Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Amarante,Flavio Azevedo Neves
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Rolo,Roberto Mentzingen, Costa,João Felipe Coimbra Leite
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: REM - International Engineering Journal
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2448-167X2019000500643
Resumo: Abstract Evaluating mineral resources requires the prior delimitation of geologically homogeneous stationary domains. The knowledge about the ore genesis and geological processes involved are translated into three dimensional models, essential for planning the production and decision-making. The mineral industry usually considers grade uncertainty for resource evaluation; however, uncertainty related to the geological boundaries are often neglected. This uncertainty, related to the location of the boundary between distinct geological domains can be one of the major sources of uncertainty in a mineral project, and should be assessed due to its potential impact on the ore tonnage, and consequently, on enterprise profitability. This study aims at presenting three different methodologies capable of generating multiple geomodel realizations and thus, assessing uncertainty. A real dataset with high geological complexity is used to illustrate the methodology. The results are compared to a deterministic model used as a reference scenario.
id FG-1_83c8ff20d91fba933b1ee22ee0b436c2
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2448-167X2019000500643
network_acronym_str FG-1
network_name_str REM - International Engineering Journal
repository_id_str
spelling Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methodsgeological modelmultipoint geostatisticsimplicit modelinguncertaintyAbstract Evaluating mineral resources requires the prior delimitation of geologically homogeneous stationary domains. The knowledge about the ore genesis and geological processes involved are translated into three dimensional models, essential for planning the production and decision-making. The mineral industry usually considers grade uncertainty for resource evaluation; however, uncertainty related to the geological boundaries are often neglected. This uncertainty, related to the location of the boundary between distinct geological domains can be one of the major sources of uncertainty in a mineral project, and should be assessed due to its potential impact on the ore tonnage, and consequently, on enterprise profitability. This study aims at presenting three different methodologies capable of generating multiple geomodel realizations and thus, assessing uncertainty. A real dataset with high geological complexity is used to illustrate the methodology. The results are compared to a deterministic model used as a reference scenario.Fundação Gorceix2019-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2448-167X2019000500643REM - International Engineering Journal v.72 n.4 2019reponame:REM - International Engineering Journalinstname:Fundação Gorceix (FG)instacron:FG10.1590/0370-44672019720037info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAmarante,Flavio Azevedo NevesRolo,Roberto MentzingenCosta,João Felipe Coimbra Leiteeng2019-09-13T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2448-167X2019000500643Revistahttps://www.rem.com.br/?lang=pt-brPRIhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||editor@rem.com.br2448-167X2448-167Xopendoar:2019-09-13T00:00REM - International Engineering Journal - Fundação Gorceix (FG)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
title Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
spellingShingle Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
Amarante,Flavio Azevedo Neves
geological model
multipoint geostatistics
implicit modeling
uncertainty
title_short Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
title_full Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
title_fullStr Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
title_full_unstemmed Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
title_sort Assessing geologic model uncertainty - a case study comparing methods
author Amarante,Flavio Azevedo Neves
author_facet Amarante,Flavio Azevedo Neves
Rolo,Roberto Mentzingen
Costa,João Felipe Coimbra Leite
author_role author
author2 Rolo,Roberto Mentzingen
Costa,João Felipe Coimbra Leite
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Amarante,Flavio Azevedo Neves
Rolo,Roberto Mentzingen
Costa,João Felipe Coimbra Leite
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv geological model
multipoint geostatistics
implicit modeling
uncertainty
topic geological model
multipoint geostatistics
implicit modeling
uncertainty
description Abstract Evaluating mineral resources requires the prior delimitation of geologically homogeneous stationary domains. The knowledge about the ore genesis and geological processes involved are translated into three dimensional models, essential for planning the production and decision-making. The mineral industry usually considers grade uncertainty for resource evaluation; however, uncertainty related to the geological boundaries are often neglected. This uncertainty, related to the location of the boundary between distinct geological domains can be one of the major sources of uncertainty in a mineral project, and should be assessed due to its potential impact on the ore tonnage, and consequently, on enterprise profitability. This study aims at presenting three different methodologies capable of generating multiple geomodel realizations and thus, assessing uncertainty. A real dataset with high geological complexity is used to illustrate the methodology. The results are compared to a deterministic model used as a reference scenario.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2448-167X2019000500643
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2448-167X2019000500643
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0370-44672019720037
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Gorceix
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Gorceix
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv REM - International Engineering Journal v.72 n.4 2019
reponame:REM - International Engineering Journal
instname:Fundação Gorceix (FG)
instacron:FG
instname_str Fundação Gorceix (FG)
instacron_str FG
institution FG
reponame_str REM - International Engineering Journal
collection REM - International Engineering Journal
repository.name.fl_str_mv REM - International Engineering Journal - Fundação Gorceix (FG)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||editor@rem.com.br
_version_ 1754734691432267776