Geologic risk is the subjective measure of the willingness of the modeller to put all their eggs in one basket. Committing to a single model is all too often the case in resource consulting the result of established polygon-based modelling and estimation practices paired with time limitations.

Integrating implicit modelling into the workflow has not only expedited the first iteration of a model, but has facilitated construction of multiple versions and refinements to test and compare with known data. Done in the same time a single model would once have been.

figure

Section-view blinders

In my formative years, my primary tool for constructing geologic models was the extruded polygon on section, well-established as providing complete control. It was simply drawing polygons to define a body on section and connecting those polygons with triangulated extrusions to form a solid mass to represent geology. A simple model would take weeks, if not months, of painstaking digitisation. I would seldom introduce faulting or any additional shape-morphing factors unless substantial time was available. In most cases, complexities were ignored or simplified, the model would
flex and undulate like a battered accordion, only generally making geologic sense. It was my attempt to simulate a complex system while working within the limitations of “section-view blinders.”

figure

The risk of the single model

Typically, new project data needs to be vetted, corrected, modelled, estimated and reported within a 2-3 month window. When the raw data has been cleaned up remaining time is a premium asset. Spending multiple weeks or months on a polygonal model would leave insufficient time to review, refine or even reasonably understand the deposit before a resource needs to be calculated and reports written. Additional hypotheses would be overlooked in favor of the first-pass model. The polygon approach of rendering a single model to represent absolute reality leads to a high degree of risk, as no alternative hypotheses were ever investigated.

figure

Taking a global view

Implicit modelling significantly reduces the degree of “geologic risk” in model construction by allowing many models to be built in a relatively short time while still viewing the data globally. Complex geometry becomes easily understood if viewed globally, factors such as fault movement make much more sense viewing the entire relationship. Complex geometry becomes much more practical when the computer is doing most of the heavy lifting. Questionable interpretations are quickly identified when not trapped in a limited section-view (i.e. “section-view blinders”). New modifications can be seen at once, quickly resolving inconsistencies and errors. Additionally, geostatistical analysis can be performed to identify which model is statistically the most valid and choose that with the least amount of waste material in an ore boundary, the best variography results, the most normal distribution of grade values, and so on. By reducing the geologic risk, statistical risk also diminishes.

figure

Process of refinement

I build revisions on a theme rather than drastically different and mutually-exclusive models. An early iteration might be “usable” (comparable to a polygonal approach) but with questions remaining. The existing model can be copied to retain the original, then the copy refined. I may come up with half a dozen or more iterations that are copies of copies, each one a modification of the last. For instance, I might have
a completely un-faulted model, with a second introducing the major faults, a third including minor faults, and a fourth incorporating dike intrusions. I can test how different hypotheses will affect my model differently. Implicit modelling software will typically update models automatically when new data is available, quickly proving some iterations false once a new season of drilling or mapping data is imported, while other modelling iterations will likely have a degree of validation. Remaining models can be refined and expanded upon with additional models to test when new data is available.

figure

Channel for discussion

Creating multiple models is extremely pragmatic when communicating with a client. With a polygonal model I would provide rough versions to which they would advise on refining. Today, when I present a half-dozen model iterations, it opens a channel for discussion about which is considered the best, given their knowledge of the field aspects. Often presenting a hypothesis not considered that may become a new target for investigation. This ability to contribute to the conversation regarding geologic interpretation, potentially aiding future endeavors beyond the model estimation, is a value-added benefit I couldn’t provide without implicit modelling.

The geology model frames all decisions in the resource extraction industry; calculation of resources; mine planning; recovery and ultimately, profitability. Every downstream decision is at least as wrong as the geology model, starting with the best model is critical.

A geology model can be thought of as a single realisation of geologic interpretation within the sample data set, permissive of many possible interpretations. Furthermore, most geologic sample data are themselves based on interpretation during logging. This demonstrates that more than one model outcome is possible and more than one should be constructed and evaluated. In fact, a final interpretation may be presented to downstream users with error bars when more than one model is evaluated acknowledging the risk involved.

This is the ideal, where evaluation of several models allows understanding of project risk and likelihood of success. However, up to the present day the connection between the economic evaluation and the underlying assumptions are usually poorly understood. The model is usually taken as ground truth, regardless of how well it was constructed or its risks understood. If it is insufficiently characterised, the risk of the resulting business decision is an unknown.

figure

Two-dimensional process

The standard construction of a geology model typically relies on the sectional construction of lines and polygons, either hand drawn on paper sections or on a computer screen. These 2D representations are then converted to 3D by tying successive 2D slices together,
like stacking slices of bread to make a loaf. Important geologic features may change from deposit or commodity type, but the basic method of drawing lines, then erasing them to redraw them with the addition of more data, has been the same. Usually only one model will be produced because it is simply too time- intensive. The shapes of geological objects are frequently much more complicated than stacking slices of bread.

figure

Enter implicit modelling

The heavy lifting is now completed in a fraction of the time and in 3D by fast processors and efficient mathematical algorithms. Implicit modelling allows a geologist to focus on the geology and examine possible outcomes of the data using repeatable, objective algorithms rather than drawing only to complete one possible subjective version.

figure

The precipice of change

The industry is at the precipice of change, implicit techniques are gaining traction. The attraction of fostering multiple hypotheses and having time to fully examine them in 3D is quickly approaching critical mass.

figure

Obstacle to acceptance

Yet geologists and managers sometimes worry that the speed of implicit modelling provides less intimacy with the data and that it can feel a bit like a black box where the geologist has lost control. This fundamental obstacle to wider acceptance will fade with familiarity and training. Speed is the great advantage of implicit modelling; one can arrive at the wrong answer very quickly and the first model, or even the second and third can be quickly dismissed as important details and the geology it represents are realised.

figure

Driving improvement

Implicit modelling software is just another tool in the geologist’s toolbox to be properly applied to the appropriate situation. It
is, however, fundamentally different: poor logging techniques and sloppy standards are made obvious to the simplicity and unbiased eye of a computer algorithm. Not only will implicit modelling help geologists examine more geologic possibilities faster, it will drive improvement in data management and logging practices. Putting appropriate focus on the data that drives business decisions.

Modelling speed and a focus on the data will drive an important understanding of geologic risk and uncertainty. Fundamentally
we will be able to quantify risk and, with the easy days of mining behind us, understand the geologic uncertainty of resource extraction projects so critical to continued success.

This web content is a summary of the article “Reduced geological risk”, originally published in the Unearthing 3D implicit modelling ebook. Download full ebook here.

20 Comments

  • My brother suggested I would possibly like this website. He used to be totally right. This post truly made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

  • I simply couldn’t leave your website before suggesting that I actually enjoyed the standard information a person supply to your guests? Is going to be back frequently to inspect new posts

  • toenail says:

    Very nice ρost. I just stumbled upⲟn your blog and wanted
    to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blοg pοѕts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing t᧐ your rss feed and I hope you write
    again soon!

  • Hi there, I stumbled upon your website by way of Google while hunting for a very similar make any difference, your web blog came up, it looks terrific kumpulan vlogger terbaru. I’ve included with favourites|added to favorites.

  • Kevinbip says:

    Resource geologists traditionally favoured the use of sectionally hand-digitized wireframe models for resource estimation (e.g. those created with Datamine, Gemcom, or other mining software packages). Automated methods were generally not considered appropriate by those traditionally doing modelling for estimation purposes. They were looked on as ‘black boxes’ that allowed the computer to do the interpretation, rather than the geologist. Advances in the software available for the automatic creation of geological models (implicit geological modelling) have led to the challenging of the traditional methods. This paper considers the advantages of these new methods, and asks if they are not actually the best practice.
    By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/

  • Your post on Independent Geologists Explains why Implicit Modelling Reduces Geological Risk is great. I hope you can continue delivering many lot post . Long live http://www.implicit-modelling.com

  • They may have failed to set White Hart Lane alight last season, but Tottenham forwards Erik Lamela and Roberto Soldado have been on fire during pre-season. Roberto Soldado and Erik Lamela cool down after finally finding some sizzling form during Tottenham’s pre-season

  • Bayern Munich forward Thomas Muller admits his performances haven’t been up to scratch so far this season – but insists he still has plenty to offer for both club and country. Thomas Muller concedes his performances have not been up to par this season but insists: ‘I can still be decisive for Bayern Munich’

  • nfl jerseys says:

    I must point out my appreciation for your kindness for men who should have guidance on this particular question. Your special commitment to getting the message all through has been definitely functional and has regularly permitted those much like me to get to their ambitions. This interesting publication indicates so much a person like me and substantially more to my office workers. Many thanks; from everyone of us.

  • I simply wanted to thank you very much once more. I do not know the things I could possibly have followed without these suggestions shared by you over such a industry. It was before a depressing matter for me personally, however , spending time with this professional avenue you managed it took me to cry with delight. I will be grateful for your support as well as pray you recognize what a powerful job you were getting into educating other individuals thru your blog post. I am sure you haven’t got to know all of us.

  • One major reason why geologists don t know how to model effectively is that they ve never been taught anything about the 3D geometry of mineral deposits at university. The only time they learn about this topic is on the job, often at a geological modelling training session run by a software maker whose expertise or experience is not geology! Let me use an allegory to explain this crazy situation, which, for some reason, doesn t seem to worry too many people in the mining industry. Imagine you re studying to become a physician and you re taking a course on how to interpret CAT scans. Your instructor is the computer programmer who built the CAT scanning software they know a lot about programming but nothing about human anatomy, yet they re going to be teaching you. How effective do you think this lesson would be and would you be dismayed that the instructor is ignorant about human anatomy? In another scenario, consider that you re a budding pianist and you want to learn how to become a great piano player. Who would you get advice from? A piano teacher who is an accomplished piano player, or a piano maker who is expert at building pianos? I know who I d prefer to learn from! Geologists routinely get geological modelling advice, but not from those who actually have experience at viewing lots of drilling data and can identify key structural geological controls. Instead, they go to the software maker who knows how to operate the software, but cannot explain the geological logic of what they should be doing and how they should be doing it, based on the structural anatomy of the deposit. Do you think this learning approach will reduce geological risk ?
    By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/

  • info saham says:

    Great details permanently, you just attained a new symbol info saham brand new audience. Just what may well a person propose relating to your publish which you made a 1 week prior to now? Any kind of positive?

  • best pron says:

    90EOqs It as really a nice and useful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

  • I intended to compose you one bit of remark to help give many thanks the moment again for your lovely guidelines you have provided in this article. It’s really particularly open-handed with you to make without restraint exactly what many people would have made available as an ebook in making some money for themselves, primarily given that you could possibly have tried it in the event you desired. Those pointers as well worked like a good way to be certain that other people online have the same eagerness similar to my very own to understand good deal more around this matter. I am sure there are thousands of more pleasurable times ahead for people who looked over your website.

Leave a Reply

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