Choosing Between Two Kind of Sampling Patterns Using Geostatistical Simulation: Regularly Spaced or at High Uncertainty Locations?

Koppe, Vanessa Cerqueira; Costa, João Felipe Coimbra Leite; Peroni, Rodrigo de Lemos; Koppe, Jair Carlos

doi:10.1007/s11053-011-9141-5

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The block model and its copper histogram are shown in Figure 5. Koppe et al (2011) proposed a schedule where seven diglines were generated (Figure 6(A)). For this case study purposes, consider that the first digline is being mined.…”

Section: Block Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geometallurgy-oriented mine scheduling considering volume support and non-additivity

Campos,

Coimbra Leite Costa,

Koppe

et al. 2022

Mining Technology: Transactions of the Institutions of Mining a

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In mine planning, metallurgical recovery is traditionally estimated in each block as a fixed value or a function of the block's primary geological attributes. Nevertheless, this variable has two characteristics that are often neglected. First, it is non-additive, which means that estimation and scaling procedures of such properties cannot be done based on linear techniques. Second, it is a process response variable, which means this variable value represents the response of the volume processed at the plant. The combination of these two properties results that the metallurgical recovery of each block is dependent on the blocks that will be mined and processed together with it at the plant. This paper demonstrates the difference between how metallurgical recovery is traditionally considered in mine planning, and how it should be. There are impacts on mine scheduling/blending, global metallurgical recovery estimation (total quantity of metal recovered) and total economic value.

show abstract

Section: Block Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geometallurgy-oriented mine scheduling considering volume support and non-additivity

Campos,

Coimbra Leite Costa,

Koppe

et al. 2022

Mining Technology: Transactions of the Institutions of Mining a

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Optimal placement of drill holes for mineral exploration and mining (resource delineation) has received significant attention. Some methodologies aim to minimize the uncertainty in spatial properties through use of geostatistical algorithms that model the effect of measured data on spatial uncertainty (Pilger et al, 2001;Koppe et al, 2011Koppe et al, , 2017Caers et al, 2022;Hall et al, 2022). Others rely on decision theoretic concepts of value of information to quantify the dollar value of gathered information to reduce uncertainty in an economic property of interest (Froyland et al, 2004;Eidsvik and Ellefmo, 2013;Soltani-Mohammadi and Hezarkhani, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intelligent Prospector v1.0: geoscientific model development and prediction by sequential data acquisition planning with application to mineral exploration

Mern¹,

Caers

2023

Geosci. Model Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geoscientific models are based on geoscientific data; hence, building better models, in the sense of attaining better predictions, often means acquiring additional data. In decision theory, questions of what additional data are expected to best improve predictions and decisions is within the realm of value of information and Bayesian optimal survey design. However, these approaches often evaluate the optimality of one additional data acquisition campaign at a time. In many real settings, certainly in those related to the exploration of Earth resources, a large sequence of data acquisition campaigns possibly needs to be planned. Geoscientific data acquisition can be expensive and time-consuming, requiring effective measurement campaign planning to optimally allocate resources. Each measurement in a data acquisition sequence has the potential to inform where best to take the following measurements; however, directly optimizing a closed-loop measurement sequence requires solving an intractable combinatoric search problem. In this work, we formulate the sequential geoscientific data acquisition problem as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). We then present methodologies to solve the sequential problem using Monte Carlo planning methods. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach on a simple 2D synthetic exploration problem. Tests show that the proposed sequential approach is significantly more effective at reducing uncertainty than conventional methods. Although our approach is discussed in the context of mineral resource exploration, it likely has bearing on other types of geoscientific model questions.

show abstract

“…DHSA may provide important decision drivers from initial exploration to production models. Its outcomes may also be analysed from an optimization perspective, where we look for the optimal drill-hole spacing (the decision variable) to define an objective function to be optimized, such as a minimum misclassification, maximization of resource conversion, or the best balance between the sampling costs and operational losses caused by under-sampling (Li et al, 2004;Boucher, Dimitrakopoulos, and Vargas-Guzman, 2005;Koppe et al, 2011;Martínez-Vargas, 2017). DHSA tends to be understood as applicable exclusively for diamond or rotary drill-holes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining optimal drill-hole spacing: A novel integrated analysis from exploration to ore control

Afonseca¹,

Silva

2022

J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drill-hole spacing analysis (DHSA) and optimization are becoming commonplace for uncertainty assessment and management in the mining industry. However, there is no standardized DHSA workflow, and the outputs of certain methodologies are not interchangeable. We group available simulation-based DHSA methods according to their accounted uncertainty into (i) raw uncertainty, assessed by drawing realizations from synthetic data-sets with the drilling spacings to be tested; and (ii) model uncertainty, in which these synthetic data-sets are used to assess the variation between the estimated model and the (unknown) actual value. DHSA workflows available in the literature ignore the differences between both types of uncertainty. Commonly, the DHSA algorithm is chosen without a detailed analysis of its uncertainty output, which may lead to misleading results and suboptimal decisions. While available solutions are based only on assessing raw or model uncertainty, the proposed approach simultaneously analyses both and their relationship for models at different stages of the mine. The integrated analysis results deliver more information to support decision-making than available methods. Principles, practical considerations, and discussions of the advantages of the proposed integrated analysis are presented. The approach is applied to a real gold deposit to illustrate its use.

show abstract

Choosing Between Two Kind of Sampling Patterns Using Geostatistical Simulation: Regularly Spaced or at High Uncertainty Locations?

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

Geometallurgy-oriented mine scheduling considering volume support and non-additivity

Geometallurgy-oriented mine scheduling considering volume support and non-additivity

The Intelligent Prospector v1.0: geoscientific model development and prediction by sequential data acquisition planning with application to mineral exploration

Defining optimal drill-hole spacing: A novel integrated analysis from exploration to ore control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About