Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.

com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

Home Page About Articles Subscribe

Resources Services Contact

Recent Posts

Geoscience Honesty —
Avoiding the Misuse of
Models

Applied Geostatistics
Seminar – Melbourne and
Brisbane – May 2017

Rules of Thumb for

Geological Modeling
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling Are the Bulls Getting
Ready to Run? –
By: Thoughts and
observations from SME
Erik Ronald, PG and early news out of
Mining Geology HQ PDAC 2017

Borates in a Nutshell
17-April-2017

This installment of the Rules of Thumb (RoT) series is focused on Previous Articles
geological modeling. I’d like to share a list of what I feel are
May 2017
fundamental considerations for the successful creation of a
robust and useful geological model. There is a wonderful quote April 2017
from the statistician George Box: “For such a model there is no March 2017
need to ask the question ‘Is the model true?’ If ‘truth’ is to be the February 2017
‘whole truth’ the answer must be ‘No’. The only question of
January 2017
interest is ‘Is the model illuminating and useful?’” (Box, 1979). It is
sometimes shortened to “All models are wrong, some are useful”. November 2016

1 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

This insightful quote should be stamped onto the cover of all October 2016
geological model reports as a reminder that when interpreting September 2016
and creating a geological model, it is not about getting it “right”, it August 2016
is about generating a fit-for-purpose representation which
May 2016
respects the data and is useful to whomever uses it.
April 2016
This article is not meant to be an exhaustive list of hard rules on
March 2016
the subject. It should be noted that these rules of thumb hold true
February 2016
regardless of whether you use implicit, explicit, or other modeling
techniques available. The list is compiled from my personal
experiences modeling a variety of commodities in the western
U.S., central Mexico, Canada, and Australia.

Let us start with a basic definition of a geological model. For the

purposes of this article, it is a computer based three-dimensional
(sometimes 2D) wireframe model that is the culmination of
interpreted geoscientific data for a particular area of interest or
deposit. The article is only focused on the geological model and
not the Resource block model that includes estimated grade,
tonnage, and other attributes. There are many types of geological
models but this article is concerned with those of economic
geology consequence.

1. Answer the question: What will the model be used for?

Surprisingly, many geologists can’t answer this question. A

geological model is created for a specific purpose and it is critical
to have a clear understanding of what that purpose is prior to
interpreting and modeling geology. For example, a model used for
early exploration drill planning may only require basic outlines of
alteration, mineralization, and structure. However, a geological
model to be used for metallurgical feasibility and plant/mill
development will require greater detail and data. That will include
domained units based on petrography, comminution tests,
chemistry, predicted recovery, and deleterious attributes, and may
not resemble geologic units in the traditional sense.

2. Understand the deposit/area geology

This may sound like a no-brainer but it has to be high on this list.
The person or team modeling the deposit should be an
experienced and competent geologist who is knowledgeable
about site geology. Unfortunately, there are occasions when
companies employ an individual who doesn’t understand or have
experience with a particular deposit style or site geology. These

2 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

instances rarely end well.

A model must adhere to the geochronologic sequence of ore

body genesis and make geological sense. The relationships of
units, structures, alteration, and other features must be modeled
in the same fashion while respecting observed cross-cutting
relationships.

3. Incorporate all (trusted) data

There is a disturbing trend in the industry where geologists rely

solely on drilling data to perform geological modeling. With the
advent of implicit modeling, a novice can rapidly take any drill
database and generate shiny 3D shapes that are rubbish. If one
recalls their university training, creating a cross-section is
fundamentally the same as performing 3D geological modeling
except this time you’re likely using complex and expensive
software instead of your trusty colored pencils and India ink.

A geologic model works best when it is well-informed. This

statement means the model respects all existing data sets
including surface mapping, geomorphic analyses, geophysics,
drilling data (resource, blast hole, exploration, or even water
wells), open cut or underground information, road cuts, trenches,
and anything else you trust. Historic datasets can be fraught with
inconsistencies or inaccuracies, so it is important to have
confidence in the data, but even untrustworthy data can be
insightful to the experienced geologist.

4. Get to know your fundamental data

Whether you have the luxury of a large, multi-sourced data set or

a small number of surface grab samples, be sure you have a
fundamental understanding of the data. This involves performing
exploratory data analysis (EDA) on all categorical and numerical
data to understand and test appropriate groupings, relationships,
and domains of data. Knowing the data in combination with
understanding the business decisions that will be made from the
model (point #1) will allow the modeler to best determine the
appropriate amount of data grouping or splitting required. These
can be rock types, physical characteristics, chemical assays,
mineralogical groups, or a myriad of other data traits.

5. Think regionally first, then model down to deposit scale

3 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

Geological models should always be constructed from a wide

regional perspective first, then modified and interpreted down to
smaller areas of interest or deposit-scale. All too often, geologists
(especially mine geologists) interpret features or structures within
an ore body incorrectly due to local-scale complexity while not
realizing the regional tectonics or macro-scale setting. For
example, I was in a highly altered and deformed skarn ore body
that contained high concentrations of talc and chlorite that
resulted in extensive soft-sediment deformation from a large
regional structure. Pit mapping was highly complex, with
structures discontinuous from one bench to the next. The whole
thing would do one’s head in trying to figure out what was going
on. The structural controls on mineralization could actually be
understood easily once you got out of the pit and grasped the
regional structure. As the regional structure entered the softer
lithology within the deposit, the ore body behaved like faulted
toothpaste and there was little hope of determining what was
happening. Fortunately, the micro-scale structure was irrelevant
to the deposit economics and therefore irrelevant to the model.

6. Start with a structural “skeleton”

Keeping with the structural theme, it is advised to start any

geological model by understanding the structural regime and
modeling a structural skeleton of the major faults and fold hinges
prior to working out the lithology, stratigraphy, alteration, and the
rest. The reality of lacking quality structural data may make this
step easier said than done, but constructing the structure
skeleton first will help with interpretations and produce a more
fundamentally sound model. Additionally, relationships of
alteration and mineralization usually become quite clear and even
predictable once you have a grasp of the structure.

7. Keep it as simple as it needs to be

There is a quote attributed to Einstein that goes “If you can’t

explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”. A similar
philosophy should be taken when undertaking geological
modeling. The simplest explanation of geologic complexity is
usually more correct than an overly sophisticated and complex
interpretation. Additionally, I’d refer back to point #1 that a model
must be fit-for-purpose. For example, there may be second order
parasitic folding present in an ore body that is geologically
interesting but irrelevant for bench-scale mining. In cases like
this, keep it simple and unless it affects the mine plan or the

4 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

business, it should not be modeled.

8. Don’t forget the waste!

Often times in exploration and mining, geologists are overly

focused on the ore body and fail to dedicate sufficient time to
characterize or even understand major waste units. A wise
mining engineer once told me “we mine a lot more waste than ore
so you should probably understand that s#*t as well as the ore”.
Compounding this problem is the fact that drilling and evaluation
work is usually focused on the ore body which can result in little
waste characterization or overly clustered data. In these cases,
sometimes those “dry” holes are extremely valuable in working
out stratigraphy and lithology.

9. Reconcile your shapes in 3D

The last rule of thumb I’ll present here is to simply ensure all
geological wireframes make sense regardless of which direction
they are cut for cross-sections. All too often in elongated ore
bodies, the modeler will use a sectional interpretation but fail to
go back and check the geological wireframes in long-section and
plan view. The whole point of a geologic model is to create a 3D
representation of a deposit or area thus a good test is to pick
random orientations for cross-sections and see if they still make
geological sense. Thankfully, some software packages such as
Leapfrog and GoCAD have come a long way in ensuring
wireframes are truly 3D and not just 2D polygons extended in a
third dimension.

That’s it for now but I believe that following these simple rules of
thumb will greatly help geological modelers ensure their 3D
models are useful, make geologic sense, and are applicable in
exploration or mining projects. I’d enjoy hearing from practicing
geologists on their thoughts, what I may have missed, or
additional “rules”. Be sure to check out the other articles in the
ROT series including Mineral Exploration success and Geological
field mapping.

Reference:

Box, G. E. P. (1979), Robustness in the strategy of scientific

model building, in Launer, R. L. & Wilkinson, G. N., Robustness in
Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236.

5 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

My Amazon Picks

3D Geoscience Applied Mining Exploratory Data 3-D Structural

Modeling: Geology (Modern Analysis: An Geology: A
Computer $146.85 $199.00
Approaches in S… Introduction to Practical Guide to
Techniques for
$101.83 $129.00 Data
$40.99Analysis
$41.00
$64.84 $105.00
Quantitat…
Geological (1) Using SAS (1)
Characterization

All Go

Ads by Amazon

Share this article:

Posted in Resource Geology.

← Are the Bulls Getting Ready… Applied Geostatistics Seminar – Melbourne…

3 Comments

Laurence Hope
April 25, 2017 at 8:48 am Reply

Great article, thanks.

I come from the old school of paper sections and crayons, Upgraded over
the years to computer modeling using lots of different geological
programs. I have to agree, you need the basics done first, Understand
the orebody and surrounds then start playing with the model. Have a
picture in your head and know what the model will be used for.

I have sent the link to the guys around the office

Tawanda Mukarati

6 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

April 26, 2017 at 8:10 am Reply

Great article. We can all learn a lot from this

AKHIL KUMAR
May 7, 2017 at 3:19 pm Reply

Thanks for the useful information..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Mining Weekly News Subscribe to join the MGHQ

Community
Resgen seeks alternative
funding not linked to coal First Name
contract August 25, 2017

Philippine lawmakers seek to

ban mining in watershed areas,
Last Name
export of raw ore August 25,

7 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM
Rules of Thumb for Geological Modeling http://www.mininggeologyhq.com/rules-of-thumb-for-geological-modeling/

2017

Ncondezi confident of finding a

partner for power plant project by
Email Address
year-end August 25, 2017

Tethyan appoints COO to its

board August 25, 2017
Areas of interest:
Turkey’s Pinargozu zinc mine
continues upward production Mine Geology
trend August 25, 2017 Mineral Exploration

Higher clean-up costs to dent Resource Geology

DRDGold’s FY earnings August General
25, 2017

Pan African secures SUBSCRIBE NOW

environmental approvals for
Elikhulu TRP project August 25,
2017

Kumba Iron Ore, union reach

wage deal August 25, 2017

MCA, federal Minister blast

Victoria’s renewable energy
targets August 25, 2017

AGL finds buyers for its North

Queensland gas assets August
25, 2017

© 2017 Mining Geology HQ, LLC

A SiteOrigin Theme

8 of 8 8/25/17, 1:36 PM