07 0.018 −0.007
graded granitoid, even if the range of copper grades in
+ ⎝ 0.018 0.06 0.002 ⎠ Sph (200 m, ∞) (3)
both rock types is the same (between 0% and 2.3%).
−0.007 0.002 0.015
This suggests that the local moment constraints convey
richer information than interval constraints. Indeed,
Equation 3 yields a valid model of coregionalization, unlike the latter constraints, the moment constraints
insofar as the sill matrices are positive semidefinite (the are “regionalized,” as they take into account the neigh-
eigenvalues are nonnegative). boring hard and soft data and the coregionalization
84 Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89

Fig. 3 Simple and cross semivariograms for the normal scores data and rock-type indicators along the main directions of anisotropy
(horizontal and vertical). Experimental semivariograms are indicated by dashed lines, models are indicated by solid lines

model between copper grades and rock-type indicators. interval constraints, this conditional variance decreases
To corroborate these statements, let us compare the by 5% with respect to the case when these constraints
conditional variance of the simulated Gaussian random are ignored and only the hard data are accounted for
field at the soft data locations. When incorporating (average variance of 0.87 vs. 0.91); the decrease mainly
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89 85

a b c
Fig. 4 a–c Average simulated copper grades (500 conditional realizations), depending on whether or not soft data (interval constraints
or moment constraints) are considered. Grayscale representation of a planar section (bench with elevation 3,700 m)

affects the locations in porphyry rock type (Fig. 5a).
In contrast, when incorporating local moment con-
straints, the average conditional variance decreases by
half (from 0.91 to 0.45), which indicates a much more
significant reduction of the uncertainty in the actual
grades (Fig. 5b).
3.7 Split-sample validation
the original dataset (1,333 data), we define a prediction
subset containing n1 = 729 data and a validation subset
containing the remaining n2 = 604 data (Fig. 6).
The exercise consists in simulating the copper grades
at the validation subset by taking into account the
grades at the prediction subset as well as the soft data
defined in Fig. 2. The validation is performed through
the following steps:

A validation exercise is now proposed to assess the 1. Draw a set of 500 conditional realizations of the
accuracy of the grade models displayed in Fig. 4. From copper grades at the locations of the validation

a b
Fig. 5 a, b Conditional variances of the simulated Gaussian random field at the soft data locations, depending on whether or not soft
data are considered
86 Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89

only (Fig. 7 and Table 2). In this last model, the errors
for the first seven points ( p = 0.1 to p = 0.7) are much
greater than the aforementioned standard deviations,
so that the uncertainty model is deemed inaccurate.
This statement is corroborated by calculating the good-
ness statistics [6]:
1

G=1− a ( p) p̂ − p dp (4)
0

with a( p) = 1 if p̂ > p, −2 otherwise. Maximum good-

ness corresponds to G = 1, while G = 0 reflects a
totally inaccurate model. In the present case, the good-
ness statistics is significantly closer to 1 when using soft
data (interval or moment constraints) than when using
the hard data only (Table 2).
For comparison, two indicator kriging approaches
are also put to the test. The first approach uses the
grade data at the hard data locations, codified into a set
of indicators (0/1) associated with given thresholds (the
deciles of the global grade distribution). The second ap-
Fig. 6 Prediction and validation subsets, defined by splitting the proach uses the same hard data, as well as the interval
area under study into cells with side length 150 m and by assigning constraints at the soft data locations; the latter are cod-
one of two cells (alternatively) to each subset ified into 0, 1 or missing values, depending on whether
the threshold is above, below or within the interval [16].
Again, it is observed that the incorporation of interval
data. Three models are put to the test, depending
on whether or not soft data are incorporated in the
conditioning data and whether these soft data con-
sist of interval constraints or moment constraints.
2. From the simulated grades, construct a set of sym-
metric intervals with probabilities ranging from 0.1
to 0.9. The interval
 with probability
 p is bounded
by the (1 − p) 2 and (1 + p) 2 percentiles of the
distribution of simulated grades.
3. For each probability p, determine the actual pro-
portion p̂ of validation data that belong to the
corresponding probability intervals, and plot this
proportion versus p (accuracy plot) [6].
4. Check that the use of soft data improves the un-
certainty model (accuracy plot closer to the first
bisector). If there were no spatial correlation, the
standard
 deviation of the error p̂ − p would be

p (1 − p) n2 (with n2 the number of data in the
validation subset), i.e., 0.012 for p = 0.1 or p = 0.9,
and 0.020 for p = 0.5. These figures give a rough
idea of the expected deviation between p̂ and p in
the accuracy plot.
In the present case study, the models based on hard Fig. 7 Accuracy plots for the copper grades simulated at the
and soft data (either interval or moment constraints) validation data subset, depending on whether or not soft data
yield better results than that based on the drill hole data (interval constraints or moment constraints) are considered
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89 87

Table 2 Theoretical probabilities and actual proportions of data within probability intervals, depending on whether soft data (interval
constraints or moment constraints) are considered or not
Theoretical Actual proportion of data within interval
probability Hard data only Hard data + interval constraints Hard data + moment constraints
MG IK MG IK MG
0.1 0.149 0.126 0.098 0.109 0.089
0.2 0.258 0.222 0.204 0.202 0.202
0.3 0.383 0.318 0.298 0.282 0.305
0.4 0.495 0.422 0.397 0.359 0.396
0.5 0.589 0.548 0.515 0.483 0.508
0.6 0.681 0.656 0.609 0.584 0.628
0.7 0.768 0.753 0.715 0.704 0.707
0.8 0.844 0.838 0.828 0.803 0.815
0.9 0.902 0.934 0.916 0.924 0.896
Goodness statistics 0.937 0.965 0.989 0.975 0.989
MG Multivariate Gaussian Model, IK Indicator Kriging

constraints improves the uncertainty model obtained 4 Discussion and conclusions

by using only the hard data (Fig. 8 and Table 2). Here,
the proposed simulation approach based on interval
constraints (Fig. 7) gives slightly better results than the
indicator approach, which may be explained because
the multivariate Gaussian model is well suited to the
description of grades in disseminated deposits like the
one under study.
Fig. 8 Accuracy plots for indicator kriging estimates at the
validation data subset, depending on whether or not interval
constraints are considered
The proposed methodology, based on the incorpora-
tion of soft conditioning data, is simple to implement
and avoids splitting the random field to simulate into
a drift and a residual, as it is often assumed in geosta-
tistical trend models. In particular, the prior (noncon-
ditional) random field model remains stationary, which
yields a convenient framework for inferring the para-
meters (Gaussian transformation function and semivar-
iogram of normal scores data). The reproduction of the
spatial trends is forced by the conditioning to data.
The soft data locations must be defined in accor-
dance with the expert judgment of the mining geologist,
e.g., expected rock type, mineralization, or alteration.
Note that soft data are needless in areas where the hard
data are abundant, as the latter data will be sufficient to
reproduce the local trends [18]. Instead, the definition
of soft data is crucial in areas where the drill-hole
spacing is large or in extrapolation situations in order to
supply the lack of hard conditioning data. The spacing
of the soft data locations can be chosen according to
the range of correlation: a large spacing may be enough
in case of a strong spatial continuity, while a smaller
spacing should be considered if the grades are highly
variable in space. Care must also be taken with the
definition of the soft conditioning information (in par-
ticular, with the interval constraints), as it may lead to
biased predictions or inaccurate uncertainty models if
this information is inappropriate or is in disagreement
with the available hard information. As suggested in
this work, the soft data suitability can be checked by
using split-sample validation or leave-one-out cross-
validation.
88
Acknowledgements The first author acknowledges the fund-
ing from the Chilean Fund for Science and Technology Devel-
opment, through research project FONDECYT 1061103. The
manuscript benefited from the comments by two anonymous
reviewers.
Appendix
Consider a stationary Gaussian random field Z =
{Z (x), x ∈ D} and the conditioning constraints given
in Eq. 1. The Gibbs sampler allows replacing the in-
terval constraints by a set of values that comply with
these constraints and with the spatial continuity of the
Gaussian random field. The algorithm is described in
the following:
1. For α ∈ B, assign to Z (xα ) any value zα within
interval Iα .
2. Select an index β at random (uniformly) in B.
3. Determine the distribution of Z (xβ ) conditioned to
all the other data {Z (xα ), α ∈ A ∪ B, α = β}. Since
Z is a stationary Gaussian random field, this dis-
tribution is normal, with expectation and variance
equal to the simple kriging prediction and simple
kriging variance of Z (xβ ) by {Z (xα ), α ∈ A ∪ B,
α = β}, respectively.
4. Generate a value zβ according to the previous con-
ditional distribution.
5. If zβ belongs to interval Iβ , then set Z (xβ ) = zβ .
6. Go back to step 2 and loop until a large number of
iterations are done.
It can be shown [10] that the set of simulated values
{zα , α ∈ B} converges to a realization of the Gaussian
random vector {Z (xα ), α ∈ B} conditioned to the con-
straints given in Eq. 1. The number of iterations needed
to ensure such a convergence depends on the semivar-
iogram of the Gaussian random field and on the data
locations and is still unknown to a great extent. For
some partial results on the rate of convergence of the
Gibbs sampler, the reader is referred to [3, 13, 19, 23].
The convergence can also be checked empirically, by
calculating the sample semivariogram of the simulated
values over several realizations and comparing it to the
semivariogram model [8]. As a rule of thumbs, it is
advisable to update each soft datum several hundreds
or thousands of times.
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89
References
1. Alabert, F.: Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions us-
ing hard and soft information. Master’s thesis, Stanford
University, Stanford (1987)
2. Alabert, F.: The practice of fast conditional simulations
through the LU decomposition of the covariance matrix.
Math. Geol. 19(5), 369–386 (1987). doi:10.1007/BF00897191
3. Armstrong, M., Galli, A., Le Loc’h, G., Geffroy, F., Eschard,
R.: Plurigaussian Simulations in Geosciences. Springer,
Berlin (2003)
4. Chilès, J.P., Delfiner, P.: Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Un-
certainty. Wiley, New York (1999)
5. Davis, M.W.: Production of conditional simulations via the
LU triangular decomposition of the covariance matrix. Math.
Geol. 19(2), 91–98 (1987)
6. Deutsch, C.V.: Direct assessment of local accuracy and pre-
cision. In: Baafi, E.Y., Schofield, N.A. (eds.) Geostatistics
Wollongong’96, pp. 115–125. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
(1997)
7. Deutsch, C.V., Journel, A.G.: GSLIB: Geostatistical Soft-
ware Library and User’s Guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, New York (1998)
8. Emery, X.: Using the Gibbs sampler for conditional simula-
tion of Gaussian-based random fields. Comput. Geosci. 33(4),
522–537 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2006.08.003
9. Emery, X., González, K.E.: Incorporating the uncertainty in
geological boundaries into mineral resources evaluation. J.
Geol. Soc. India. 69(1), 29–38 (2007)
10. Freulon, X.: Conditional simulation of a Gaussian ran-
dom vector with nonlinear and/or noisy observations. In:
Armstrong, M., Dowd, P.A. (eds.) Geostatistical Simulations,
pp. 57–71. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1994)
11. Freulon, X., de Fouquet, C.: Conditioning a Gaussian model
with inequalities. In: Soares, A. (ed.) Geostatistics Tróia’92,
pp. 201–212. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1993)
12. Frikken, P.H., Cooke, D.R., Walshe, J.L., Archibald, D.,
Skarmeta, J., Serrano, L., et al: Mineralogical and isotopic
zonation in the Sur-Sur tourmaline breccia, Río Blanco - Los
Bronces Cu-Mo deposit, Chile: implications for ore genesis.
Econ. Geol. 100(5), 935–961 (2005). doi:10.2113/100.5.935
13. Galli, A., Gao, H.: Rate of convergence of the Gibbs sam-
pler in the Gaussian case. Math. Geol. 33(6), 653–677 (2001).
doi:10.1023/A:1011094131273
14. Geman, S., Geman, D.: Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distrib-
utions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 6(6), 721–741 (1984)
15. Journel, A.G.: Geostatistics for conditional simulation of ore-
bodies. Econ. Geol. 69(5), 673–687 (1974)
16. Journel, A.G.: Constrained interpolation and qualitative in-
formation: the soft kriging approach. Math. Geol. 18(3), 269–
286 (1986). doi:10.1007/BF00898032
17. Journel, A.G., Huijbregts, C.J.: Mining Geostatistics. Acad-
emic Press, London (1978)
18. Journel, A.G., Rossi, M.E.: When do we need a trend model
in kriging? Math. Geol. 21(7), 715–739 (1989). doi:10.1007/
BF00893318
19. Lantuéjoul, C.: Geostatistical Simulation: Models and Algo-
rithms. Springer, Berlin (2002)
20. Larrondo, P., Leuangthong, O., Deutsch, C.V.: Grade estima-
tion in multiple rock types using a linear model of coregion-
Comput Geosci (2009) 13:79–89
alization for soft boundaries. In: Magri, E., Ortiz, J.,
Knights, P., Henríquez, F., Vera, M., Barahona, C. (eds.)
International Conference on Mining Innovation Minin 2004,
pp. 187–196. Gecamin, Santiago (2004)
21. Matheron, G.: The Theory of Regionalized Variables and
its Applications. Cahiers du Centre de Morphologie Math-
ématique de Fontainebleau, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des
Mines de Paris, Paris (1971)
22. Ortiz, J.M., Emery, X.: Geostatistical estimation of min-
eral resources with soft geological boundaries: a comparative
study. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 106(8), 577–584 (2006)
23. Roberts, G.O., Sahu, S.K.: Updating scheme, correlation
structure, blocking and parametrization for the Gibbs sam-
pler. J. R. Stat. Soc. B. 59(2), 291–317 (1997). doi:10.1111/
1467-9868.00070
24. Robles, L., Emery, X., Ortiz, J.M.: Geostatistical simulation
of mineral grades in the presence of spatial trends. In: Magri,
E.J. (ed.) 33rd International Symposium on Applications of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry
APCOM 2007, pp. 87–93. Gecamin, Santiago (2007)
89
25. Serrano, L., Vargas, R., Stambuk, V., Aguilar, C., Galeb, M.,
Holmgren, C., et al: The late Miocene to early Pliocene Río
Blanco-Los Bronces copper deposit, Central Chilean Andes.
In: Camus, F., Sillitoe, R.H., Petersen, R. (eds.) Andean Cop-
per Deposits: New Discoveries, Mineralizations, Styles and
Metallogeny, pp. 119–130. Society of Economic Geologists,
Littleton (1996), Special Publication no. 5
26. Skewes, M.A., Holmgren, C., Stern, C.R.: The Donoso
copper-rich, tourmaline-bearing breccia pipe in central Chile:
petrologic, fluid inclusion and stable isotope evidence for
an origin from magmatic fluids. Miner. Depos. 38(1), 2–21
(2003). doi:10.1007/s00126-002-0264-9
27. Vargas, R., Gustafson, L.B., Vukasovic, M., Tidy, E., Skewes,
M.A.: Ore breccias in the Río Blanco-Los Bronces porphyry
copper deposit, Chile. In: Skinner, B.J. (ed.) Geology and
Ore Deposits of the Central Andes, pp. 281–297. Society of
Economic Geologists, Littleton (1999), Special Publication
no. 7
28. Wackernagel, H.: Multivariate Geostatistics: An Introduction
with Applications, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2003)