See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281745111

Categorization of mineral resources based upon geostatistical estimation of

the continuity of changes of resource parameters

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 386

3 authors, including:

Jacek Mucha Justyna Ewa Auguścik

AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków The Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sci…
108 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling of Cu-Ag deposits (L-GCD, Poland) View project

Indirect sampling methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacek Mucha on 24 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IAMG 2015 Freiberg, September 5-13, 2015 The 17th Annual Conference
of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences, 1372 pages,
(DVD); Helmut Schaeben, Raimon Tolosana Delgado, K. Gerald van den
Boogaart, Regina van den Boogaart (Eds.), Freiberg, Germany;

Categorization of mineral resources based upon geostatistical estimation of

the continuity of changes of resource parameters

JACEK MUCHA1*, MONIKA WASILEWSKA-BŁASZCZYK2, JUSTYNA AUGUŚCIK3

1
Department of Mining and Economic Geology - AGH University of Science and Technology,
Cracow, Poland, jacekm@agh.edu.pl
2
Department of Mining and Economic Geology - AGH University of Science and Technology,
Cracow, Poland
3
Department of Mining and Economic Geology - AGH University of Science and Technology,
Cracow, Poland
*presenting author

Abstract
Up to now, no detailed principles of categorization of mineral resources have been developed
and accepted world-wide, despite a number of proposed methodologies. As regards the
methodology of resources categorization, the expectations of geologists preparing the assessment
reports focus mostly on its correctness, simplicity and easy application to geological practice.
Referring to the suggestion contained in the JORC Code, the categorization criterion discussed in
the following paper is a spatial continuity (autocorrelation) of a representative resources
parameter values determined from the semivariogram model. It was proposed that the parts of
resources located at a distance for which the share of non-random component in a total variability
exceeds 66% are categorized as “measured”, those with the share between 66% and 33% are
“indicated” and those with the share between 33% and 5% are “inferred”.

Introduction
The proper categorization of resources of mineral deposits is, despite appearances, one of the
most difficult problems of economic geology. Such opinion is confirmed by the fact that no universal,
detailed principles of categorization of mineral resources have been developed and accepted world-
wide, despite a number of proposed methodologies. An additional obstacle is a number of various
systems of resources categorization applied in various countries and regions, e.g.: JORC Code
(Australia), SAMREC Code (South Africa), PERC Code (Europe) CIM Standards (Canada), SME
Guidelines (United States), UNFC (Nieć, 2008; Sobczyk and Saługa, 2013).
From the point of view of investors and stock exchanges, the resource category should reflect
credibility and confidence in recognition of continuity of a deposit and estimations of deposit
parameters. The existing systems of reporting on resources of mineral raw-materials do not embrace
precise directories suitable for categorization of resources. Some suggestions can be found in guides
or directives to categorization systems but these are not the integral parts of documents. For example,
some indications concerning the hard-coal deposits are contained in the Australian Guidelines for
Estimating and Reporting of Inventory Coal, Coal Resources and Coal Reserves - Edition 2003
(Mucha and Wasilewska-Błaszczyk, 2014).
1 Current methodologies of resources categorization

The comprehensive reviews of current methods of resources categorization together with some
new solutions were recently published by Mwasinga (2001), Sinclaire and Blackwell (2002) Arik
(2002), Souza et al. (2009) and Silva and Boisvert (2014). Generally, these authors describe two
groups of methods: one based upon mutual relationships between the geometries of
observation/sampling grids and the area of categorization, and second – the geostatistical approach
based upon Matheron’s methodology.
The first group includes, among others, the procedures taking into account numbers,
configurations and spacings of observation/sampling sites, search radius, distances between
observations/sampling sites and deposits blocks to be classified as well as economic feasibility criteria
(e.g., cut-off grades).
The second group embraces geostatistical methods based upon the ranges of semivariograms, the
values of estimation errors (kriging errors, Yamamoto’s interpolation variance), conditional
simulations and linear regression slopes as well as indicators derived from geostatistical estimations:
Krige’s block efficiency, Isobel Clark’s classification index and Yamamoto’s interpolation variance.
Moreover, Silva and Boisvert (2014) proposed the two new techniques: cross-validation variance and
moving window classification based on conditional simulation realization whereas Arik (2002)
presented the resource classification index (RCI) which includes combined variance, estimated value
of the block and calibration factor.
The Australian JORC Code (2012), quite popular in the world, distinguishes three categories of
resources characterized by the confidence in estimations: inferred (low level of confidence), indicated
(reasonable level of confidence) and measured (high level of confidence). An important criterion is
the recognition level of continuity of geological and quality parameters of a raw material.
In the Matheron’s geostatistics, countinuity of changes of raw material properties and parameters
can be quantified using the semivariograms of a representative deposit parameters, e.g., abundance of
a raw material or its usable component. Geostatistical method of variability description is a basis for
proposed resources categorization presented below.

2 Geostatistical characterization of continuity of deposit parameters

The sample omnidirectional semivariogram, which describes the variability structure in

geostatistical approach, is an expression of dependence between the average squared difference of the
value of given deposit parameter and the average spacing of observation/sampling sites. Under real
conditions of deposit exploration, we have only a limited set of scattered observation/sampling sites,
thus, the plots of sample semivariograms are the clouds of points (Fig. 1). In geostatistical estimations
of deposit quality and resources with the kriging procedures, we approximate the sample
semivariograms with continuous functions authorized by the theory of geostatistics, which play the
role of geostatistical variability models (theoretical semivariograms). The principal and commonly
applied models are: spherical, exponential and Gaussian (models with asymptote) and the linear
model, which belongs to the family of models without asymptote (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978).
The continuity of given deposit parameter is estimated from the values of theoretical
semivariograms (models of semivariograms) referred to the distances between observation/sampling
sites approximating zero. Low values of semivariograms for distances close to zero express low
dissimilarity (high similarity) of given deposit parameter values and, simultaneously, they indicate
high continuity of changes of this parameter within deposit body. In most cases, semivariogram
increases with the increasing distance between the observation/sampling sites, at least until a
particular value is attained, determined as the range of semivariogram (range of autocorrelation of
given parameter).
In order to characterize quantitatively the degree of continuity of given deposit parameter, we must
define (Fig. 1):
 The nugget variance C0, which expresses local variability and, simultaneously, represents the
minimum value of random component of variability. Its value is determined as the value of
 theoretical semivariogram for a distance between the observation/sampling sites approximating
zero.
 The spatial variance C, which expresses the maximum value of non-random component of
variability in the case of models with asymptote. The share of this value in an overall variability of
given parameter determines the maximum size of autocorrelation.
 The range of semivariogram a, which shows the maximum range of autocorrelation of given
parameter.

Explanations: N(h i) – non-random component of variability for distance hi, R(h i) – random component of
variability for distance h i, a – range of semivariogram (autocorrelation), h max – maximum distance for which
𝐶
autocorrelation is statistically significant, C0 – nugget variance, C – spatial variance, 𝑈𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶+𝐶 ∙ 100% –
0
N(hi )
maximum share of non-random component of variability, U(hi ) = C +C
∙ 100% - share of non-random
0
component of variability for distance hi

Figure 1. Sample semivariogram of deposit parameter (1) approximated with the spherical
model (2).

For the spherical model, this is ”a” value for which theoretical semivariogram reaches the
maximum value (Fig. 1). For expotential and Gaussian models, so-called practical range ”a0” is
determined, for which the value of theoretical semivariogram reaches C 0+0.95C. For the linear model,
we conventionally accept as a practical range the distance for which the semivariogram reaches the
value of statistical variance of deposit parameter for observations/measurements dataset i.e. the
distance for which autocorrelation is equal to zero (Gringarten and Deutsch, 2001).
If anisotropy of the variability of deposit parameters has been found we must determine the
directional semivariograms, which characterize the structure of variability along variously oriented
lines of observations. This, in turn, enables us to determine an anisotropic model of variability, which
describes how the continuity of a deposit parameter changes along various lines of observations.
Two principal types of anisotropy were distinguished: geometric and zonal. The geometric
anisotropy show various ranges of theoretical semivariograms for various directions of observations at
the constant value of nugget variance and maximum values of semivariograms whereas the zonal
anisotropy is characterized by directional diversity of both the ranges and the maximum values of
semivariograms.
The influence of geometric anisotropy on accuracy of estimations of deposit parameters depends
on the contribution of the nugget variance to the total variability (Mucha and Wasilewska-Błaszczyk,
2012).

3 Principles of proposed categorization system of mineral resources

Practical experience in assessment of mineral deposits leads to the conclusion that the best
methodology of resources estimation should combine easy application with relevant precision of
identification of resources categories. The simplest solution, announced earlier, is the usage of
autocorrelation range (semivariogram) of a representative deposit parameter – e.g., abundance of raw
material or its usable component – determined with the sample semivariogam model. Despite its
appealing simplicity, this methodology has a serious drawback – it does not consider either the local
variability of selected deposit parameter (nugget variance) or the strength of autocorrelation of
parameter value. If the share of nugget variance (C 0) in overall variability (C0+C) of given deposit
parameter is high it may happen that, though at extreme ranges of semivariograms, the autocorrelation
of deposit parameter values (expressed by the share of non-random component) will be statistically
insignificant even at distances approximating zero (Fig. 1). Hence, the determination of radii of
resources categories around observation/sampling sites based upon the formally determined
semivariogram ranges is out of sense.

Explanations: 1 – model with short range of semivariogram and high share of non-random component of
variability, 2 – model with long range of semivariogram and low share of non-random component of variability
(practically, the autocorrelation of the values of deposit parameter is statistically insignificant), d1 – range of
statistical significant autocorrelation of model 1

Figure 2. Examples of semivariogram models of strongly diversified ranges (a1, a2) and nugget
variances (C01, C02); grey area represents the lack of statistically significant autocorrelation of
deposit parameter.

In our proposal, the criterion of resources categorization is the relative share of non-random
variability component in an overall variability of a representative deposit parameter (Fig.2). Taking
into account the experience in assessment of Polish mineral deposits and the JORC Code terminology,
we arbitrary ascribed to relevant categories the resources which fall within such distances (hi) around
observation/sampling sites for which the shares of non-random variability component (U(hi) – Fig.1)
take the following threshold values:
 measured resources category – from 1 to 2/3 (100% - 66.6%),
 indicated resources category – from 2/3 to 1/3 (66.6% - to 33.3%),
 inferred resources category – from 1/3 to 1/20 (33.3% - 5%).

The proposed threshold values of non-random variability component are arguable and should be a
matter of discussion, and practical verification. Particularly, the maximum range of the “inferred”
category should correspond to such a distance from observation/sampling site for which the
autocorrelation of parameter value is still statistically significant. If a more “liberal” variant is
considered, we propose to accept ranges determined either from the isotropic model or from the
anisotropic model for directions of maximum and minimum variability.
 𝐶
Explanations: UN(h=0)=Umax – maximum share of non-random component of variability (𝐶+𝐶 ∙ 100%), a (a0) –
0
range (practical) of theoretical semivariogram, h/a (h/a0) – distance expressed in units of range (maximum range
of category)

Figure 3. Diagrams for determination of maximum ranges of resources categories (measured,

indicated, inferred) for 4 geostatistical models (spherical, exponential, Gaussian, linear) based on
proposed threshold values of share of non-random component of variability

The ranges of relevant resources categories can be determined quickly and easily (although only
approximately) with graphic method based on the plots drawn for the four most commonly applied
geostatistical models (Fig. 3). The maximum ranges of resources categories (expressed in units of the
ranges of theoretical semivariograms) can be established using the maximum shares of non-random
component of parameter variability and its proposed threshold values for particular categories of
mineral resources (Fig. 4).
 Figure 4. Exemplary determination of the ranges of resources categories around sampling sites
(drillholes) for spherical model of variability with the maximum share of non-random component
𝐶
= 75% and the range of semivariogram a=500m.
𝐶+𝐶0

Explanations: categories: measured - brown, indicated - green, inferred - yellow, C0 - nugget variance, C - spatial
variance, RM, RInd, RInf - ranges of categories: M – measured, Ind – indicated, Inf – inferred, a – range of
semivariogram (autocorrelation)

Figure 5. Exemplary determination of the ranges of particular resources categories around

observation/sampling sites (black points) under the conditions of spherical isotropic model.
Explanations: categories: measured - brown, indicated - green, inferred - yellow, C0 - nugget variance, a – ranges
of semivariograms for directions of maximum (a min) and minimum variability (amax), and RM, RInd, RInf - ranges
for resources categories: M – measured, Ind – indicated, Inf – inferred

Figure 6. Exemplary determination of the ranges of resources categories around

observation/sampling sites under the conditions of spherical anisotropic model.

The scheme of determination of particular resources categories for both the isotropic and
anisotropic variability models of a representative deposit parameter is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. If
autocorrelation is strong the zones corresponding to various categories may overlap and the areas
occupied by particular categories may show complicated patterns.
The resources of specific categories can be estimated with the point or the polygon kriging when
the areas covered by relevant resources categories are known. Efficient tool for such calculations can
be e.g., the ISATIS software.
The proposed categorization method of mineral resources based upon the continuity of changes of
selected, representative deposit parameter can be supplemented by additional criteria, e.g., by the
accuracy of resource estimations within the areas covered by particular categories. This accuracy can
be expressed by a relative, standard kriging error determined with the polygon kriging method.

4 Summary and conclusions

The presented geostatistical methodology of determination of the JORC Code’s mineral resources
categories must be regarded as a preliminary proposal and a material for further discussion. The
methodology is currently verified in some Polish mineral deposits. Particularly important seems to be
the analysis of other threshold (minimum) values of the shares of non-random variability component,
for example: 75% for “measured” and 50% for “indicated” categories as well as the influence of such
thresholds on the amounts of resources calculated for particular categories.
The practice of geostatistical modeling should involve also the testing of statistical significance of
autocorrelation of deposit parameters. Maximum distance between the observation/sampling sites for
which the autocorrelation is statistically significant can be accepted as a maximum extent of inferred
resource category.
Within various categories, the resources can be estimated with kriging procedures. Some
problems may be caused by adequately precise contouring of areas occupied by various resources
categories if their patterns are complicated.
 The proposed methodology of mineral resources categorization, which takes advantage of
geostatistically described spatial continuity of the values of deposit parameters, can be strengthened
by determination of relative (standard) kriging errors of resource estimations for particular categories.
The permissible values of these errors accepted as additional criteria can be applied as corrections of
already determined categories.

The research project was financed from the AGH University of Science and Technology grant
No. 11.11.140.320.

References

Arik, A. (2002). Comparison of Resource Classification Methodologies With a New Approach. 30th
APCOM Symposium Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona.

Australian Guidelines for Estimating and Reporting of Inventory Coal, Coal Resources and Coal
Reserves. The Coalfields Geology Council of New South Wales and the Queensland Mining Council
(edition 2003).

Gringarten, E. and C.V. Deutsch (2001). Variogram Interpretation and Modeling. Math. Geology,
Vol. 33. No.4, 507-534.

Journel, A. G. and Ch. J. Huijbregts (1978). Mining Geostatistics, London Academic Press, 600 pp.

Mucha, J. and M. Wasilewska-Błaszczyk (2012). Variability anisotropy of mineral deposits

parameters and its impact on resources estimation – a geostatistical approach. Gospodarka Surowcami
Mineralnymi, T. 28, z. 4, 113-135.

Mucha, J. and M. Wasilewska-Błaszczyk (2014). Categorization of bituminous coal resources based

upon the guidelines of the JORC Code and the geostatistics (in Polish: Kategoryzacja zasobów złóż
węgla kamiennego w świetle wytycznych do JORC Code i geostatystyki). Górnictwo Odkrywkowe,
Wrocław, nr 2-3, 67-73.

Mwasinga, P. P. (2001). Approaching resource classification: General practices and the integration of
geostatistics. Computer Applications in the Minerals Industries, Xie, Wang&Jiang (eds),
Swets&Zeintlinger, Lisse, 97-104.

Nieć, M. (2008). International Classifications of Mineral Resources And Reserves. Problems of

harmonization (in Polish: Międzynarodowe klasyfikacje zasobów złóż kopalin. Problemy unifikacji).
Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi, 24, 2/4, 267-274.

Silva, D.S.F. and J.B. Boisvert (2014). Mineral resource classification: a comparison of new and
existing techniques. The Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Vol.
114, 265-273.

Sinclaire, A. J. and G. H. Blackwell (2002). Applied Mineral Inventory Estimation. Cambridge

University Press, 381.

Sobczyk, E. J. and P.W. Saługa (2013). Coal resource base in Poland from the perspective of using
the JORC CODE. Conference: Proceedings of the 23rd World Mining Congress, Montreal, Canada.
 de Souza, L.E., J.F.C.L. Costa and J.C. Koppe (2009). A Geostatistical Contribution to Assess the
Risk Embedded in Resource Classification Methods. Iron Ore Conference Perth, WA, 27 - 29 July
2009.

The JORC Code (2012 edition) – Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves prepared by The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
(AusIMM), Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia.

View publication stats