You are on page 1of 51

Modeling of mineral deposits using

geostatistics and experimental design
Luis P. Braga(UFRJ)
Francisco J. da Silva(UFRRJ)
Claudio G. Porto(UFRJ)
Cassio Freitas(IBGE)

lpbraga@geologia.ufrj.br
http://www.slideshare.net/bragaprof/stanford-2009-1872654
Eight International Geostatisti
1
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009

Goal: Improve the mineral resources
evaluation of a deposit in the initial
stages of exploration.

lpbraga@geologia.ufrj.br
http://www.slideshare.net/bragaprof/stanford-2009-1872654
Eight International Geostatisti
2
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009

How: Through experimental design
techniques applied to variogram
based estimation methods.

lpbraga@geologia.ufrj.br
http://www.slideshare.net/bragaprof/stanford-2009-1872654
Eight International Geostatisti
3
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009

Outline of the presentation
a)Creating a synthetic study case: Simulate the grade on a
regular 3D mesh based on data of a lateritic Ni deposit and
calculate the amount of resources.
b)Applying designed experiments: Varying the values of the four
main parameters of the semivariogram, according to an
experimental design.
c)Testing the method with kriging: Using a sample, estimate the
total resources with kriging by changing the semivariogram
parameters values, according to an experimental design.
Calculate the different resource totals and compare with a).
d)Testing the method with simulation: Repeat c) with simulation as
an interpolator.
e)Discussion.

Eight International Geostatisti
4
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009

a) Simulate the grade on a regular 3D mesh based on
a sample of a lateritic Ni deposit, and calculate the
amount of resources.

Figure 1
Eight International Geostatisti
5
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009

Chile Stanford. Congress. Santiago. 23-28 August 2009 . The experimental and the adjusted semivariogram in the principal directions were obtained by a geologist .a)The data consists of 76 drillholes. Figure 2 a Figure 2 b Figure 2 cGeostatisti Eight International 6 International Association forcsMathematical Geosciences. located in a grid of 100mx100m having in total 2021 drillholes samples which were collected downhole at 1m interval. USA.

23-28 August.119 0. as well as.030 Eight International Geostatisti 7 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. Chile Stanford.149 0.5 0.a) The central values(0) of a spherical semivariogram model parameters.000 Central(0) 200 300 9 0.01 Maximum(+) 240 340 10. 2009 . Santiago.5 0.139 0. Table 1 Range(NS) Range(EW) Range(vertical) Sill Nugget effect Minimum(-) 180 280 7. the minimum(-) and maximum(+) acceptable values to the geologist are presented in Table 1. USA.

2009 . 23-28 August.a) A three dimensional model of the selected region of the deposit. as in Table 1. was built using the Gauss Simulation algorithm as implemented in the package GSTAT of the R environment. shown in Figure 1. The semivariogram used in the simulation was the one with the central values. Congress. It consists of 5400 blocks with support 10m x 20m x 5m. Chile Stanford. Santiago. USA. Eight International Geostatisti 8 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

Eight International Geostatisti 9 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 2009 . Santiago. 23-28 August. Chile Stanford. Congress. USA.

Santiago. Figure 3 Eight International Geostatisti 10 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 23-28 August. 2009 . Congress.a) In the Figure 3 it is depicted the vertical section of the simulated deposit. USA. In figures 4 to 6 it is shown horizontal sections at different depths. Chile Stanford.

23-28 August. Congress. Santiago. USA. 2009 .Horizontal Section Figure 4 Eight International Geostatisti 11 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Chile Stanford.

Horizontal Section Figure 5 Eight International Geostatisti 12 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. 23-28 August. USA. 2009 . Chile Stanford. Congress.

Congress. Chile Stanford. 2009 .Horizontal Section Figure 6 Eight International Geostatisti 13 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. 23-28 August. USA.

Chile Stanford.Eight International Geostatisti 14 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. USA. Congress. 2009 . 23-28 August.

Congress. Santiago. 23-28 August.Eight International Geostatisti 15 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. USA. 2009 . Chile Stanford.

23-28 August. USA. Congress. obtaining different resources values. For each range and level an average of the resources obtained are calculated. leading to the average effect table. Chile Stanford.b)For each interpolator the sequence presented in Table 2 was applied. as shown in the next slide. Eight International Geostatisti 16 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 2009 . Santiago.

2009 .N-S range(-) Eight International Geostatisti 17 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Chile Stanford. Santiago. USA. Congress. 23-28 August.

Congress.Table 3 Average Effect Table Eight International Geostatisti 18 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 2009 . Santiago. 23-28 August. Chile Stanford. USA.

We are not proceeding the full designed experiments phases.b)From Table 3 we build the average effect plots that indicate the best combination regarding the estimation of the resources. 2009 . but only keeping the factors levels assignment strategy. that is. Eight International Geostatisti 19 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. 23-28 August. the regression between the variable with its factors. Chile Stanford. Congress. USA.

c) The first experiment was done with ordinary kriging to generate a three dimensional model of the deposit with the same dimensions. We have obtained all levels for every run. USA. just a few are shown. that is 5400 blocks with support 10m x 20m x 5m. In the sequence we can see horizontal sections for some levels obtained from run 1 for variable Ni. Santiago. Chile Stanford. 23-28 August. Eight International Geostatisti 20 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. but for sake of conciseness. 2009 .

Horizontal Section Eight International Geostatisti 21 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. 2009 . USA. 23-28 August. Congress. Chile Stanford.

Santiago. Chile Stanford. USA. 2009 .Horizontal Section bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Eight International Geostatisti 22 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 23-28 August. Congress.

Congress. 23-28 August. 2009 . Chile Stanford. USA. Santiago.Horizontal Section Eight International Geostatisti 23 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

23-28 August.500 Kg. the difference between the same levels. 2009 . from the different runs. we show the same level for different runs. Chile Stanford. are less visible. ! In the Table 4 we show the total amount of Ni as calculated for each run. with some up to 2.c) Next. Eight International Geostatisti 24 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Although. Congress. there may be large discrepancies for the total volumes. Santiago. USA.

23-28 August. Congress. USA. Chile Stanford.Figure 10 (a) Run 2 Figure 10 (b) Run 9 Figure 10 (c) Run 19 Eight International Geostatisti 25 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Santiago. 2009 .

94 R[10] 30549.84 R[18] 30558.78 R[16] 30712.85 R[4] 30846.84 R[27] 30558. 23-28 August.11 R[3] 30594.41 R[6] 30660.18 R[9] 30558.38 R[7] 28159.Table 4 R[1] 30500. Congress. 18 and 27 are equal because they correspond to the same choice of parameters .72 R[24] 30522. USA.69 R[11] 30547.65 R[26] 30608.central values. Eight International Geostatisti 26 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.68 R[23] 30525. 2009 .81 R[17] 30379. Chile Stanford.73 R[15] 30277. Santiago.84 Resources 9.60 R[12] 30811.45 R[25] 30610.49 R[8] 30328.97 R[22] 30579.27 R[5] 30669.45 R[20] 30346.89 R[13] 30809.65 R[21] 30912.34 R[14] 30612.52 R[19] 30686.57 R[2] 30591.

USA. R[2].c) As mentioned before we calculate the average of the Resources for each set of runs. for N-S RANGE(-) we take the average between R[1]. 2009 . R[19] and R[20]. 23-28 August. Congress. Santiago. The same procedure is repeated for each row. That is. generating a designed average. that happens to be 30. Eight International Geostatisti 27 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. R[10]. R[11]. as arranged by type of parameter and its value. For each row we calculate the average of the corresponding Resources indicated by its run number.539Kg. It will allow us to build the so called “average effect plot”. Chile Stanford.

23-28 August. Congress. Chile Stanford. Santiago. 2009 . USA.Table 3 Average Effect Table Eight International Geostatisti 28 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

Congress. 2009 . USA.true value = 31365 Eight International Geostatisti 29 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 23-28 August. Santiago. Chile Stanford.

2009 .true value = 31365 Eight International Geostatisti 30 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 23-28 August. Santiago. USA. Chile Stanford. Congress.

23-28 August. Santiago. Chile Stanford. USA. Congress. 2009 .true value = 31365 Eight International Geostatisti 31 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

2009 . Santiago. 23-28 August. Chile Stanford.true value = 31365 Eight International Geostatisti 32 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. USA.

Santiago. 2009 .Eight International Geostatisti 33 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. Chile Stanford. 23-28 August. USA.

2009 . Congress. Chile Stanford. 23-28 August. Santiago.Eight International Geostatisti 34 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. USA.

Santiago. 2009 .Eight International Geostatisti 35 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. USA. Chile Stanford. 23-28 August.

range Sill 0 0 0 0 Eight International Geostatisti 36 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 23-28 August.558 Kg which is poorer than the former average (30. a natural choice would be the central values for every semivariogram parameter. Congress. Santiago.625 Kg). Chile Stanford. run 9 with 30. 2009 .365 Kg. run 9 N-S range E-W range Vert. that is. as the true value is 31. USA. For example.The combined estimation was superior to the ordinary kriging alone.

Chile Stanford.Eight International Geostatisti 37 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. Santiago. USA. 2009 . 23-28 August.

2009 . 23-28 August.Figure 15 Histogram of Errors (DAK)) Figure 16 Histogram of errors . USA. Chile Stanford.run 9 Eight International Geostatisti 38 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. Santiago.

but DAK performs better. USA. Santiago.Table 5 Errors statistics for DAK(Vrange(0)): True . 23-28 August. Congress. 18 or 27.Estimated The histogram of the errors of the geologist choice of parameters (central values) . which corresponds either to run 9. Eight International Geostatisti 39 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. represents a good match. Chile Stanford.Estimated Table 6 Errors statistics for single Kriging (Run 9): True . 2009 .

Congress. USA. 2009 . Eight International Geostatisti 40 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.The methodology may be applied to improve the performance of any semivariogram based interpolator. Santiago. The aleatorization of the runs is quite natural in the case of simulation as interpolator. but it may also be done with “kriging like” interpolators by using any technique of “resampling”. 23-28 August. In the next section we present an analogous experiment with simulation as an interpolator. Chile Stanford.

Eight International Geostatisti 41 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 18 and 27.d)Following the same guidelines used in the previous section. 2009 . Santiago. As the seed of the random generator was initialized only once. Congress. we did not obtain the same values for runs 9. 27 simulations of the deposit were generated according to Tables 1 and 2. 23-28 August. Chile Stanford. For each run just one simulation was obtained. USA.

Chile Stanford. Santiago.d) In the sequence one can observe horizontal sections for some levels obtained from the run 1 for variable Ni. 2009 . We have obtained all levels for every run. USA. 23-28 August. just a few are shown. but for the sake of conciseness. Eight International Geostatisti 42 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress.

23-28 August.Figure 17 (c) Horizontal Section level -10m Run 3 Figure 17 (a) Horizontal Section level -10m Run 1 Figure 17 (b) Horizontal Section level -10m Run 2 Eight International Geostatisti 43 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. USA. 2009 . Chile Stanford. Santiago.

75 R[26] 30548.19 R[14] 30496. 18 e 27 now have different values because of the aleatorization of the simulation process.79 R[16] 31533.42 R[5] 30125.Table 7 R[1] 30649. Santiago. Chile Stanford.96 R[22] 30582.91 R[15] 30478.80 R[8] 30318.80 R[25] 31650.90 R[10] 30754.04 R[18] 30040. 23-28 August.56 R[13] 31114.09 R[23] 30981. Eight International Geostatisti 44 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.43 R[17] 30124.12 The equivalent runs 9.91 R[4] 30499.49 R[24] 30719. USA.71 R[11] 30521.64 R[6] 29796.92 R[27] 29763.19 R[21] 31184.16 R[20] 30400.56 R[2] 30836.88 R[9] 31586.43 R[12] 30626.86 R[3] 30588. 2009 . Congress.89 R[19] 30541.53 R[7] 28775.

Chile Stanford. 2009 . Santiago. Congress. 23-28 August.31365 31365 Figure 18 (b) Figure 18 (a) 31365 Eight International Geostatisti 45 Figure 18 (c) Figure 18 (d) International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. USA.

23-28 August. Chile Stanford.The extension of the method to simulation will be called designed averaged simulations (DAS). 2009 . Eight International Geostatisti 46 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress. Santiago. USA. The results preserved the relation between the quality of the semivariogram and that of the resource estimation.

Chile Stanford. Santiago. 23-28 August. Congress. The resources estimation is better achieved with DAS(Vrange(0)) than simulation.The vertical semivariogram is the best one and there is no relevant difference between conservative and central choices. but for optimist choices the impact is negative. USA. 2009 . Eight International Geostatisti 47 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

range Sill 0 0 0 0 Eight International Geostatisti 48 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Chile Stanford. Santiago. 23-28 August. 18. USA. 27 N-S range E-W range Vert. 2009 .run 9. Congress.

Table 8 Errors Statistics for DAS(Vrange(0)): True . comparing each designed averaged simulated block (DAS) with the true one. 23-28 August. as we did before with kriging. USA.Estimated Table 9 Error Statistics for simulation (Vrange(0)): True .We also evaluated the simulated values for each block. Santiago. Congress. 2009 . Chile Stanford.Estimated Eight International Geostatisti 49 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences.

Eight International Geostatisti 50 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. 2009 .d) conclusions: 1)The gain in the evaluation process was almost 10% 2)The method orientates which simulations or interpolations must be kept. Chile Stanford. Santiago. Congress. 4) Future work includes tests with other samples and simulation methods. 23-28 August. 3)The method allows a better selection of directional semivariograms and its parameters levels. USA.

USA. Chile Stanford. 2009 .Send comments to: lpbraga@geologia.ufrj.net/bragaprof/stanford-2009-1872654 Eight International Geostatisti 51 International Association forcs Mathematical Geosciences. Congress.br THANK YOU ! http://www.slideshare. 23-28 August. Santiago.