SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

Preprint 10-028

GEOSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF 3D ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY WITH MOISTURE DATA TO CHARACTERIZE A GOLD HEAP

D. Rucker, ARCADIS U.S., Inc., Tucson, AZ

ABSTRACT electrical properties such as electrical conductivity can be related to

Flow models are used to predict the extraction efficiency of metals
in rock piles. These models typically use hydraulic parameters
obtained through column studies, which assume that the material in
the column wholly represents the entire pile and the parameters can be
upscaled several orders of magnitude for model evaluation. This
assumption fails for parameters that are spatially variable or scale
dependent. To overcome these issues, measurements made directly
on the heap at the appropriate model scale can be made with the
electrical resistivity method. The method aims to map the variations in
the electrical resistivity, which can be associated with moisture content,
degree of fines, metal content, and leachate concentration. We
present an example of calibrating the resistivity with borehole
measurements of moisture using geostatistics to show how the
resistivity method can be used to obtain a spatial moisture distribution.
It was shown that cokriging the resistivity and moisture together gives
a more reliable distribution.
INTRODUCTION
the moisture content. Orr [1,6] suggested that electrical resistivity
could be used to measure basic hydro-chemical data for model
calibration and validation. In this paper, we conduct a ground survey
of electrical resistivity over a portion of a heap owned by Newmont
Mining Corporation to help understand the hydraulic issues related to
leaching. Geostatistical methods are employed to help with the
calibration of the resistivity with borehole measurements of moisture.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 shows the site location of the North Area Leach (NAL)
pad at Newmont Mining Corporation’s Carlin,Nevada Operations. The
mine is 20-miles north of Carlin, NV. The NAL pad was constructed in
1987 to process low open pits on the Carlin Trend. It was constructed
as a fully lined facility in a series of phased expansions.
Oregon
Idaho
Study Site

Carlin Elko
Heap construction and structural non-uniformity is a main
component to the movement of leachate and the recovery of metal [1]. Reno

The movement of leachate is controlled by the permeability, a soil

property that is influenced by dumping practices, geology, and ore pre-
treatment. Low permeability zones, for example, may cause the
leachate to bypass large portions of ore for more accessible high 689950 Utah
California
permeability regions by way of preferential flow. Preferential flow
within the heap reduces yield due to the large amount of metal 689900
inventory that remains in unleached portions of the heap. 29 Las Vegas

689850 23 13 Arizona
To gain insight into fluid movement in heaps, many researchers
have developed flow and reactive transport models that can track the
movement of the leachate. The models are based on the use of 689800 24 18 14
numerical or analytical mathematical codes that incorporate the 32 19 15
physics and nonlinear nature of unsaturated flow. Orr [2] 689750
25 20 16
demonstrated a flow model through two types of heaps (crushed and
stacked uniformly; run-of-mine and successive dumping) using the 689700 21 17
finite element code FEHM.
689650
All numerical models need hydraulic parameters that describe the
physics of fluid flow. These hydraulic parameters relate, for example, 689600
how the moisture content affects the pressure head (i.e., water
retention curve) or hydraulic conductivity through constitutive 689550
relationships. The van Genuchten relationship [3] uses four hydraulic 88500 88600 88700 88800 88900 89000
parameters to describe the water retention curve. In all cases, the
Easting (m)
parameters are dependent on the heap’s makeup and are
Figure 1. Site location and layout of resistivity lines.
heterogeneous, requiring many unique measurements over the heap
to obtain a site specific model. Unfortunately, the hydraulic parameters Gold is leached from the ore with a dilute sodium cyanide solution
are expensive to obtain, are laboratory derived, and usually require which is applied to the surface of the heap using drip emitters. Typical
long experimental times to record data at very low pressures. To 2
solution application rates of 12.2 L/hr/m are used with a primary leach
bypass this expense, many modelers use published values from cycle lasting 90 to 120 days. Total barren solution flows from the heap
similar soil and rock types encountered in the heap. For example, 6
at a rate of approximately 1.82x10 L/hr. Gold is recovered from the
Decker and Tyler [4] present some hydraulic parameters of heap pregnant solution by means of a Carbon-In-Column (CIC) plant. As of
material from the Carlin Trend. Alternatively, a few hydraulic December 2008, over 208 million tons have been placed from which
parameter measurements can be made and extrapolated to represent 3M ounces of gold has been recovered. The heap construction and
the entire rock pile [5]. leaching process is similar to that of pads on adjacent properties (see
[7]).
Geophysical methods offer both non-intrusive and non-destructive
measurements of some hydraulic parameters at a scale relevant for It is suspected that a significant quantity of gold remains in the
validating a numerical model. In particular, methods that measure heap, prompting Newmont to consider secondary recovery using

1 Copyright © 2010 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

pressurized injections [8,9]. The injections are used to push leachate conduction varies with the mobility, concentration, and degree of
into minimally leached zones through perforated wells. To better site dissociation. By contrast, electronic conduction occurs in metallic-
the wells for secondary recovery, drilling and assaying along with luster sulfide minerals, such as that found in heaps, where free
electrical resistivity imaging was conducted on the pad. Fourteen wells electrons are available. Rocks and non-metallic minerals have
were placed within the resistivity survey area up to a depth of 60 m extremely high resistivities (low conductivities) and direct current
below pad surface (BPS). Samples were extracted and characterized transmission through this material is difficult. Electrolytic conduction is
every 1.5 m for gravimetric moisture content, gold, pH, and other relatively slow with respect to electronic conduction due to mass
information. transfer rate limiting processes and is strongly influenced by the
structure of the medium.
With assay data alone, the question becomes how best to
-4
represent unsampled areas of the pad. For this work we chose the 10 x 10
geostatistical method of ordinary kriging to estimate the distribution of a)
moisture in the heap. Kriging uses a weighted linear combination of 9
neighboring values to estimate the value at the unsampled location.
We are at an advantage, however, in that we also have a three- 8
dimensional representation of electrical resistivity over a portion of the

C(0)-C(h)
pad, which can be used for cokriging the borehole (considered hard 7
data) and resistivity (considered as soft data) together, assuming that
the two data sets have some spatial correlation. Figure 1 shows the 6
outline of the resistivity area in the center of the pad. Cokriging is
Experimental Covariance
similar to kriging, where a weighted linear combination of both hard 5 Function
and soft data are used to calculate the value at the unsampled Model Covariance
location. The cokriging method can also accommodate either type of 4 Function
data that do not necessarily co-exist at the same location, allowing for
the highly resolved resistivity to be incorporated with low spatial 3
resolution observed with the assay data. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
lag (m) Moisture
KRIGING OF BOREHOLE DATA (g/g)
0.1
Geostatistics offers a way of describing the spatial continuity of b)
natural phenomena and providing a means of interpolation (or 689850 0.09
extrapolation) at an unsampled location using this description [10]. 0.08
For the kriging and cokriging methods, the variogram or covariance
689800 0.07
functions are used to estimate the spatial continuity of the sample
Northing (m)

population. These functions aim to measure the average degree of 0.06

dissimilarity between an unsampled value and a nearby data value 689750 0.05
[11]. Typically, larger distances between data points equate to greater
0.04
dissimilarity. 689700
0.03
The moisture data from all wells at NAL were kriged over the 0.02
domain encompassing the resistivity measurements. The spherical 689650
covariance function was used to model the spatial data. Parameters 0.01

that define the covariance function include the range and sill. The sill
refers to the value of the plateau in the covariance and the range is the
distance to which the covariance reaches the sill.
Figure 2 shows the results of the kriging, with data presented as a
slice through the heap at a constant elevation of 1790 m above mean
sea level (approximately 15 m BPS). Figure 2a is the covariance
function and the model fit to the covariance function as described. The
experimental covariance function is smoothly varying out to about 40
m, which is the average depth for the wells. Beyond 40 m, the
covariance function is quite noisy and the range and sill for the larger
lags were estimated by judgment. The range of the covariance
function suggests that there is more consistency in the vertical than
lateral direction.
The contoured data in Figure 2b shows that the moisture content
in the western and northern regions exhibit ring patterns around the
wells, which extend about 40 m away from the well. Greater than 40
m, the moisture is roughly the mean of all moisture measurements.
For the cluster of wells in the eastern region, greater variability is seen
immediately around and between the wells. Away from the well
cluster, the moisture returns back to a mean value suggesting that an
accurate assay-based characterization of this heap would likely require
wells placed every 30-40 m.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY GEOPHYSICS
Resistivity (ρ) is a volumetric property that describes the
resistance of electrical current flow within a medium. Direct electrical
current is propagated in rocks and minerals by electrolytic and
electronic conduction [12]. Porous media can pass current through
ions within the open framework of the pore space by way of electrolytic
conduction, which relies on the dissociation of ionic species. Here, the
689600 0
88600 88650 88700 88750 88800 88850 88900 88950
Easting (m)
Figure 2. Kriging of moisture data, a) experimental covariance function
and covariance model for moisture, b) modeled moisture contours at
an elevation of 1790 m.
The resistivity method employs electric current (I) that is injected
into the earth through one pair of electrodes (transmitting dipole) and
measures the resultant voltage potential (V) across another pair of
electrodes (receiving dipole). The scalar spatial voltage distribution can
be modeled with Poisson’s equation [13]:
∂ ⎛ 1 ∂V ⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1 ∂V ⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1 ∂V ⎞
⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟=I (1)
∂x ⎝ ρ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ρ ∂y ⎠ ∂z ⎝ ρ ∂z ⎠
The electric current is generated by battery or motor-generator
driven equipment. Field data are acquired using a multi-electrode
array along linear transects. A multi-electrode array enables rapid data
acquisition over a large area with minimal reconfiguration of
equipment. Common array configurations include Wenner,
Schlumberger, and dipole-dipole arrays. The Advanced Geosciences,
Inc (AGI) system, the SuperSting R8, offers another option which they
refer to as the gradient array. The gradient array is similar to the
Wenner and Schlumberger in that the current electrode pair is placed
on the two outer electrodes of the basic four electrode set up and the
voltage is measured on the inner pair. The progression of
measurements occur by moving one current electrode forward along
the array and then measuring all adjacent voltage pairs inside the
current pair. When the roving current electrode reaches the end of the
transect, the other current electrode at the beginning of the line moves

2 Copyright © 2010 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

forward incrementally while voltage is measured again on all adjacent
electrode pairs. The advantage of the gradient array is the large
number of measurements and its effective use of the number of
available channels on a multichanneled resistivity meter.
Measuring resistivity is not a direct process and requires an
inversion procedure to estimate the spatial distribution given all of the
voltage measurements made with the resistivity meter. Inversion
involves calculating resistivities of the subsurface that give rise to the
measured voltage, typically using a least-squares optimization
procedure. The objective of the inversion is to minimize the difference
between the modeled and measured voltage. Due to the nonlinear
nature of Equation 1, the resistivity inversion method is conducted by
iteratively solving the forward solution, checking the calculated
voltages against the measured voltage, changing the resistivity
distribution in regions of greatest difference, and repeating the process
until the measured and modeled voltages are similar. The advantage
of the inversion is a distribution range of resistivities that are more
of resistivity (electrical conductivity) was plotted as a scatter plot with
moisture content in Figure 4a. The plot shows a high degree of scatter
with the electrical conductivity. Although not shown, the correlation of
the moisture with electrical conductivity is low with a correlation
coefficient less than 0.1. The low correlation is likely due to the
geophysical data scale (tens of cubic meters) versus the rock sample
characterization scale (tens of cubic centimeters). The geophysical
data averages over much larger volumes, which minimizes the
possibility of large fluctuations over short distances. Additionally, other
factors are likely influencing the scatter (clay content, texture,
mineralization), and a multivariate analysis may prove to be useful in
reducing scatter among the variables.
0.03
a)
0.025

1/resistivity
0.02
amenable to a direct quantitative comparison to the natural geologic or
hydrologic feature. Discussions of resistivity inversion and the 0.015
methods by which the true resistivity is calculated can be found in y = 0.0601x + 0.0123
several sources [14-16]. R2= 0.7466
0.01
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS conductivity
0.005
The electrical resistivity method was applied at the NAL pad, as average conductivity
within bin
shown in Figure 1. The resistivity data acquisition was conducted with 0
the SuperSting R8 Resistivity meter (Advanced Geosciences Inc., 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Austin, TX) with a multi-conductor cable and stainless steel electrodes. Moisture
The data were acquired one line at a time, to create a series of Moisture
parallel, two-dimensional profiles. Each line was composed of 140
electrodes, with an electrode spacing of 3 m. Data were acquired 0.48
using the gradient array for the 12 lines, with a line spacing of 15 m. A b) 0.45
total of 1680 electrode locations and 105,840 data values were 689850 0.42
collected on the heap over a period of six days. After initial noise 0.39
removal and filtering of substandard data, the net data count was 689800 0.36
81,242. Full three-dimensional inversion was completed on the 0.33
Easting (m)

profiles using EarthImager3DCL [17] by geo-referencing the electrode 0.3

689750
positions. 0.27
0.24
Figure 3 shows the distribution of electrical resistivity within the 689700 0.21
heap as a horizontal slice at 1790m. The inversion model creates a 0.18
solid block of cells, with each cell having a resistivity value and hence 689650 0.15
a color associated to it. To provide a means to look within the model, 0.12
the solid block was sliced horizontally. The modeled resistivity values 0.09
of the heap range from 7.8 to 800 ohm-m, demonstrating that the heap 689600 0.06
is highly heterogeneous. 88600 88700 88800 88900 0.03
Northing (m) 0
689900 Resistivity
(ohm-m) Figure 4. a) scatterplot and models for co-located moisture and
resistivity measurements, b) moisture (g/g) distribution from resistivity
689850 125 transformation using the linear model at an elevation of 1790 m
120
115
110 An alternative comparison of co-located well and geophysical
689800 105 data was conducted through binning of the independent variable. The
100
moisture data were binned into discrete groups to observe average
Easting (m)

95
90 behavior of the data at different scales. The bins were then used to
689750
85
80 create a new scatter plot by averaging electrical conductivity data
75 within the bins. The scatter of averaged conductivity produced a high
689700 70 2
65 correlation with moisture, with an R of 0.75.
60
55 The empirical regression formula that were established between
689650 50
45 the moisture and resistivity data can be used to relate all resistivity
40 data back to a moisture value. The conversion is accomplished using
35
689600
30 an inverse procedure on the regression formula in Figure 4a. Figure
88550 88600 88650 88700 88750 88800 88850 88900 88950 4b demonstrates the results of the conversion, with a contour of data
Northing (m)
from a horizontal slice through the block at an elevation of 1790 m.
Figure 3. Electrical resistivity results within the heap at an elevation of The moisture data of Figure 4b show some continuous regions of both
1790m. high and low values. If an inverse relationship between moisture and
GEOSTATISTICAL MODELING OF ASSAY AND RESISTIVITY gold concentration exists, where similar shaped bodies of high gold
DATA and low moisture are observed in the slices, the map could be used to
cite wells for an enhanced recovery with a secondary stimulation
Least Squares Regression process [8].
The degree of similarity between electrical resistivity and moisture
content or gold concentration is presented in Figure 4. The reciprocal

3 Copyright © 2010 by SME


Cokriging of Moisture with Resistivity
Cokriging is similar to kriging, but the method can use extra
information such as resistivity where borehole data are missing. The
method works very well if there exists a measureable spatial
correlation between the datasets, which is generally estimated with the
covariance function. For example, Figures 5a shows the experimental
covariance function and covariance model for the resistivity data
(presented as electrical conductivity or 1/resistivity), and Figure 5b
shows the cross-covariance information for the moisture and electrical
conductivity. The conductivity data were rescaled to the mean of the
moisture data. The experimental covariance function for conductivity is
smooth. The spherical model was chosen to represent the covariance
structure. The experimental cross-covariance function of Figure 5b is
also generally less noisy than the moisture covariance function. There
appears to be a reduction in the covariance at lags greater than 100m,
which is likely picking up on the sizeable resistivity features that appear
with a periodicity of about 100 m.
a)
-4
5 x 10
4.5
4
3.5
C(0)-C(h)
C(0)-C(h)
3
2.5
2 sampled data. This gave the kriged moisture a bulls-eye appearance
1.5 Experimental covariance
function
1 interpolation.
Model covariance
0.5
function
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Lag (m)
c)
689850
689800
Northing (m)
689750
689700
689650
689600
88600 88650 88700 88750 88800
Easting (m)
Figure 5. Cokriging of moisture data using three-dimensional
electrical resistivity, a) experimental covariance function and
covariance model for a scaled electrical resistivity (as conductivity), b)
cross-covariance modeling of moisture and scaled electrical
conductivity, c) moisture distribution from cokriging with moisture and
conductivity.
Using the covariance and cross-covariance models of Figures 3
and 5, the moisture and resistivity data were cokriged to obtain a new
distribution of moisture. Figure 5c shows the results for the estimated
moisture over the heap. Again, the information is shown at an
elevation of 1790 m. The results are different from the original kriged
version of Figure 3 away from the wells, and has some similarities to
the results of Figure 4. The region near the cluster of wells in the east
show the highest moisture, even though this was not the site of the
lowest resistivity. The north-to-south banded nature of the resistivity in
the western half of the survey area is also retained in the cokriging
results, but generally shows lower moisture. The region is
undersampled relative to the east, likely contributing to the estimated
moisture being lower.
The cokriging method appears to produce reasonable results
considering the sparse sampling. Figure 5c also shows the location of
recommended drilling spots based on the estimated driest areas of the
pad. Once drilled and assayed, the moisture data can be re-
interpolated to hone the spatial distribution. In this way, the
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
geophysics and assaying can be conducted iteratively to extract more
gold during the secondary leaching cycle.
CONCLUSIONS
Characterization of Newmont’s North Area Leach pad included
both electrical resistivity geophysics and assay data from drilling. The
resistivity data were acquired over along 12 parallel lines. The drilling
samples were obtained every 1.5 m vertically from 14 well locations
within the resistivity survey grid, and this paper focused on the
gravimetric moisture data for comparison with resistivity. The wells
were spaced too far apart to provide sufficient lateral resolution alone
and the geophysics were meant to supplement the drilling program.
Several calibration methods were tried to understand how
resistivity can be used to estimate moisture within a heap, including
kriging of the moisture data alone, least squares regression (LSR) of
the resistivity versus moisture, and cokriging moisture and resistivity
together. The cokriging results demonstrated clear advantages over
b) kriging and LSR, and gave a good estimation of moisture at the sample
x 10-4
3 locations when considering cross validation [9]. The correlation length
of the moisture measurements were shorter than the average well
spacing, making the kriged moisture appear rather homogeneous
2 away from the sampling point. At approximately 40 m away from the
well, the estimated moisture reverted to the average value of the
1 Experimental cross-covariance around the well. The cokriging method provided a means for inter-well
function
Model cross-covariance
function
The moisture estimation from the LSR method mimics the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 resistivity distribution, since the method is conducted by simple linear
Lag (m)
transformation of the electrical conductivity. The LSR method has the
potential to produce physically unrealistic moisture values if the
Assay wells Moisture
resistivity values are outside the range used to develop the regression
Recommended drilling 0.1 model. The ordinary cokriging method ensures that the estimated
0.09 moisture falls within the bounds of the measured moisture.
0.08
Although the LSR method does not provide a perfect
0.07 representation of the moisture within the heap, the general indirect
0.06 relationship between resistivity and moisture should allow the method
0.05 to be a starting point for initial characterization of rock piles by guiding
0.04 the drilling program. It is recommended that the cokriging with
0.03
resistivity and drilling be conducted iteratively, where new information
from the drilling be introduced into the estimation procedure to update
0.02
the moisture distribution. Even if the cokriging method cannot
0.01 reproduce with exact fidelity the moisture distribution of the pile, it likely
0 would locate the driest portions of the heap indicative of regions
88850 88900 88950
bypassed during primary leaching. It is anticipated that the savings in
drilling through proper well siting would more than offset the cost of
geophysics.
REFERENCES
1. Rucker, D.F., A. Schindler, M.T. Levitt, D.R., Glaser, 2009.
Three-dimensional electrical resistivity imaging of a gold heap.
Hydrometallurgy 98(3-4):267-275.
2. Orr, S. 2002. Enhanced heap leaching — Part 1: insights. Mining
Engineering 54 (9):49–56.
3. van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for
predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 44, 892–898.
4. Decker, D.L., and S.W. Tyler. 1999. Evaluation of flow and solute
transport parameters for heap-leach recovery materials. J.
Environ. Qual. 28:543–555.
5. Lefebvre, R., D. Hockley, J. Smolensky, P. Gelinas. 2007.
Multiphase transfer processes in waste rock piles producing acid
mine drainage. 1: Conceptual model and system
characterization. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 52:137-164.
6. Orr, S. and V. Vesselinov. 2002. Enhanced heap leaching — Part
2: applications. Mining Engineering 54(10):33–38.
4 Copyright © 2010 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

7. Bhakta P. and B. Arthur. 2002. Heap bio-oxidation and gold

recovery at Newmont mining: First-year results. JOM Journal of
the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 54(10):31-3.
8. Rucker, D.F., M. McNeill, A. Schindler, and G. Noonan, 2009.
Monitoring of a secondary recovery application of leachate
injection into a heap. Hydrometallurgy 99(3-4):238-248.
9. Rucker, D.F., 2010. Moisture estimation within a mine heap: An
application of cokriging with assay data and electrical resistivity.
Geophysics (in press).
10. Isaaks, E.H., and R.M. Srivatsava, 1989, An introduction to
applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press.
11. Deutsch, C.V., and A.G. Journel, 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical
software library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press.
12. Telford, W.M., L.P. Geldart, and R.E. Sheriff, 1990. Applied
Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
13. Dey, A., and H.F. Morrison, 1979, Resistivity modeling for
arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional structures: Geophysics, 44,
753-780.
14. LaBrecque, D.J., M. Miletto, W. Daily, A. Ramirez, and E. Owen,
1996, The effects of noise on Occam’s inversion of resistivity
tomography data: Geophysics 61, 538– 548.
15. Li, Y., and D.W. Oldenburg, 1994, Inversion of 3-D DC resistivity
data using an approximate inverse mapping: Geophysical
Journal International, 116, 527-537.
16. Loke, M.H., and R.D. Barker, 1996, Practical techniques for 3D
resistivity surveys and data inversion: Geophysical. Prospecting,
44, 499–523.
17. Advanced Geosciences Incorporated (AGI), 2008, Instruction
manual for EarthImager3DCL, Version 1.1.13 Resistivity Inversion
Software. www.agiusa.com.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special appreciation goes to Al Schindler and Bret Cousins of
Newmont Mining. Also to Marc Levitt, Brian Cubbage, Chris Baldyga,
Brad Isbell, and Shawn Calendine for data acquisition. Denis Marcotte
provided valuable insight into cokriging and the use of COKRI. The
work was conducted while the author was employed by
hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc.

5 Copyright © 2010 by SME