Comparing Simulated And Interpreted Geologic Models

Geologic ore controls are usually interpreted and modeled from cross sections and plans, as they are critical to construct meaningful and accurate ore reserves models. The geologic boundaries are often modeled as two-dimensional surfaces or three-dimensional solids and used as hard boundaries to constrain the grade estimates. In many cases, the geologic model is the most important factor in estimating the mineralized tonnage predicted by the reserves model, since it is generally drawn to separate the volumes of mineralized and waste material within the deposit. Because geologic models are interpreted from widely spaced drill hole data, the accuracy of the contacts of the different zones modeled could be poor. The lack of accuracy in the definition of geo-logic zones can have a significant impact on a resource model. In this paper it is shown that the geologic interpretation can and should be checked for potential biases. In particular, an unbiased overall volume of the original drill hole information with respect to the resulting solids and codes assigned to the block model is sought. In addition, geostatistical conditional simulations can be used to simulate the geologic attributes modeled, thus providing an alternative view of the geology, and a measure of the uncertainty of the geologic boundaries. The simulated geologic model provides an assessment of the impact of alternative geologic interpretations on the over-all uncertainty of the reserves model. In the case study presented here, the uncertainty of the geologic model is quantified for a difficult-to-model, high-grade copper deposit in northern Chile.