HOME

Spatial Modelling and Optimisation of

Geometallurgical Indices
M J Newton1 and J M Graham2

ABSTRACT
As part of the AMIRA P843 project Keeney and Walters (2008) describe how the principal
components analysis (PCA) method can be used to identify classes of samples with similar
metallurgical characteristics. However PCA does not take account of the location of each sample
in 3D space. This paper describes a study to analyse the spatial distributions of the classes
and determine appropriate modelling methods to control the estimation of the comminution
parameters and mill performance indices into a 3D block model. This includes but is not restricted
to geostatistical techniques that are used for grade modelling.
The starting point for the study is the class definitions and the regression models for estimating
the comminution parameters and performance indices. Each sample is assigned a class and the
spatial distribution of each class has been analysed using different techniques including the
calculation of variograms. This establishes whether the classes can be used as domain control
for estimation into the block model – a procedure similar to using geological rock type domains
for controlling the estimation of grades for a resource model. However, standard geostatistical
estimation methods such as ordinary kriging assume that the variable being estimated is additive
or linear. This assumption is valid for variables such as grade but this is not necessarily the case
for the comminution parameters or the performance indices. Therefore the estimation procedure
must either use variables that are definitely additive or the effect of potential non-additivity must
be tested and accounted for where possible.
The results of the study show how performance indices such as recovery, throughput and specific
power can be estimated into the block model. This model is then combined with the geological
model to provide a multi-parametric model that is used to optimise the mine planning and
scheduling activities which can lead to significant improvements in NPV.

INTRODUCTION
This paper is based on research undertaken by CAE Datamine
on behalf of the WH Bryan Mining and Geology Research
Centre for the spatial modelling module of the AMIRA GeMIII
P843 project. The objective was to develop methods to spat-
ially model the distribution of new ore processing attributes
into orebody models and integrate this modelling with mine
planning optimisation and ore valuation.
Keeney and Walters (2008) give a comprehensive
introduction to the subject of geometallurgical modelling
and the potential benefits. In particular they describe the
methodology that has been developed in GeMIII to improve
ore characterisation and predictive modelling of processing
behaviour. One of the main tools that is used is principal
components analysis (PCA) which is a standard statistical
method for finding patterns in multivariate data. The paper
by Keeney and Walters (2008), includes examples from the
Cadia East GeM data set and shows how PCA can be used to
divide the samples into groups with similar geometallurgical
characteristics. These groups are referred to as multivariate
mineralogical groups (MMG) or lasses. Multiple linear
regression models are then created for each group to estimate
comminution parameters such as A×b and BMWi that can be
used to estimate mill performance indices such as throughput
and specific power.
Initial work on this project was based on data from the Cadia
East gold-copper porphyry deposit in NSW, Australia. The
investigation included:
 spatial distribution of classes – 3D views, downhole
compositing, indicator variograms;
 domain modelling – manual interpretation, geostatistical
methods for categorical variables, stochastic trend
analysis; and
 modelling of comminution parameters – variography,
analysis of variability using conditional simulation.
Most of the above analysis was restricted to data covering a
400 m test area and the work is described below.
The second case study used data from the Red Dog zinc-lead
mine in Alaska with most of the analysis being for the massive
sulfide Aqqaluk deposit. The work built on the results of the
Cadia East case study with the end result being a block model
which includes estimates of zinc recovery (%), throughput
(tph) and specific power (kWh/t) for each ore cell. The study
included:

1. Group Consultant, CAE Datamine Corporate Limited, Unit A, Underwood Business Park, Wookey Hole Road, Wells Somerset BA5 1AF, UK. Email: malcolm.newton@cae.com
2. Technical Manager, CAE Datamine International, Unit A, Underwood Business Park, Wookey Hole Road, Wells Somerset BA5 1AF, UK. Email: jonathan.graham@cae.com

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 247
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM
 geostatistical analysis and estimation of additional data
into the existing resource block model,
 assignment of class values to model cells using the PCA
results,
 estimation and analysis of comminution parameters and
performance indices, and
 investigation of the application of geostatistical estimation
methods to non-additive variables.
ADDITIVITY
One of issues that has been raised regarding the modelling of
metallurgical parameters is whether or not the performance
indices (recovery, throughput, specific power) and the
comminution parameters (A×b, BMWi) that are used to
calculate the indices can be estimated into a block model
using standard geostatistical techniques. It is accepted that
grades (%, g/t) are additive, so for example the average of
two samples of 10 per cent Zn and 30 per cent Zn is 20 per
cent if the samples have the same tonnage. However if the two
samples have A×b values of ten and 30 is the average still 20?
It can be argued that the answer depends on how the
average value will be used. For example if the value represents
a measure of hardness which has a deleterious effect on
mill performance then it is possible that when two samples
are combined the higher value will have a disproportionate
effect with the composite sample having a value greater than
the arithmetic mean of the individual samples. This type of
additivity is referred to as machine additivity and represents
blending. Machine additivity is an important issue that is
being investigated as part of the AMIRA P843A project to
enable understanding and prediction of the blend response.
In the above example grade is machine additive whereas
hardness is not.
Figure 1 gives an example of a non-additive variable. This
shows the true non-linear relationship (light blue) between
Zn recovery achieved from laboratory samples (X) and the
recovery achieved at the plant (Y). Laboratory recoveries of
70 per cent and 80 per cent convert to plant recoveries of
80.6 per cent and 86.2 per cent averaging 83.4 per cent.
Using the linear model (red) a laboratory recovery of 75 per
cent (average of 70 per cent and 80 per cent) also converts
to a plant recovery of 83.4 per cent, whereas using the correct
non-linear model it converts to 84.7 per cent. If the example
 and limitations rather than taking a black box approach.
FIG 1 - Zn Recovery Model.
248 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
had used laboratory recovery values of 80 per cent and 90
per cent then the bias would be in the opposite direction.
Maybe not a large bias in this particular example but unless
the relationship has been modelled explicitly it is difficult to
estimate the degree of bias.
A different use for an average is to estimate the value at
an intermediate point between two samples. For example if
the value is 10 at point 1 and 30 at point 2 then a reasonable
estimate of the value at a point halfway between the two
samples would be 20; an estimate of the value three quarters
of the way between samples 1 and 2 would be 25, a distance
weighted average. This interpretation can be extended to
three dimensions where a grid of points can be estimated as
a linear combination of the surrounding samples – in other
words a standard grade estimation technique such as inverse
power of distance (ID) or ordinary kriging (OK).
If a grid of points is estimated then blending is not involved
so it is debatable whether it is necessary for the variable to
be machine additive. However if the value of a model cell is
estimated then most estimation methods such as ID and
OK will represent the volume of the cell by a 3D matrix of
discretisation points and the estimate will be a blend of
point values. This is not strictly true in the case of OK which
calculates the covariance between the block and each point,
but the principle is very similar. If the variable is not machine
additive then the cell estimate will be biased.
The planned P843A CP3c and CP5e research will help
to model the non-linear relationship between the cell and
point values and so remove the bias of the linear estimators.
However in the meantime there are ways to assess the degree
of bias as illustrated in the Red Dog case study. Possible
methods for non-machine additive variables are summarised
in this paper and an example for Cadia East is described.
CASE STUDY 1
Introduction
There are many similarities between the modelling of metall-
urgical performance indices and the modelling of grades for a
geological resource model. However there are also differences
which means it is not just a question of changing the name of
the variable and processing it using a standard grade modelling
method. In general with grade modelling the attributes that
are sampled are the attributes that are required in the block
model. However metallurgical performance indices are often
estimated as proxies from a range of values including assay,
geotechnical, mineralogical and metallurgical samples using
complex non-linear models. In geometallurgy the main focus
is the ultimate performance of the sample data in terms of
recovery, throughput and specific power required.
Most grade estimation methods require some degree
of homogeneity, so that the geological, structural and
geostatistical properties within modelled areas are similar.
For grade estimation the rock type is often used to define
domains of similar characteristics so that different estimation
parameters and possibly methods are defined for each domain.
Therefore at least two types of modelling method are required
– modelling of domains, which are categorical variables, and
modelling of attributes, which are continuous variables.
Often the choice of modelling method is not as important as
how it is applied. The user must have good knowledge of the
available methods and understand the implicit assumptions
An understanding of the data and the ability to analyse and
manipulate it is also essential.
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES

Data TABLE 2
The Cadia East data set was used for the first case study. The Multivariate mineralogical B Groups.
input data is provided by the drill hole samples with the main
variables being: MMGB Level Total
 the hole identifier, downhole from/to distance, XYZ 1 2 3
location, sample orientation
1 2304 170 44 2518
 the MMG number (PCA mineral class), and
 the comminution parameters. 2 3204 57 9 3270
The two comminution parameters that are modelled are 3 2711 88 12 2811
A×b and the Bond mill work index (BMWi).
4 19 595 372 60 20 027
PCA has been used to identify the MMGs which group
Total 27 814 687 125 28 626
samples with similar processing characteristics so each
sample has been assigned an MMG number. For the Cadia
East data 14 MMGs were identified as described by Keeney a 400 × 400 × 400 m volume close to the top of the deposit.
and Walters (2008). The initial test modelling has been done for the 200 × 200
Data is available at different levels with progressively × 200 m volume using a cell size of 5 × 5 × 5 m. The 400 m
more information but fewer samples as the level increases. A cube therefore gives a 100 m margin of samples around the
summary of the number of samples for each level by MMG is test model area. Figure 2(b) is a large scale plan in the test
shown in Table 1. area, showing the 2 m intervals for each sample. It can be
seen that there are continuous lengths of the same MMGB
TABLE 1 (same colour) showing that there is good correlation between
Multivariate mineralogical A groups. adjacent sample MMGs.

Downhole compositing
Multivariate Level Total
mineralogical groups Figure 2 shows that there is spatial continuity in the 3D
distribution of MMGBs. In order to get a more quantitative
A B 1 2 3 analysis on the continuity the 2 m samples have been
1* 1 1592 34 9 1635 composited within each MMGB. A single composite therefore
2 1 459 42 5 506 consists of one of more adjacent samples which have the same
*
MMGB.
3 1 253 94 30 377
Table 3 shows the number of composites, maximum
4 2 1568 24 2 1594 composite length, total length and mean length. The average
5 2 863 17 1 881 length over all composites is 14.1 m although the average
by MMG varies from 5.6 m to 22.6 m. Figure 3 shows the
6 2 773 16 6 795
histogram of composite lengths over all composites.
7 3 1171 8 3 1182
8 3 1137 41 3 1181 TABLE 3
9 *
3 403 39 6 448 Composite Length by multivariate mineralogical groups.
*
10 4 4813 61 11 4885
MMGB Number of Composite length (m)
11* 4 4561 119 21 4701 comps Max Total Mean
12 4 5754 39 6 5799
1 548 136 5512 10.1
13 4 2976 47 3 3026
2 864 114 6910 8.0
14* 4 1491 106 19 1616
3 1046 70 5898 5.6
Total 27 814 687 125 28 626
4 1952 582 44 042 22.6
Only six of the 14 MMG groups have enough level 3 data Total 4410 582 62 362 14.1
to allow the calculation of the regression models linking the
comminution parameters to the level 1 and level 2 variables.
Therefore for the purpose of this study the 14 groups have Indicator variograms
been amalgamated into the four major groups as shown by The indicator variogram is a geostatistical tool that gives a
the shading in Table 1 and summarised in Table 2. The 14 measure of the continuity of a categorical variable such as
MMG group is referred to as MMGA and the 4 MMG group MMGB. A 0/1 indicator variable is assigned to each sample
as MMGB. The MMGB classification gives sufficient data for for each MMGB depending on whether the MMGB is absent
regression models to be calculated for each of the four groups. (0) or present (1) for each sample.
Figure 4 shows the omni-directional indicator variograms
Three-dimensional spatial continuity of for each MMGB. The variograms for all samples show good
multivariate mineralogical B groups continuity with a range of about 200 m for MMGB 4 (red)
and about 100 m for the other three MMGBs. Although the
Plans and sections graph for the test area extends to 400 m only the first 200 m
An MMGB classification has been assigned to all level 1 data. is significant due to the limited extent of the data. Within this
The aim of this part of the study is to investigate the 3D distance the variograms show similar relative characteristics
spatial distribution of the MMGs. Figure 2a shows samples in to the full data set although the ranges for MMGB 1 - 3 are

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 249
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM

(A) W-E Section (B) Plan

FIG 2 - Section and plan in test area.

within an MMGB. Therefore it is feasible to model the MMGB

domains in 3D and use the domains to control the estimation
of the comminution parameters. Possible methods for
modelling the domains include:
 sectional interpretation and wireframe modelling,
 nearest neighbour assignment (NN),
 indicator kriging (IK), and
 stochastic trend analysis (STA).
These methods are described in the following sections.

Sectional interpretation
Data is approximately on 100 m sections with some infill
50 m sections. Although there are long runs of samples with
the same MMGB there are also areas with smaller composites
with different MMGBs. Manually interpreting the MMGBs on
a section and then linking the interpretations from section
to section would be a difficult and labour intensive task. It
FIG 3 - Composite length histogram. was concluded that manual interpretation methods are not
particularly appropriate for this data set. However another
data set might be more amenable to the sectional method.
a little less. Both sets of variograms are averaged over all
dips and directions so do not take into account any possible Nearest neighbour assignment
anisotropy. The NN method finds the nearest sample to each cell centre and
Domain modelling assigns the MMGB from the sample to the cell. The results of a
simple application of this method in the test area are shown in
Introduction Figure 5a and b. A disadvantage of this method is that it does
The sections, composites and indicator variograms described tend to give elongated stripes of continuity as can be seen in
in the previous sections show that there is good continuity the figure. However it does give a good representation of the
(A) All Samples (B) Test Area

FIG 4 - Omni-directional indicator variograms.

250 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES
proportions of each MMG over the whole model, it is very fast
to implement and it is a good initial exploratory tool to get an
understanding of geometallurgical domain continuity.
Indicator kriging
Indicator kriging (IK) requires the 0/1 indicator values for
each of the four MMGBs to be estimated into model cells
using ordinary kriging. Therefore each cell has four indicator
variables with values between zero and one, one for each
MMGB. In this study each model cell has been assigned the
dominant MMGB as shown in Figure 5c and d.
The IK method certainly produces a smoother model with
more continuous zones which looks more appealing than
the NN model but is not necessarily more accurate. This has
been tested using simulation techniques using the following
procedure:
 Simulation models of the MMGB domains were created
using sequential indicator simulation (SISIM) for the
200 m cubic test area.
 Each simulation model in turn was considered as ‘reality’.
 Vertical drill holes were created from the reality model
by superimposing a regular grid of holes over the model
and assigning MMGB values from the model cells to the
sample that intersected each cell.
 Samples from the created drill holes were used to estimate
MMGB values into the model cells using the NN and IK
(A) Section: Modelled Using NN
(C) Section: Modelled Using IK
FIG 5 - Section and plan through multivariate mineralogical group B model.
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
methods. Thus each cell in the model had two estimated
MMGB values (NN and IK) and an actual (reality) MMGB
value.
 The actual and estimated MMGB values were compared
and the percentage of correct estimates for each method
was calculated.
 The above process was repeated for different drill hole
spacing so that percentage of correct estimates was
calculated as a function of drill hole spacing.
The main results are shown graphically in Figure 6. The
X axis shows the drill hole spacing and the Y axis shows the
percentage of cells whose MMGB value has been correctly
estimated. It can be seen that for close spaced drilling (20 m
grid) NN correctly estimates 48 per cent of cells whereas IK
has a success rate of 67 per cent. As the spacing increases the
success rate for both methods decreases. Once the spacing
gets to about 80 m it reaches a plateau with IK being about
five per cent better than NN.
A×b Modelling
Statistics
The histograms in Figure 7 show the distribution of A×b for
each of the four MMGBs. Figure 7a is for all 29 000 two metre
samples and b is for the 3208 samples in the 400 m test area.
Table 4 gives summary statistics for each MMGB.
(B) Plan: Modelled Using NN
(D) Plan: Modelled Using IK
251
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM

to scale them to make comparison easier. The variogram

80 for MMGB 2 has the shortest range of about 100 m whereas
MMGBs 1, 3 and 4 have ranges of between 200 m and
500 m. Considering the fairly narrow range of A×b values the
60
variograms show good continuity.
% Correct

NN For the variograms in Figure 8b the A×b values have been

40
IK transformed to a normal distribution before the variograms
are calculated. This is a requirement of the sequential Gaussian
20 simulation process. The A×b samples are approximately
normally distributed so the normalised and normal score
0 variograms are quite similar.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Grid Spacing (m)
Standard modelling methods
As mentioned above variables such as A×b are likely to be
non-additive and so using grade modelling techniques for
estimating into block models may lead to biased estimates.
FIG 6 - Percentage correct multivariate mineralogical group B estimates. Nevertheless it was considered instructive to compare the
results of A×b modelling using standard methods as described
The shapes of the histograms of the four MMGBs are similar below. Modelling methods that are less dependent on the
for the two sets of samples, so the test area is representative as assumption of non-additivity are described in the next section.
far as the A×b values are concerned. All four histograms are The three estimation methods that have been tested using
approximately normally distributed. A×b are:
1. nearest neighbour (NN),
Variograms 2. inverse square of distance (ID), and
The omni-directional variograms in Figure 8 are for all 3. ordinary kriging (OK).
2 m sample A×b values for each MMGB. Figure 8a shows The three estimation methods have been compared with and
normalised variograms (variogram value divided by variance) without zone control, where the MMGB domain is the zone

(A) All samples. (B) Samples in test area.

FIG 7 - Histograms for A×b samples.

(A) Normalised (B) Normal Score

FIG 8 - Omni-directional A×b variograms.

252 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES

TABLE 4
Statistics for A×b in 400 m test area.

MMGB Number Minimum Maximum Mean Variance SD Skewness

1 329 12.0 95.1 35.0 53.6 7.3 2.8
2 622 1.1 93.5 29.7 49.0 7.0 1.6
3 440 16.4 58.8 36.1 51.3 7.2 -0.1
4 1817 0.5 95.7 30.0 28.6 5.4 1.4

field. The procedure for comparing methods is very similar to be estimated then it would be possible to use a distribution
that described for comparing domain modelling methods but parameter such as a quantile as the estimate. For example
with the following differences: for A×b a quantile below the median (eg the 40th percentile)
 simulation model 1 of MMGB domains was used to may be appropriate as it is low values that cause throughput
represent the distribution of MMGB values, and problems.
 the standard deviation of the error and the mean absolute
error were used for comparing estimates. Subclass based estimate
The main results are shown graphically in Figure 9. The Within each PCA class the variable (eg A×b) can be divided
X axis shows the drill hole spacing and the Y axis shows the into ranges based on for example quantiles. Each subclass can
mean absolute difference between the actual and estimated then be considered as a categorical variable and estimated
A×b value for each cell. It can be seen that the deviations into the model using indicator kriging. A value can then be
of the three unconstrained estimates (no zonal control) are assigned to the subclass in the same way as described above
significantly greater than those with zonal control. The ID and for the class based estimate. The advantage of a subclass
OK methods produce similar results which are better than NN. based estimate over a class based one is that the range of A×b
values is further restricted so the degree of bias is reduced
Isotropic variogram models were used for the ordinary
accordingly. However the size of the model cell will need to be
kriged estimates. It is possible that the OK results would taken into account as it may not be appropriate to represent a
improve if directional models were calculated. cell by a single subclass.
Alternative modelling methods
The simulation method
Introduction Conditional simulation can be used to simulate a set of points
A×b values are derived from point data which are considered within a model cell. The conditional distribution (histogram)
to be non-additive. Ideally the modelling of a non-additive for each cell can then be calculated. One of the quantiles of the
variable such as A×b requires a weighted average to be distribution can then be used as a proxy for the block value.
calculated with the average being based on the blend response The difference between this method and the two methods
model as described above. However there are other options described above is that using multiple simulations allows
which may reduce the potential bias and give an approximate the variability of the block value to be estimated. Thus the
solution as summarised below. The first stage of all three probability of the block value lying outside an acceptable
methods is to model the MMGB value into the block model. range can be calculated and taken into account to reduce risk
in the planning and scheduling processes. An example of this
Class based estimate method is given in the following section.
An easy method is to assign a single value to all cells that are
the same class where the value is derived from the distribution Simulation example
of samples within the class. The simplest option is to choose Multivariate mineralogical group B values were estimated
the mean value but this would still be biased. However if into 5 × 5 × 5 m cells for the 200 m test area using indicator
the range of values within each class were narrow then the kriging as described previously. 10 sets of A×b values were
degree of bias would be reduced. If the direction of bias could simulated on a 2.5 m grid for each MMGB. The points were
then blocked into cells of 25 × 25 × 15 m which gave 10 × 10
5.00 × 6 = 600 points per cell. Thus although each 5 × 5 × 5 m cell
Mean Absolute Difference (Act - Est)

had a unique MMGB the larger 25 × 25 × 15 m cells include

4.00 simulated points with different MMGBs. Table 5 shows the
IDU statistics for a single 25 × 25 × 15 m cell. This is the type of data
NNU
3.00 that could be input to the blend response model to estimate
OKU
the mean A×b value.
IDZ
2.00
NNZ Figure 10 shows a plan at for nine simulations coloured
OKZ by the 70th percentile of the point A×b values in each 25 ×
1.00 25 × 15 m cell. It can be seen that although the simulations
are different they do have the same basic trend in the data
0.00 values. Although the cells are coloured according to the 70th
0 20 40 60 80 100 percentile, it would have been more instructive to colour on
Grid Spacing (m) the 30th percentile as low values represent hard material and
high values soft material. It is the low A×b values that generally
cause the throughput problems so a percentile less than 50 per
FIG 9 - Mean absolute error for estimation methods. cent would be more useful. Using the 70th percentile as the

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 253
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM
FIG 10 - 70th percentile of simulated A×b Values for 25 × 25 × 15 m cells.
best estimate of the blend instead of the mean results in an
increase in A×b of 2.3, approximately seven per cent.
Blend response models could be used with the simulated
point data to create estimates of the blended average value
in each cell. The mean of the cell values over all simulations
would give the E-type estimate of the blended value and
the variance of the estimates would enable confidence to be
assessed.
Stochastic trend analysis
Introduction
An alternative domaining method using a stochastic trend
analysis (STA) technique is described by Keeney (2008).
The method is mathematically simple and is based on the
time series analysis technique of examining the cumulative
summation (CuSum) of each difference between the actual
value and a given mean value. It has been developed as a
method for identifying spatially continuous zones of similar
material and is particularly suited to analysing downhole
data. The method has been tested using the A×b data for the
11 holes that intersect the test area.
Method
An automatic procedure has been developed in Datamine’s
Studio software to calculate the CuSum values and assign a
gradient group based on the average gradient. This is planned
to be superseded by the DomAIn software developed by
JKTech. The CuSum values are relative to the mean A×b value
of 32.8 averaged over all holes. The absolute CuSum value at
any point is not important; it is the gradient of the line that is
directly related to the local mean A×b value.
Figure 11 shows the CuSum plot for hole CE057. The X axis
represents the downhole distance measured from the first
sample with an A×b value. The upper points are the CuSum
TABLE 5
A×b Statistics for a 25 × 25 × 15 m Model Cell.
MMGB Volume Mean
m 3
% deviation
1 2250 24 42.3
2 750 8 32.8
3 4125 44 36.6
4 2250 25 34.9
All 9375 100 37.3
254 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
values which are coloured automatically according to the
average gradient between adjacent points. The Y axis for the
lower set of connected points is the A×b value so this shows
the downhole trend in A×b.
The CuSum gradients are grouped in 20o intervals as shown
in Table 6. It can be seen that the mean A×b value increases
as the slope increases from -80o (Group 1) to +80o (Group 9).
The result of an analysis of variance test based on the CuSum
shows that there are significant differences between the
average A×b values in each of the nine groups.
The CuSum groups have been used for domaining the
samples in each drill hole. A similar comparison analysis
to that described previously has been undertaken with the
MMGB domain replaced by CuSum domain.
Results
Some initial testing has been carried out for the estimation
of CuSum groups and the estimation of A×b within CuSum
groups using the simulation method described previously.
The results so far are encouraging with the CuSum method
giving better results than MMG groups in some cases. Further
investigation is planned.
CASE STUDY 2
Introduction
The aim of the Red Dog case study was to create a block model
containing performance indices zinc recovery, throughput
and specific power that could be used to help optimise mine
planning and scheduling activities. A major input to the study
was the Teck resource block model that covered three deposits
– Main, Aqqaluk and Paalaaq. Most of the work for this study
was on the Aqqaluk deposit.
Walters and Kojovic (2008) have used principal components
analysis (PCA) to identify 11 mineralogical classes in the
Aqqaluk deposit. Their work has enabled them to create
regression models that allow the mineralogical class to be
calculated from the data that is routinely collected for diamond
and RC holes. Kojovic (2009) has also developed class based
models that estimate the comminution parameters A×b and
BMWi which then lead to further models for estimating the
performance indices.
In this case study the models derived by Walters and Kojovic
have been applied to the Aqqaluk deposit. The mineralogical
Class for each model cell has been estimated and the regression
models used to calculate the performance indices.
Sample data
The database included:
 50 020 RC and DDH samples - for all three deposits, and
 ore type (OT) data for DDH samples – predominantly for
the Aqqaluk deposit.
Standard Percentile
30% 40% 50%
11.4 37.7 38.4 39.2
3.7 30.3 30.9 31.9
5.4 34.8 36.6 37.5
5.0 33.2 34.3 35.4
7.8 34.3 35.7 37.0
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES

FIG 11 - CuSum plot for hole CE057.

TABLE 6
A×b Statistics for each CuSum group.

Group Gradient Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Standard deviation

1 -80 32 1.1 35.3 18.8 82.6 9.1
2 -60 69 9.8 42.0 26.7 32.4 5.7
3 -40 129 20.8 37.8 29.5 6.3 2.5
4 -20 55 26.0 35.9 31.2 3.0 1.7
5 0 161 17.3 40.9 32.6 11.6 3.4
6 20 60 29.3 46.8 34.8 5.4 2.3
7 40 171 20.9 49.4 35.9 10.3 3.2
8 60 108 14.0 84.9 39.5 45.5 6.7
9 80 3 18.8 72.5 42.4 503.8 22.4

The main attributes of interest include:
 %Zn, %Pb, %Fe, %Ba, %Pb, %TOC, %Ag, soluble Zn and
Pb;
 percentage of ore types 1, 2 and 6. (OT1, OT2, OT6); and
 geology code.
However not all RC and DDH samples had been analysed
for TOC. Initial samples were not analysed as it was not
appreciated that TOC was important and TOC is not routinely
analysed for lower grade samples as it is relatively expensive.
Two methods were used for assigning TOC values to some of
the missing data based on adjacent values, trends and geology
as described by Walters (2009). Approximately 23 000
samples were assigned TOC values using these methods.
The block model
Introduction
The resource block model covers all three deposits and
consists of 25 × 25 × 25 ft cells. The main attributes of interest
include:
 estimates for %ZN, %Pb, %Fe, %Ba, %Pb, %TOC, %Ag,
soluble Zn and Pb; and
 geology and deposit codes
Fifteen of the 25 geology units are defined as mineralised.
Grades had been estimated into the mineralised cells using
ordinary kriging with the geology code used for domain control.
Ore types
The resource model did not include ore type so the OT1, OT2
and OT6 percentages were estimated into the model cells using
ordinary kriging. An analysis of the statistics and frequency
distributions of the OT values for each geology code suggested
that the data could be grouped into four major geological units
as was done for the grade variograms.
Principal components analysis class
Class assignment
Figure 12a shows the mineralogical discriminant diagram
developed by Walters and Kojovic (2008) which identifies
11 separate classes. The axes of the diagram are the first two
principal components (X-U2, Y-U1) determined from the PCA
study, where the principal component values are calculated
as a function of the grades and percentage mineral types. The
legend gives a summary of each of the 11 classes.
Figure 12b shows the PCA diagram for all samples that have
a mineralised geology code and have been assigned a Class
value. The hot colours show high density of samples and
the cold colours low density. It can be seen that the major
concentrations of samples are in classes 3 to 8. Samples lying
outside the polygons have been assigned to Class 0 and are
outside the range of values in the GeM data set which was
used for the PCA study.
Grades have been estimated from the samples into the block
model and so class values can be estimated for the cells with
the same regression models as used for the samples. Figure
12c shows the PCA diagram for the model cells.
It can be seen that although the two diagrams show the same
overall pattern the model cell values are more concentrated
with less scatter. In particular the values have been drawn into
the centre away from the outer edges of the diagram which is
due to the smoothing effect of the modelling process.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 255
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM
When comparing the diagrams it should be noted that
model cells are distributed on a totally regular grid whereas
the samples are not regularly spaced over the model area.
There are significantly fewer samples in the north-west corner
of the modelled area and the highest drilling density is at the
southern end. This means that the material at the southern
end will be over represented in the PCA diagram for samples.
Three-dimensional spatial continuity of classes
It is important to establish whether there is 3D spatial
continuity of the PCA classes and how this can be used to
control and improve estimates of the performance indices.
Each sample in the PCA diagram has a set of XYZ coordinates
so the first stage of the investigation was to visualise the data
in 3D space.
Figure 13 shows a west-east section of both the drill holes
and model coloured according to the PCA Class legend. Most
samples are 5 ft in length. It can be seen that there is also good
continuity within a Class horizontally in the section plane as
well as vertically.
Relationship between class and geological unit
Each cell in the resource model includes one of the 25 geological
units. Fifteen of the units are classified as mineralised but six
of them comprise over 95 per cent of the ore in the Aqqaluk
deposit. The relationship between these six geological units
and the six main PCA classes (3 to 8) is summarised in
(A) Classes
(B) Samples
FIG 12 - Principal components analysis diagrams.
256 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Table 7. Each column in the table represents a Class and shows
the percentage of each geological unit.
It can be seen from Table 7 that there is a 100 per cent
correspondence between Class 3 (baritic) and geological unit
16 (lower plate Ikalukrok barite). The bottom row shows that
26.2 per cent of the ore cells are classified as baritic. All other
classes comprise a mixture of geological units. For example
Class 6 (siliceous) consists mainly of geological units 13
(68.8 per cent) and 8 (20.8 per cent). The final column in the
table shows the percentage breakdown of geological units over
all the ore cells.
Indicator class variograms
The geostatistical method for measuring the continuity of
a categorical variable such as class is to calculate indicator
variograms. Figure 14 shows omni-directional variograms for
classes 3 to 8. Ranges vary from about 200 ft for class 6 to 500
ft for class 3. This is further confirmation that the Classes have
good continuity in 3D space.
Plant performance indices
Zn recovery
The recovery model (Kojovic, 2009) is a function of the grades
and the percentage mineral types so it can be calculated
at both the sample and model cell level. The upper part of
Figure 15 shows a west-east section through the block model
and a design pit. It can be seen that in general the central part
of the pit has a high recovery.
(C) Model Cells
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES

FIG 13 - W-E section through model showing principal components analysis class.

TABLE 7
Geological composition of classes.

Class
Geological Unit 3 4 5 6 7 8 All
Baritic Sphalerite Sil-sphal Siliceous Sil-pyrite Pyritic-sphal
2 Weathered exhalite 0.0 5.7 5.3 8.4 0.5 1.6 3.2
8 Lower plate exhalite 0.0 11.1 33.6 20.8 56.3 60.1 28.8
11 Median plate exhalite 0.0 11.6 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
13 Ikalukrok vein unit 0.0 0.5 0.3 68.8 42.1 17.8 26.0
16 Ikalukrok barite 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2
18 Lower plate exhalite (high-grade) 0.0 71.2 51.8 1.9 1.1 20.4 14.0
All units 26.2 5.7 12.6 22.0 19.8 13.6 100.0

Ore throughput and specific power
Kojovic (2009) describes how updated Universal and Class-
based A×b and BMWi models have been derived from the
Phase 1 and 2 GeM and JKTech comminution test results. A
total of 143 samples were available for A×b but only 42 for
BMWi. The number of samples for the six major PCA classes
(3 - 8) varied from 18 to 31 per class for A×b and four to
ten per class for BMWi. These figures need to be taken into
consideration when assessing confidence in the final results.
Individual models are available for each of the six main
classes for both A×b and BMWi, and a universal model is
applied for all other classes. These models are used to estimate
A×b and BMWi values for both samples and block model cells.
Kojovic (2009) also describes models for throughput (tph) and
specific power (kWh/t). Throughput is modelled as a function
of the mill design and operating parameters and BMWi, and
specific power is a function of the mill parameters, BMWi and
A×b. The lower part of Figure 15 shows a section coloured by
specific power estimates.
Each cell in the block model now has recovery, throughput
and specific power values. The model can now be used in
conjunction with the grades and other information to create
an optimum plan and schedules.
Alternative estimates of performance indices
The procedure for estimating the performance indices
(recovery, throughput and specific power) for each cell as
reported in the previous sections can be summarised as:
 Grades and ore types are estimated from sample data to
the model cells using ordinary kriging.
 The PCA Class for each cell is calculated from the estimated
grades and ore types using the models derived from the
PCA study.
 The multiple regression models are applied to the cell
values to calculate the comminution parameters and then
the performance indices.
Therefore all variables that have been estimated into the
model cells are grades or percentages which are additive. The
resulting performance indices are referred to as modelled
indices. However an alternative approach would be to:
 calculate the class and performance indices for each
sample using the PCA and multiple regression models, and
 calculate variograms for the indices and estimate the
indices into the cells.
The indices calculated in this way are referred to as
estimated indices and they can be compared directly with the
modelled indices. As the estimated indices are not necessarily
additive the comparison could help to assess whether the use
of estimated indices introduces a bias.
The top row of Figure 16 shows point density scatter plots
for the performance indices with the modelled values on the X
axis and the estimated on Y. The plots are coloured according
to the density of points with hot colours being high density
and cold colours low.
The A×b and BMWi comminution parameters are required
by the regression models in the calculation of throughput and

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 257
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM

FIG 14 - Indicator variogram for classes 3 - 8.

(A)

(B)

FIG 15 - W-E section showing zinc recovery and specific power.

specific power. They have therefore been calculated for each
model cell. As for the three performance indices it is possible
to calculate the parameters at the sample level as well as for
the model cells, and then to estimate them into the cells.
A comparison of modelled and estimated values is included in
the second row of Figure 16.
An initial analysis of the density plots in Figure 16 suggests
more scatter than might have been expected. However Table 8
gives a statistical analysis of the point densities and shows the
cumulative percentage of samples within each point density
group used in Figure 16. For example for specific power
71.8 per cent of the samples are in group 1 (very high) and
87.4 per cent are in groups 1 and 2 (very high and high). This
gives an additional indication of the spread of values. Also
the correlation coefficient is included in the table giving a
statistical measure of the relationship between measured and
estimated values for all samples.
The density plot and statistics for zinc recovery show a wider
spread of values than for throughput and specific power.
This may be due to the fact that the recovery estimates were

258 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES

unconstrained (no domain control) whereas the throughput
and specific power estimates used class to constrain the
estimation. The reason this was done was to make the
estimation consistent with the regression models used to
calculate the performance indices – recovery is a universal
model whereas throughput and specific power are mainly
class-based.
Further investigation is required to test whether the
estimated performance indices could be improved. This would
include:
 detailed analysis of data for points showing poor correlation
– relationship with class, grade values, geological unit, etc;
 domain control using geological unit or CuSum domain
rather than PCA class,
 detailed variogram analysis to investigate and model
directional anisotropy, and
 Calculation and analysis of regression equations of
modelled and estimated values.
Confidence in performance indices
The kriged variance for each of the three performance indices
was calculated when the indices were estimated into the model
cells. Although the same samples are used for estimating each
index, the variogram models vary in terms of range and nugget
effect. An average measure of confidence has been calculated

Recovery Throughput Specific Power

A*b BMWi

FIG 16 - Point density plot: Modelled (X) versus estimated (Y) indices and parameters.

TABLE 8
Cumulative percentage of samples by density group.
Density group Density description Colour Zn recovery Throughput Specific power A×b BMWi
1 Very high Purple 65.8 78.3 71.8 84.0 72.4
2 High Red 84.2 91.6 87.4 91.4 88.0
3 Medium high Yellow 92.2 96.2 94.2 95.5 94.4
4 Medium Green 96.4 98.2 97.6 97.9 97.6
5 Medium low Cyan 98.6 99.2 99.3 99.2 99.3
6 Low Blue 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Correlation coefficient 0.68 0.80 0.87 0.89 0.86

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 259
M J NEWTON AND J M GRAHAM
over all three indices based on the kriged variances. This is
not intended to be used for calculating absolute confidence
limits for individual blocks, but can be used to indicate the
relative confidence of estimates for a block and indicate where
additional drilling would be beneficial.
Four confidence ranges have been defined as shown
in Figure 17. As expected in general the higher values of
confidence are in the more densely sampled areas. However
a detailed examination of the model shows areas of Medium
Low confidence where there is a high density of samples. This
is due to the poor continuity of the variograms in some of the
classes where variogram ranges are between 200 ft and 900 ft.
CONCLUSIONS
Spatial continuity of PCA classes
Visual examination and geostatistical analysis of the sample
data for both case studies show that the mineralogical classes
derived from the PCA study have good spatial continuity.
This enabled the classes to be modelled in 3D using standard
geostatistical methods for categorical variables. A simulation
study on the Cadia East data showed that indicator kriging
gave better estimates than the nearest neighbour
Performance indices
For the Aqqaluk deposit the regression models for both the
comminution parameters and the performance indices are
based on grade and ore type variables and so the question of
additivity is not an issue. Therefore the performance indices
in the model can be used with confidence by the engineers to
help optimise the planning and scheduling activities.
Assessing the bias of non-additive variables
The performance indices for Aqqaluk can be calculated by two
methods – the first method uses only additive variables to
create modelled indices whereas the second method estimates
non-additive variables to create the estimated indices. An
initial analysis of the results shows a fair correlation between
the two methods but further work is required to identify
the existence and degree of bias caused by estimating non-
additive variables.
FIG 17 - Confidence in performance indices.
260 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Cadia East comminution parameters
At Cadia East the comminution parameters A×b, BMWi
and the performance index throughput are modelled from
variables that are unlikely to be additive and so a different
approach is required compared to Red Dog. Methods that are
aim to reduce the degree of bias have been described.
Estimation of non-additive variables
In some cases the estimation of non-additive variables can
be achieved by identifying component additive variables that
can be estimated and then combined at the model cell level
to calculate the non-additive variable. For example Carrasco,
Chiles and Seguret (2008) show that although metallurgical
recovery is non-additive both the sample grade and the sample
recovered grade are additive. Therefore the two grades can be
estimated from samples to the model cells and then used to
calculate the recovery of the model cells.
Another option is to divide the non-additive sample values
into groups of similar values where each group has a small
range of values compared to the total data set, which is
effectively what the PCA classes do. Then the classes can be
estimated using a technique such as indicator kriging so that
each model cell is assigned a class identifier. The statistical
distribution of values associated with each class can then be
used to estimate the possible range of values for that cell.
Conditional simulation allows a set of points to be generated
within a defined volume (eg model cell) and the distribution
of the points to be calculated. A parameter such as a quantile
of the distribution can then be used to give an approximate
estimate of the block value.
The blend response analysis being undertaken for the P843A
study will provide valuable information for mixing non-
additive variables. In particular this will help mine planning
and scheduling where estimates of non-additive variables are
required for groups of model cells.
Stochastic trend analysis for domaining
The stochastic trend analysis (STA) method for identifying
spatially continuous zones of similar values is based on
time series analysis techniques and is particularly suited
to analysing trends in downhole data. The STA domains
identified in the drill holes can be modelled with indicator
 SPATIAL MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL INDICES
kriging and used to control estimation. Limited testing has
shown promising results and further analysis is required.
Optimised planning and scheduling
This paper has concentrated on the data analysis and modelling
aspects of creating the geometallurgical components of a
multi-parametric model. The real value comes when the
engineers use the integrated resource and geometallurgical
model for optimised planning and scheduling. This enables
the impact of variable recovery, processing and mining
costs on the mine cash flow to be assessed. Bye and Newton
(2009) give an example showing the net impact of the multi-
parametric model when compared to the base case model to
be as significant at $50 million per annum. The real value of
this approach is to highlight the impact of ore variability on
the mine plan and identify high risk periods. The operation
can then put strategies in place to minimise risk and optimise
the schedule. Bye and Newton also give an example where the
multi-parametric model provided the ability to value which
material should be scheduled to which plant so as to maximise
value.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is based on research undertaken by CAE Mining
(Datamine) on behalf of the WH Bryan Mining and Geology
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
Research Centre for the spatial modelling module of the
AMIRA GeMIII P843 project. The authors acknowledge
financial support from the sponsors of the P843 project.
REFERENCES
Bye, A and Newton, M, 2009. Integrated geometallurgical case
studies – from core to cash flow, in AMIRA P843 Technical
Report, June.
Carrasco, P, Chiles, J and Seguret, S, 2008. Additivity, metallurgical
recovery and grade, in Geostats 2008, Santiago, Chile.
Keeney, L, 2008, Stochastic trend analysis: Theory and procedures,
in AMIRA P843 Technical Report 2 (Nov 2008), pp 15.1-15.14.
Keeney, L and Walters, S, 2008. Geometallurgical modelling, in
AMIRA P843 Technical Report 1 (Feb 2008), pp 16.1-16.24.
Kojovic, T, 2009. Models for Red Dog optimisation study, in Internal
communication, April.
Walters, S and Kojovic, T, 2008. Mineralogical and textural analysis
linked to predictive process performance modelling – Aqqaluk
Zn-Pb deposit, Red Dog mine, Alaska, in AMIRA P843 Technical
Report 2, Nov, p 19.1-19.49.
Walters, S, 2009. Class models, in Internal communication.
261