Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INTRODUCTION
A significant portion of the risk in a mining operation or study is
tied to the geological model that is being used to provide domains
for mineral resource and reserve estimation and/or conditional
simulation. Simulating the geology is a common procedure in the
petroleum industry but is rather the exception in the mining
industry. Perhaps one reason is that the original geological setting
of a mineral deposit has often been disturbed by metasomatism
and tectonism, making realistic simulations of the geology
difficult to produce. Some of the methods that can be used to
simulate different aspects of the geology are boolean modelling
(de Fouquet et al, 1989), indicator simulation (Alabert, 1987),
plurigaussian simulation (Armstrong et al, 2003), probability field
with local means (Srivastava, 2005) and potential field (Chiles et
al, 2007).
The case considered in this paper is the Resolution
porphyry-style Cu-Mo deposit, located in Arizona, USA. The
deposit is deep and sparsely drilled. The geological interpretation
is complex and contains faults, metamorphosed rocks of
sedimentary origin, intrusions, breccias and alteration assemblages. One general method to realistically simulate such complex
geology consists of establishing a priority ranking for each of the
geological features and simulating them one at a time, starting
with the interpreted outlines or shapes and incorporating the
uncertainties as specified by the geologist (Verly, Bridebois and
Hart, 2008). Details on how to simulate a fault block model
together with faulted rock types are presented in this paper along
with some results.
1.
2.
3.
4.
GEOLOGY
Deposit geology
The Resolution Cu-Mo deposit is late-Cretaceous to earlyTertiary in age and is hosted within a buried, fault-bounded
sequence of Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary strata,
Precambrian diabase sills and Cretaceous-aged layered
volcaniclastic and siliciclastic rocks. Host strata are faulted and
have been intruded by porphyry bodies of late Cretaceous age.
Mineralised breccia bodies have also been identified, with some
being spatially related to faults and porphyry intrusions (Hammitt
and Ballantyne, 2007). The mineralised rocks are buried
unconformably beneath a 1000 m to 1500 m thick sequence of
barren sediments and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age. Figure 1
shows a plan view and two vertical sections of a portion of the
2007 geological interpretation.
Stage 1
Distinctive lithologic marker intercepts in each drill hole are
visually identified in section view (red symbols) and grouped
based on their apparent relative degree of colinearity (or
coplanarity).
Stage 2
A 2D marker horizon is interpreted and constructed, defined by a
smooth line (red dashes) connecting all controlling data points for
the marker within each geometric grouping. Zones of abrupt and
significant changes in position (eg elevation) between different
segments are suspected locations for fault displacement. Fault
planes are then interpreted and constructed within these suspect
zones based on numerous geological principles including:
Stage 3
The spatial uncertainties of faults are assessed purely by distance
from controlling data points. Multiple fault snap points that are
spatially aligned may greatly reduce the uncertainty of a given
fault interpretation. Simple surfaces are then constructed that
define the limits of all permissible fault positions (blue dashed
lines).
299
G VERLY et al
N=1006
E=206
N=1006
E=206
High Cu Shell
FIG 1 - Plan view and vertical sections through the geological interpretation. The black dots on the plan view indicate the drill hole intercepts.
FIG 2 - Diagram illustrating the methodology for the interpretation of simple faults (Stage 2, solid blue lines) in section and plan view, using
only lithologic markers intersected in irregularly-spaced or widely-spaced drill holes (Stages 1 and 2). Stage 3 illustrates the potential
degree of spatial uncertainty (orange polygons) inherent in the resulting fault model where all possible fault positions and orientations have
equal probability (dashed blue lines).
300
Step 2: 2D simulation
2a) 2D stationary simulation, conditional to snap points
2b) Rescale the simulation to account for variable uncertainty
2c) Add the offsets
100 rotated fault surfaces
Step 3: 3D simulation
3a) Rotate the 3D grid to be simulated
3b) Flag the rotated grid nodes
- Flag as above/below the simulated surfaces
100 fault simulations coded as 0/1 3D grids
Presimulation work
The available information for one fault consists of the fault
surface, the uncertainty information and three snap points for one
fault. The fault surface is modelled as a triangulation. The
uncertainty information is provided as a series of locations on the
fault surface with two maximum possible envelopes, one on each
side of the fault. The spacing between the locations is about 500 m
500 m. In a first step, the fault triangulation surface is sampled
on a dense grid using a draping technique. The approximate plane
of the fault is identified, and the normal offsets of the fault surface
Simulation
The rotated fault simulation is achieved in three steps:
1.
2.
3.
301
G VERLY et al
1) Rotate
F1
a) Fault
3) Simulate fault in 2D
a) simulate deviations
b) rescale deviations to account
for the uncertainty
c) add fault offsets
Fault
Plane
F1
Horizontal
b) 3D grid
F2
F1
6) Merge
grids
with
proper
priorities
F2
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
1000
1000
800
40
14
40
49
202
74
800
14
17
30
206
77
200
46
400
600
Uncertainty (m)
800
1000
1200
40
1400
1600
Along Strike
104
281
1800
2000
"Samples"
2200
2.
-200
37
51
2400
2600
"Snap Points"
250.
302
Post-simulation work
(grey lines). Note that the offsets from the horizontal have not yet
been added, which is why the interpreted fault trace lies at
deviation = 0. The final simulation step is adding the fault offsets
onto the rescaled fault fluctuations, resulting in 100 rotated
simulated fault surfaces on a dense 2D grid.
200
34
Down-Dip
400
Down-Dip
400
600
600
-200
2600
99.99
A)
B)
99.9
99.8
Cumulative Probability
0.250
0.200
100 simulations
0.150
y
c
n
u
q
re
F
0.100
mean
stdv
0.060
0.663
max
min
4.168
-3.137
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.050
100 Simul.
Mean Simul.
0.2
0.1
0.000
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.01
-3.0
5.00
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0 -0.50
0.
0.50
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
NSCO
NSCO
C)
D)
1.20
1.20
0.80
0.80
io
V
m
ra
g
io
V
m
ra
g
0.40
Azm/Plg=0/0
Azm/Plg=0/0
Azm/Plg=90/0
0.40
Model
Mean simulation
Model
Mean Simul.
0.00
0.00
0.
200.
400.
600.
800.
1000.
0.
200.
Distance
400.
600.
800.
1000.
Distance
FIG 6 - Simulated normal score statistics. (A) Mean of realisation histograms; (B) realisation cumulative probability curves (grey) plus mean
of the curves (red thick line); (C) variogram model (green) plus mean of realisation variograms (red dashes); (D) same as in (C) plus ten
realisation variograms along two directions (grey full and dashed lines).
TABLE 1
Simulated and interpreted fault block volume statistics. The
interpreted (model) fault block volumes have been reset to 100.
Fault
block
100%
Simulation volume
Model
volume
Model to
simulation
% Chg
28.3%
100
-10.8%
16.8%
100
7.8%
86
22.2%
100
-13.9%
133
101
11.0%
100
1.4%
42
201
109
28.1%
100
8.6%
52
156
104
22.2%
100
3.6%
80
124
99
9.6%
100
-0.7%
63
171
103
20.6%
100
3.2%
Min
Max
Average
CV
20
57
135
89
147
108
33
114
79
5
6
95%
51
135
96
19.6%
100
-4.1%
10
501
176
110
29.9%
100
10.1%
67%
11
83
120
99
8.2%
100
-0.6%
0m
+15m
+30m
+45m
303
G VERLY et al
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Along strike
Uncertainty bandwidths
Interpretation (0 Deviation)
Deviations
50
0 - 50 -100 -150 - 200 - 250
600
800
Deviations
0 50 100 150 200 250
20 Realisations
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
FIG 9 - Eight realisations of the fault block model at mid elevation in the model. The red lines represent the original fault interpretations.
The grey lines represent the simulated fault traces.
304
Presimulation work
The available information consists of a 3D gridded geological
model, uncertainty information and drill hole sample locations.
The uncertainty information is the same for all layers a 95 per
cent confidence interval (two sigma) of 30 m from the
interpreted elevation and of 20 per cent from the interpreted
thickness. Note the deviations for thickness are in terms of a
relative percentage of the interpreted (modelled) thickness.
Repeat Steps 2, 3, and 4 for each stack of layers in the fault block
Step 2 - Pre-simulation processing 2D
2a) Create 2D grids of the elevation and thickness of each layer
2b) Create 2D conditioning sample dataset from drill-hole intercepts
Step 3: Simulation 2D
3a) 2D stationary simulations of deviations, conditional to snap points.
3b) Rescale simulated deviations
3c) Incorporate rescaled deviations to interpretations.
- Adjust elevations for gaps or overlaps
Step 4: Simulation 3D
4a) Flag 3D grid from 2D simulations
Simulation
A series of 2D simulations are performed for each stack:
Post-simulation work
One hundred realisations of one stack of layers within a fault
block are available at this stage as a series of 2D grids of layer
elevations and thicknesses. For each realisation, the layers top
and bottom elevations are calculated and used to flag one 3D
grid. The simulation procedure is repeated for the other stacks
within the fault block. The 3D grids are then merged together.
The procedure is repeated for the other fault blocks resulting in
11 individual simulated models. The final simulated faulted rock
type block model is obtained by merging the eleven models
together. For a given realisation and a given location, the
simulated fault block is first identified. The simulated rock type
is then picked from the rock type model that corresponds to the
fault block. Figure 13 shows eight realisations of a vertical
section through the faulted rock type model at about mid
northing in the model.
305
G VERLY et al
FIG 11 - Faulted rock types presimulation steps. (A) Original interpretation; (B) maximum simulated fault block footprint identified
on left and right; (C) preintrusive/breccia reconstruction; (D) extension to fault block maximum simulated footprint; and
(E) 2D grid of elevations and thicknesses of the mid-layer (pzls).
1 000
1200
1400
250
200
150
800
1400
75
75 150
Elevation
200
25
25
50
50
Thickness
Thickness
Thickness
Elevation
250
Elevation
300
300
800
1000
1200
1400
Nor thing
Interpreted elevation/thickness
Snap locations (within 100 m of section)
306
TABLE 2
Simulated and modelled faulted rock type volume statistics.
The model rock type volumes have been reset to 100.
Rock
type
Simulation volume
Min
Max
Average
CV
Model
volume
Model to
simulation
% Chg
CONCLUSIONS
kvs
98
102
100
0.8%
100
-0.1%
kqs
90
113
101
4.6%
100
1.2%
pzls
89
110
99
4.7%
100
-0.7%
mesc
89
114
101
4.8%
100
1.1%
qzite
91
104
99
2.5%
100
-1.5%
diab
97
103
100
1.4%
100
0.2%
1.
2.
type volumes has been reset to 100. The table shows that on
average the interpreted (modelled) rock type volumes are
relatively well reproduced by the simulation. Differences from
-1.5 per cent to +1.2 per cent are observed, which is considered
acceptable, especially since part of these differences is related to
the simulated fault blocks with their asymmetric uncertainties of
boundary positions. The table also shows the kind of differences
that can be observed between two realisations. For example the
average simulated volume for pzls (Paleozoic limestone) is 99
with minimum/maximum counts of 89 and 110 respectively. The
coefficient of variation (CV) is 4.7 per cent. Assuming a normal
distribution, there is a 95 per cent probability that the simulated
pzls volumes are within +/- 9.5 per cent of the average. These
differences are significantly less than those observed for the fault
block volumes (Table 1). This is partly due to the fact that the
same rock type is found in most faulted blocks. The variability of
the rock types within any given faulted block is more significant.
The approach used to simulate the faulted rock types is
considered reasonable. Indeed, the fault blocks are simulated. The
order relations between the simulated rock types are reproduced.
The simulated results are statistically consistent with the input
data. The simulated rock types are conditioned to the drill hole
intercepts. The fluctuations in elevation and thickness reflect the
uncertainty assessed by the geological staff. Still, several aspects
of the simulation could be improved. The method assumes that
there are enough holes to get the interpretation of rock sequence
100 per cent right at each node. This is optimistic and some
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Resolution Copper Mining, LLC and
AMEC for permission to publish this paper. They also thank Harry
Parker and Geoff Ballantyne for their useful comments and
suggestions.
REFERENCES
Alabert, F, 1987. Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions using hard
and soft information, Masters thesis, Department of Applied Earth
Sciences, Stanford University, p 198.
Alfaro, M, 2008. Microergodicity and geostatistical simulation, in
Proceedings Eighth International Geostatistics Congress:
Geostatistics Santiago 08 (eds: J M Ortiz X and Emery), 1:409-417
(FCFM U: Chile).
11
21
31
51
61
71
41
81
C u Sh ell
FIG 13 - Simulated faulted rock type sections for eight realisations, in the northern part of the simulated area.
307
G VERLY et al
308