Advertisement

Block Modelling Based on Grade Domaining: Is It Reliable?

  • Nursultan IliyasEmail author
  • Nasser Madani
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)

Abstract

The mineral resource classification is one of the steps in feasibility assessment of a mining project. It involves a quantitative evaluation of hard da- ta obtained from exploratory drilling and sampling procedures. Several approaches are aimed to accurately predict spatial variability and complex relationships between cross- correlated variables. However, addressing the grade constraints, such as mining grade domains arrangement and respective boundaries uncertainty, meaningfully is still doubtful. In this study, continuous-categorical variables relationships were analyzed with respect to a Shubarkol coal deposit located in Kazakhstan. One of the common methodologies in mining is grade domaining, for which the grade of interest should be truncated into sub-domains. Each sub-domain introduces a homogenous area that can be considered as a container for grade estimation. For this study, the main variable of interest is ash content, varying from 0 to 90%. A cut-off value of 45% was set to the ash variable, thus forming two domains: low ash domain with Coal variable, and high ash domain with Waste variable. In this paper, we propose an integrative algorithm as an alternative methodology for coherent mineral resource estimation, comprising of sequential indicator simulation for categorical variables and turning bands simulation for continuous variables modelling. In contrast, a global geostatistical analysis of the deposit without domaining is presented as well. The resulting estimates of this research showed satisfying reproduction of the deposit structure free of grade domaining, which can be adopted to precisely estimate the volume of a coal mine deposit.

Keywords

Grade domaining Continuous-categorical variables Coal deposit 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Nazarbayev University for funding this work via ‘‘Faculty Development Competitive Research Grants for 2018–2020 under Contract No. 090118FD5336.’’ The second author acknowledges the Social Policy Grant (SPG) supported by Nazarbayev University. The authors also thank the ERG Company in Kazakhstan for providing the dataset.

References

  1. 1.
    Emery, X., Ortiz, J.M.: Estimation of mineral resources using grade domains: critical analysis and a suggested methodology. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 105(4), 247–255 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emery, X., Ortiz, J.M.: Defining geological units by grade domaining. Technical report, Universidad de Chile (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ortiz, J.M., Emery, X.: Geostatistical estimation of mineral resources with soft geo- logical boundaries: a comparative study. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 106(8), 577–584 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackwell, G.: Relative kriging errors; a basis for mineral resource classification. Explor. Min. Geol. 7(1–2), 99–105 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Romary, T., Rivoirard, J., Deraisme, J., Quinones, C., Freulon, X.: Domaining by clustering multivariate geostatistical data. In: Abrahamsen, P., Hauge, R., Kolbjørnsen, O. (eds.) Geo- statistics Oslo, pp. 455–466. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yunsel, T.Y., Ersoy, A.: Geological modeling of gold deposit based on grade domaining using plurigaussian simulation technique. Nat. Resour. Res. 20(4), 231–249 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madani, N., Ortiz, J.: Geostatistical simulation of cross-correlated variables: a case study through Cerro Matoso Nickel-Laterite deposit. In: The 26th International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Luleå, Sweden (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cressie, N.: The origins of kriging. Math. Geol. 22(3), 239–252 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsch, C.V.: A sequential indicator simulation program for categorical variables with point and block data: BlockSIS. Comput. Geosci. 32(10), 1669–1681 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emery, X., González, K.E.: Incorporating the uncertainty in geological boundaries into mineral resources evaluation. J. Geol. Soc. India 69, 29–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emery, X., González, K.E.: Probabilistic modelling of lithological domains and it application to resource evaluation. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 107(12), 803–809 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emery, X.: Properties and limitations of sequential indicator simulation. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 18(6), 414–424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emery, X., Lantuéjoul, C.: TBSIM: a computer program for conditional simulation of three-dimensional gaussian random fields via the turning bands method. Comput. Geosci. 32(10), 1615–1628 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooker, P.I.: Two-dimensional simulation by turning bands. J. Int. Assoc. Math. Geol. 17(1), 81–90 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mantoglou, A.: Digital simulation of multivariate two-and three-dimensional stochastic processes with a spectral turning bands method. Math. Geol. 19(2), 129–149 (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mining and GeosciencesNazarbayev UniversityNur-SultanKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations