Comparison of Min/Max Autocorrelation Factors, Kriging, Co-kriging and Inverse Distance Block Totals – A Magnetite Hematite Case Study

For deposits where a full assay suite of elements/oxides is available and where several variables are critical to the evaluation of the deposit, it is desirable for the estimated block values of all elements/oxides to sum to 100 per cent of the weight per cent. This is difficult to achieve in practice and the estimation methods used need to be designed to minimise bias of the key elements/oxides by ensuring that block estimates are consistent with the individual assays and that the estimated totals are as close as possible to 100 per cent.This paper presents a case study of two domains within a magnetite hematite deposit, one with a high level of drilling classified as Measured and one with a lower density of drilling classified as Indicated. Several estimation methods were tested to evaluate their ability to maintain consistency of the proportions of each element/oxide and sum to 100 per cent. The following methods were evaluated: ordinary kriging, co-kriging, inverse distance and min/max autocorrelation factors (MAF) all as implemented in the Geovariances Isatis software.The comparisons showed that the MAF method produced the most robust estimates in terms of block totals and that grades and tonnages at the reporting cut-off were not significantly different between methods. At an individual block scale all methods produce artefacts that are less than desirable but can only be remedied by additional drilling.CITATION:Kentwell, D, 2015. Comparison of min/max autocorrelation factors, kriging, co-kriging and inverse distance block totals – a magnetite hematite case study, in Proceedings Iron Ore 2015, pp 465–474 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).