Chapter 5.
5
GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION
A. J. ERICKSON JR
Chapter 5.2 provides a discussion of the importance of clear,
complete, accurate, detailed, systematic collection of varied geo-
logic data and suggests methodologies to accomplish this goal.
Narrative guidelines and narrative-graphical formats are pro-
vided to assure the desired standardization in the acquisition of
geologic information. The area of activity in the chapter is re-
ferred to as the data collection step in the three-step geologic
information processing effort required in resource evaluation.
This chapter builds on Chapter 5.2 in discussing the purpose
and recommending methodology in carrying out the remaining
two steps, data analysis and interpretation. All three steps are
required to discharge the critical responsibility of resource char-
acterization for quantification, evaluation, mine planning, and
extraction. Resource characterization is defined as the determina-
tion of the shape, size, quality, quantity, and variability of the
geologic entity and, as importantly, determining the limits of
variable geologic features. Proper characterization has both op-
erational and exploration implications as it provides the informa-
tion for synthesis of commonly subtle features into an accurate,
predictive description of the resource environment. This descrip-
tion can then be used either in support of mining operations or
in the ongoing search for additional reserves.
5.5.1 GEOLOGIC MODELING: GENERAL
Current terminology refers to resource characterization as
the geologic model, or perhaps the three-dimensional geologic
model, whereas earlier studies used the nearly synonymous term,
zoning patterns. This model consists of a compilation of all
geologic data, observations, and studies available at the time,
assembled in such a way as to display and explain the observa-
tions from both an empirical and genetic point of view. The
model may be extremely simple or highly complex depending on
the nature of the resource, the data available, or the degree of
sophistication in studies of the resource. The empirical model
represents the compilation and integration of numerous types of
chemical, mineralogical, structural, and not uncommonly nu-
merically quantifiable zoning studies, whereas the conceptual or
genetic model attempts to explain the distribution and origin of
these features in a useful and meaningful way. The geologic
model is commonly incomplete (Barton, 1986, p. iii), and as
discussed by Peters (1987, pp. 214-217), the model will probably
change or be revised as additional geologic data are acquired.
Erickson (1982), Eckstrand (1984), Cox and Singer (1986),
and particularly Roberts and Sheahan (1988), together with re-
views of these volumes by Barton (1985, p. 1758) and Skinner
(1989, p. 725), present up-to-date synthesis of geologic data from
a broad spectrum of mineral deposits into a number of both
empirical and genetic models. Work by Dapples and Hopkins
(1969), Horne and Fern (1978), Donaldson et al. (1979), Kaiser
et al. (1980), Ayers and Kaiser (1984), Rahmani and Flores
(1984), Walker (1984), Ward (1984), Reineck and Singh (1986),
and Ayers (1986) provide excellent descriptions of coal deposits
and associated geologic environments and processes associated
with this resource. Models described in all these references pro-
vide a state-of-the-art picture of the products and of geologic
processes and events and are extremely useful in guiding broad-
333
scale exploration activity or more tightly controlled resource
evaluation and operational support work. They are excellent and
useful volumes as they are compilations from and syntheses of
numerous, varied, studies of long-established mining districts or
regions. Typically, these are areas where extensive exploration,
development, and operational geologic programs have provided
large factual geologic databases and extensive material for labo-
ratory studies. Although each district or region may exhibit
specific variations, the volumes summarize observations and
studies from many deposits of a similar nature and hence provide
a guide to the commonly observed typical features to be expected
in a particular deposit type—the geologic model. They are ex-
tremely important and useful guides for interpreting geologic
observations while work is being conducted on projects, when
new district specific models are being constructed, and as aids
during ongoing exploration or development programs.
Models should attempt to explain all observable facts. Geo-
logic data should not be ignored or discarded if they do not fit
the perceived model. The lack of agreement between facts and
theory may indicate incorrect data, incorrect models, or insuffi-
cient data or all three, and thus point the way for further investi-
gation.
The fundamental problem associated with resource charac-
terization for evaluation and estimation is taking a very limited
amount of geologic data, correctly analyzing and interpreting
the data, extending these interpretations into unknown areas,
and then making summary quality, quantity, and limit state-
ments about the area. In simplest terms, where is the resource
(ore), what are its limits (shape), what is the quality (grade), and
what is the nature of the associated environment. Unfortunately,
this implies sharp boundaries, which are seen in only a few
specific types of deposits. More often, we are dealing with an
irregular, poorly constrained distribution of values of a commod-
ity as discussed and illustrated by Gentry and O’Neil (1984, pp.
59-61). Their illustration, here reproduced with minor modifica-
tion as Fig. 5.5.1, is a lucid, simple illustration that clearly
explains the resource estimation, external and internal dilution,
and limit or edge problems that plague many operations.
Sound, careful geologic data analysis during model construc-
tion, frequently with much checking and rechecking as pointed
out by Worthington and Brown (1984, p. 209), goes a long
way towards solving the afore-described fundamental geologic
problems in resource characterization. As discussed by Ranta et
al. (1984, pp. 1-2), the geologic data and interpretation (the
model), are the foundation of the evaluation process and are
essential for the resource estimation and extraction. As Call
(1979, p. 31) indicates in his discussion of statistical data han-
dling in development drilling programs, “the validity of any
analytical model must ultimately be determined by geologic in-
terpretation.” Sound geologic judgment, discipline, and hard
work are needed to deduce the detailed geologic setting from
drillholes, mapping, and sampling programs, which lead to the
construction and understanding of the geologic model and its
variations. The model is based on numerous, varied geologic
studies, and assuming that all other factors (sampling, hole or
data locations, analysis, etc.) are correct, ensures a reliable, best
possible resource estimate, together with an understanding of
334 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Conceptual mineralization with sharp limits
Actual mineralization with vague boundaries.
Fig. 5.5.1. Ore body representation. (a,b) Common conceptualiza-
tion of ore bodies with clear, well-defined boundaries. (c,d) Actual
typical distribution of a valuable commodity within an ore body with
vague irregular boundaries. (e) Illustrates how an open pit mine may
extract waste and the valuable commodity. Modified after Gentry
and O’Neil, 1984.
ground conditions. “Without correct interpretation, drillhole
data” (or any other data) can be misleading (Ranta et al., 1984,
p. 2) and manual, computer-assisted, or the more sophisticated
geostatistical estimates may be incorrect. The simple line on a
map or cross section depicting the limit of a geologic feature to
be estimated is an extremely powerful decision-influencing item,
and only proper geologic interpretation assures its correctness.
Sound interpretation is the only way a geologist can fulfill the
challenge issued by Barnes (1980, p. 62) to “accept the responsi-
bility of recognizing and recording boundaries” that characterize
the deposit or distributions within the deposit.
In summary, “Good geology based on well-understood data
is still the only recipe for good reservoir/site/deposit character-
ization” (Journel, 1988, p. ii). The geologist must thoroughly
understand the total geologic environment and distributions to
reliably estimate resources, delineate areas for mine planning,
and support day-to-day operations.
5.5.2 GEOLOGIC MODELING: METHODOLOGY
With the foregoing serving as a somewhat detailed discussion
of geologic characterization—the interpretative model—and the
importance of developing a good model—for accurate resource
evaluation—the remaining provides guidelines on how best to
construct a geologic model of a resource. Emphasis is on an
empirical model, one that accurately records the factual geologic
observations.
The geologist normally starts with surface outcrop data and
drillhole logs that, as reviewed in Chapter 5.2, are of high quality
and have been collected using a rigorous standardized methodol-
ogy providing unbiased factual data for compilation and analysis.
The geologist builds a geologic outcrop map from surface work
that contains all geologic observations. This map must clearly
differentiate factual outcrop data from geologic interpretation
and inference between outcrops. A common graphic methodol-
ogy uses bold solid lines and patterns or dark colors for outcrop
and dashed or dotted lines with similar colors, but applied in a
pale or lighter fashion, for interpretations. As indicated by Her-
ness (1977, p. 529), “there must be no screening of data to
eliminate ‘unimportant’ facts” . . . as “often the importance of
insignificant data is realized 20 or 50 years later” when mine
workings or core unfortunately may not be available for re-
mapping.
As an aside, with respect to core availability, the deliberate
disposal of core from known ore deposits or established mining
districts is unconscionable. Stored core is simply one of a number
of the geologist’s files that will be constantly reviewed as new
ideas or data become available. “Core is our record; we must
always go back to it” (Klohn, 1989). Numerous ore discoveries
have been made because core was available for reexamination,
resampling, and reinterpretation. A recent talk and abstract
(Braun, 1991, p. 146, and personal communication) clearly dem-
onstrate the importance of the availability of old drill core for
relogging and resampling in the discovery of a new gold ore
body. Future discoveries will be made because old core was
available for examination in the light of new data, new ideas,
other commodities, or, unfortunately, simply because a better or
more conscientious geologist was involved. Geology is a continu-
ally evolving discipline, and new knowledge and understanding
are accumulating at an astonishing rate. Discarding core because
it has been logged is the equivalent of destroying survey or
production records or a computer database after a set of maps
or financial algorithms have been completed. It should not be
done!
Gustafson (1989, pp. 987-993) in an important applied geol-
ogy lecture and paper, clearly reviews the importance of good
mapping to both exploration and operational geology and la-
ments that in the modern era of specialized theoretical studies
“perhaps . . . we no longer know how” to map.
After, or in conjunction with, the development of a surface
geologic map, it is essential that a detailed set of geologic cross
sections (and subsequently plan maps) be constructed, preferably
at right angles to each other. This is easier if the critical aspect
of a resource can be satisfactorily approximated by a set of N-S
and E-W sections tied to a coordinate system. Other orientations
are possible, although this can introduce measuring and posting
problems in relationship to grid coordinates. Coordinates may
also be rotated to provide local grids, but this practice may
cause serious survey correction problems and difficulties in tying
locations to the US Land System or various state plane coordi-
nates. A reference line to aid in registration and data posting
should be drawn on sets of sections, particularly those that do
not parallel the coordinate grid system. All data from surface
mapping and careful systematic core logging should be posted
 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION 335
on appropriate sections and, as indicated by Call (1979, p. 31),
“plotted, without interpretation on reproducible sheets. From
these, copies can be made for use in interpretation. This process
will maintain the distinction between observed facts and inter-
preted geology.” These sections can be constructed manually as
the project or drilling proceeds. If an appropriate computer-
assisted package is available, data can be entered into an expand-
able database for rapid factual data posting to provide base maps
for interpretation.
As new data are acquired, they are posted on the factual
sheets, prints are produced, and new revised interpretations are
developed. Additionally, completed interpretations can be trans-
ferred to a second set of reproducible bases (copies of the factual
data) so multiple interpretative sets of maps can be reproduced
for varied users. Drillhole traces and associated data should be
plotted on the sections at a scale sufficient to allow for posting
of multiple variables along the trace of the hole. Parameters
normally of importance are lithology, structure, alteration (if
present), grade (as a pattern, a color bar, histograms, or numeri-
cal values), and perhaps total sulfide or sulfur content. The
particular parameters posted depends upon the resource being
evaluated. This posting of several parameters allows for the de-
termination of critical relationships that normally are of use
in guiding interpretation and projections. An extremely risky
interpretation is the simple correlation of assays (grade) from
hole to hole with no consideration of associated geologic features.
The process, which should be avoided, commonly leads to incor-
rect interpretation, overestimation of resources, and incorrect,
usually overly optimistic, evaluation.
Clear cross-sectional construction allows one to determine
hole-to-hole relationships and continuity of numerous key geo-
logic features such as lithology, alteration, mineralogy, grade, Fig. 5.5.2. Three-dimensional plan, section, and field note sheet
structure, or perhaps features that may influence either mining, relationship. Coordinates and elevations annotated. Scale and expla-
such as RQD (rock quality designation), or metallurgical treat- nation omitted. Modified after Herness, 1951.
ment, such as hardness, of the resource. The construction of two
sets, commonly at right angles, allows for both determination of
hole-to-hole relationships in two directions, and hence section-
to-section relationships in three dimensions. The development
of a third set of illustrations, plan or level maps (sometimes
referred to as slice maps), from the two sets of cross sections, tremely detailed discussion, illustrations, and recommendations
and drillhole pierce points in the planes of the level maps is (some dated and others still current) on the essentials of setting
commonly the final step. This allows one to conform the sections up a unified geologic data recording and representation system.
and plans so all common points have similar x, y, and z coordi- Figs. 5.5.3 through 5.5.6 depict the development of factual data
nates in the now completed three-dimensional resource charac- and interpretative plans and sections needed to build the geologic
terization. As indicated, multiple sets showing the important model characterizing a particular resource. Combination of fea-
relationships of variables—the geologic model—is the product.
tures such as mineralization and lithology, not shown here, is
The construction of this set of illustrations allows one to develop common. These types of illustrations ultimately form the basis
the fundamental geologic understanding of the resource needed
for models illustrated in Figs. 5.5.7a and 5.5.7b. These latter two
for mine planning and financial evaluation. In the case of coal illustrations, modified after Roberts and Sheahan (1988, p. 147),
or uranium, the sets of plans and sections are commonly supple- illustrate an idealized volcanogenic massive sulfide model char-
mented or replaced by isopach, isograde, and structure contour acteristics developed from studies of numerous deposits. Fig.
maps of varied features of importance. Of particular importance
5.5.7b from the same reference illustrates various genetic models
in this understanding is the determination of ore/resource con-
that account for the features and suggests processes responsible
trols such as lithology, primary structural features, secondary
for formation of the varied deposit types of this class of deposits.
structures, structural intersections, or combinations of features
that are directly responsible for the specific localization of the
resource. Sufficient understanding, particularly of limiting fea- 5.5.3 GEOLOGIC MODELING: PURPOSE
tures, should be developed in the process to allow the input of
proper geologic controls in either conventional or computer- The geologic model is constructed to provide a clear picture
assisted resources estimation methodologies, such as block mod- of the three-dimensional geologic relationship of numerous fea-
eling or the gridded seam technique. tures that limit varied distribution in the geologic resource. The
Fig. 5.5.2, modified from Herness (1951, p. 1008), illustrates plans and sections used to develop the model form the total
the relationships of an orthogonal set of plan maps and cross basis for resource estimation in conventional reserve calculation
sections, including the smaller field note-sheet subdivisions, used schemes. They provide the input for limiting controls, generally
to collect and compile data and support interpretations in the as digitized polygons, in computer-assisted methodologies and
development of a geologic model. This article provides an ex- are the primary standard of comparison between conventional
 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION

Fig. 5.5.4. Idealized cross section. (a) Alteration interpretation developed from data posted on cross-sectional base in Fig. 5.5.3a. (b) Mineraliza-
tion and ore body interpretation developed from data posted on the cross-sectional base in Fig. 5.5.3a.
338 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Fig. 5.5.5. Level maps. (a) Plan map at the 200 elevation showing factual data in drillholes. (b) Lithology interpretation at the elevation of the
plan map developed from factual data in the drillholes and interpreted contacts transferred from cross section 400E in Fig. 5.5.5b. Only contacts
transferred from one cross section are shown, whereas in actual practice data from many sections would be used.
 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION 339

Fig. 5.5.6. Level maps. (a) Alteration interpretation at the elevation of the plan map developed from factual data in the drillholes and interpreted
contacts transferred from cross section 400E in Fig. 5.5.5b. (b) Mineralization and ore body interpretation developed from data in Fig. 5.5.5a
in a similar manner to lithologic and alteration interpretations shown in Figs. 5.5.5b and 5.5.6a.
Fig. 5.5.7. Geologic models. (a) Empirical model of a volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposit showing mineral and metal distributions and
features to be expected in the deposits. (b) Genetic model showing the varied geologic environments where VMS deposits are formed. Models
of these types are extremely useful in interpreting observation, predicting varied geologic changes to be anticipated, and pointing the way to
additional resources. Modified after Roberts and Sheahan, 1988. Not to scale.
 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION
and computer-generated resource estimates. The model provides
the limits needed to prevent algorithms from estimating re-
sources in unmineralized areas. A well-constructed model as-
sures that the algorithms are being used on correlatable units or
features. Not uncommonly, the varied relationships shown on
the numerous plans and sections are combined into a few illustra-
tive displays, cartoons, which depict the model and explain the
observed geologic relationships as illustrated in Figs. 5.5.7a and
Figs. 5.5.7b.
It is becoming increasingly apparent as more sophisticated
computer-modeling techniques are developed that, given that
correct analytical data and posting are available, the fundamen-
tal control of sound geologic interpretation is the most important
factor in resource evaluation. Superior models require superior
data collection and interpretative work to provide superior re-
source calculations.
Considering the risk associated with the heavy financial com-
mitments in the resource industries, unquestionably, in the evalu-
ation of all but the smallest resource, the best way to handle the
massive amounts of data and to test sensitivities as parameters
are varied is though computer modeling of the resource. These
models, whether block or gridded seam or others, take a consid-
erable amount of manpower to construct and control and require
sound geologic judgment and experience. Once constructed, the
parameters in the computer model can be rapidly varied and
analyzed to determine sensitivities. It is imperative to have a
correct resource determination in support of evaluation and risk
assessment to assure the profitable outcome of the heavy finan-
cial commitment required for a new mine. The only way to
effectively discharge the important geologic responsibility is
through construction of an accurate geologic model.
5.5.4 GEOLOGIC DATA: REPRESENTATION
Geologic features of mineral resources are highly variable.
A nearly constant change in three-dimensional shapes and rela-
tionships is the rule rather than the exception. Many parameters
of varying significance must be considered in order to understand
the resource and its normally complex geometrical shapes. It is
essential that presentations or illustrations used in describing
these complex relationships present sufficient, but not excessive,
detail to provide accurate, clear, qualitative, and where possible
quantitative, or at least semi-quantitative, representations of the
important features. The illustrations must be systematic, consist-
ent, preferably simple, and standardized, as professionals of var-
ied disciplines, frequently nontechnical, will commonly be using
them. Relationships depicted or documented by the illustration
should be instantly obvious with a minimal chance for confusion
or misinterpretation. The user must be able to quickly grasp the
significance of relationships. Additionally, illustrations should
be easy to update to assure that new data can be rapidly assimi-
lated and available to support the decision-making process.
The basic illustrations commonly used to depict important
geologic relationships should consist of an integrated set of plan
maps and sections showing distributions of lithologies, alter-
ation, and the resource under study. Structural features are com-
monly shown on all sets. Combinations of various parameters
such as mineralization with lithology or perhaps isogrades re-
flecting sulfur distribution within minable areas of a specific coal
seam are common. Almost any feature (parameter) showing
variability can be mapped and, if of importance to resource
characterization, can be illustrated in such a way as to depict
the importance of the relationship. Sets of illustrations should
have common coordinates and points of origins so they include
identical areas. Sheet size should be standardized and neither
341
too small to prevent adequate coverage of important areas nor
so large as to be unwieldy if frequently used. Sheets 30 × 42 in.
(760 × 1070 mm), a standard size readily available, are a good
choice for most geologic work. Sheets should have coordinate
grid lines with full numerical values of the coordinates identified,
not coordinates with some digits removed for ease in posting, as
this leads to questions concerning the actual location of data
under discussion. (For example, 2,550,000 N should be stated as
such and not abridged to 50,000 N). Similarly, elevations on
cross sections should not be abridged or modified to reflect
anything other than true elevation as related to sea level. Schemes
which add or subtract constants to elevations tend to confuse
and should be avoided.
Legends or explanations should be complete and on each
illustration. The legend should include all symbology, have the
scale shown as both a bar and ratio or representative fraction,
and include location name, date, topic and/or subtopic, and a
north arrow. Magnetic declination on plan maps may or may
not be needed.
As indicated previously and shown in Figs. 5.5.3 through
5.5.6, illustrations should be clear and reproducible with suff-
cient detail included to provide appropriate understanding and
with fact clearly discernible from inference. A base reproducible
set showing all factual data should be maintained in order to
provide easy copies for interpretative work. The interpretative
sets, constructed from the base set, are the result of the data
analysis process and form the basis for geologic predictions and
projections into unsampled areas. Key simplified sets such as
mineralization outlines, perhaps isograded, or coal thickness
with sulfur content contours will typically be made available to
operating personnel for mine planning and operational support.
Fig. 5.5.8 is a highly detailed legend, or explanation, commonly
found on cross sections illustrating the type of data required in
the typical geologic evaluation of a porphyry copper deposit.
Scales of illustration vary as follows: extremely detailed and
seldom used 1 in. = 10 ft (1:120) or the more common 1 in. =
20 ft (1:240) or 1 in. = 50 ft (1:600) for initial data compilation
in a base metal deposit; the 1 in. = 100 ft (1:1200) or 1 in. = 200
ft (1:2400) for interpretative compilations and mine planning; the
1 in. = 400 ft (1:4800), 1 in. = 500 ft (1:6000), 1 in. = 1000 ft
(1:12,000), 1 in. =2000 ft (1:24,000), or an inch equals a mile
scale used for summary presentations or district or regional
overviews.
Numerous other types of maps and illustrations can be con-
structed on an as-needed basis to depict or clarify important
geologic relationships. Most useful among these are the follow-
ing: structure contours or isopachs of geologic units or parame-
ters, isogrades of metal values or perhaps dilutents as sulfur or
ash content of coals, and ratio maps or combinations of parame-
ters such as grade and thickness, common in uranium work,
or total sulfide content. Any geologic parameter that can be
quantified can be mapped or illustrated and may provide ex-
tremely useful data on trends, distributions, or variability; hence
it contributes to interpretation and a better understanding of the
geologic conditions associated with a resource. The key points
on the use of any of these are accuracy, clarity, simplicity, and
reproducibility.
Herness (1977, pp. 529-531) discusses subsurface geologic
representation and provides a 19-point list of essentials for effec-
tive field and office representation of geologic data that is here
abridged and summarized into 10 points as follows:
1. Techniques should be easy to master and rapid to use.
2. All megascopically recognizable features should be ca-
pable of being represented.
3. Representation legends should be logical, systematic,
chromatic, or geometric sequences, clearly depicting trends.
342

Fig. 5.5.8. Typical legend, or explanation, showing the varied data posted adjacent to each drillhole
on cross sections constructed during evaluation of a porphyry copper deposit with associated breccia
pipes. Modified and company name removed to ensure confidentiality.

4. Systems should be planned to prevent duplication, un-
necessary maps, and map overlap.
5. Ongoing work maps should be easy to revise.
6. Sections and plan maps should be integrated to allow
for efficient utilization and prevent data loss in files.
7. Note sheets should be uniform in size, kept in a logical
available file, and never discarded.
8. Office maps should not be excessively large to assure
ease of handling and prevent damage. (However, a good set
of large, highly generalized, attractive display maps should be
available for presentations.)
9. Coordinate grids should be parallel to the edges of note
and map sheets, and maps should conform to a district-wide grid
and not overlap.
10. Maps and note sheets should be clear, neat, and pleasing
in appearance. They must have sales appeal because difficult
concepts are being portrayed and a project’s funding is com-
monly dependent on clarity of presentation. Impressive, well-
executed note sheets and maps generally attest to the quality of
the geologic work and of the geologist doing the work.
The variety, types, styles, and purposes of geologic illustra-
tion are too varied to allow an example of each. Any of the
 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION, MODELING, AND REPRESENTATION
professional technical geologic journals can be reviewed for style
and content. In addition, the following references are particu-
larly good in their content of illustrations: LeRoy et al. (1977),
Titley (1982, particularly the included papers by M. T. Einaudi);
Dixon (1979), Hutchinson (1983, some are quite complex yet
good), Rahmani and Flores (1984), Roberts and Sheahan (1988,
very clear and simple, sometimes small), and Barnes (1981).
In summary, there is no substitute for high-quality resource
characterization and evaluation based on sound geologic under-
standing and judgment and presented in an accurate, clear, and
lucid manner.
REFERENCES
Ayers, W.B., Jr., 1986, “Lacustrine and Fluvial-Deltaic Depositional
Systems, Fort Union Formation (Paleocene), Powder River Basin,
Wyoming and Montana, ” Bulletin, American Association of Petro-
leum Geologists, Vol. 70, No. 11, pp. 1651-1673.
Ayers, W.B., Jr., and Kaiser, W. R., 1984, “Lacustrine-1nterdeltaic Coal
in the Fort Union Formation (Paleocene), Powder River Basin,
Wyoming and Montana, U.S.A.,” Sedimentology of Coal and Coal-
Bearing Sequences, R.A. Rahmani and R.M. Flores, eds., Special
Publication No. 7, International Association of Sedimentologists,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp. 61-84.
Barnes, J. W., 1981, Basic Geologic Mapping, Geological Society of Lon-
don. Handbook Series, Halsted Press, New York, 112 pp.
Barnes, M.P., 1980, Computer-Assisted Mineral Appraisal and Feasibility,
SME-AIME, New York, 167 pp.
Barton, P.B., Jr., 1985, “Canadian Mineral Deposit Types: A Geological
Synopsis,” Reviews in Economic Geology, Vol. 80, No. 6, p. 1758.
Barton, P.B., Jr., 1986, “Mineral Deposit Models,” Preface, Bulletin
1693, US Geological Survey, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, p. iii.
Braun, E.R., 1991, “The Golden Promise Discovery, Republic, Washing-
ton,” Pocket Program, SME Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Feb.
25-28, p. 146.
Call, R.D., 1979, “Development Drilling,” Open Pit Mine Planning and
Design, J.T. Crawford, III and W.A. Hustrulid, eds., SME-AIME,
New York, pp. 29-40.
Cox, D. P., and Singer, D.A., 1986, Mineral Deposit Models, Bulletin
1693, US Geological Survey, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 379 pp.
Dapples, E.C., and Hopkins, M.E., 1969, Environments of Coal Deposi-
tion, Special Paper No. 114, Geological Society of America, Boulder,
CO, 204 pp.
Dixon, C.J., 1979, Atlas of Economic Mineral Deposits, Cornell Univer-
sity Press, Ithaca, NY, 50 pp.
Donaldson, A.C., Presley, M. W., and Renton, J.J., 1979, Carboniferous
Coal Guidebook, Bulletin B-37-1, Vol. 1, West Virginia Geological
and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV, 301 pp.
Eckstrand, O.R., 1984, Canadian Mineral Deposit Types: A Geological
Synopsis, Economic Geology Report 36, Geological Survey of Can-
ada, Canadian Government Publishing Center, Ottawa, Canada, 86
pp.
Erickson, R.L., compiler, 1982, Characteristics of Mineral Deposit Occur-
rences, Open File Report 82-795, US Geological Survey, US Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 248 pp.
343
Gentry, D.W., and O’Neil, T.J., 1984, Mine Investment Analysis, SME-
AIME, New York, 502 pp.
Gustafson, L.B., 1989, “The Importance of Structural Analysis in Gold
Exploration,” SEG Distinguished Lecture in Applied Geology, Eco-
nomic Geology, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 987-993.
Herness, SK., 1951, “Subsurface and Office Representation in Mining
Geology,” Subsurface Geologic Methods, L.W. LeRoy, ed., Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, CO, pp. 989-1037.
Herness, SK., 1977, “Subsurface Representation in Mining Geology,”
Subsurface Geology, Petroleum, Mining, Construction, L.W. LeRoy,
D.O. LeRoy, and J.W. Raese, eds., Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, CO, pp. 529-538.
Horne, J.C., and Fern, J.C., 1978, Carboniferous Depositional Environ-
ments: Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia, Field Guide,
Dept. of Geology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 151
pp.
Hutchinson, C.S., 1983, Economic Deposits and Their Tectonic Setting,
Wiley, New York, 365 pp.
Journel, A.G., 1988, Fundamentals of Geostatistics in Five Lessons, Stan-
ford University, Applied Earth Science Dept., Stanford, CA, 89 pp.
Kaiser, W.R., Ayers, W.B., Jr., and LaBrie, L.W., 1980, Lignite Re-
sources in Texas, Report of Investigations No. 104, Bureau of Eco-
nomic Geology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 52 pp.
Klohn, E.H., 1989, Geology Dept. Manager, Cia. Minera Disputada de
Las Condes, S.A., Chile, Personal communication.
LeRoy, L.W., LeRoy, D.D., and Raese, J.W., eds., 1977, Subsurface
Geology, Petroleum, Mining, Construction, Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, CO, 941 pp.
Peters, W.C., 1987, Exploration and Mining Geology, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, 685 pp.
Rahmani, R.A., and Flores, R.M., eds., 1984, Sedimentology of Coal and
Coal-Bearing Sequences, Special Publication No. 7, International
Association of Sedimentologists, Blackwell Scientific Publications,
London, 412 pp.
Ranta, D.E., Noble, A.C., and Ganster, M.W., 1984, “Geology and
Geostatistics in Ore Reserve Estimation and Mine Evaluation,”
Short Course: Mine Feasibility—Concept to Completion, Northwest
Mining Association, Spokane, WA, pp. 1-58.
Reineck, H.E., and Singh, I.B., 1986, Depositional Sedimentary Environ-
ments, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 55 1 pp.
Roberts, R.G., and Sheahan, P.A., eds., 1988, Ore Deposit Models, Re-
print Series No. 3, Geoscience Canada, Geological Association of
Canada, Dept. of Earth Science, Memorial University of Newfound-
land, St. Johns, NF, 194 pp.
Skinner, B.J., 1989, “Mineral Deposit Models,” US Geological Survey
Bulletin 1693, and “Ore Deposit Models,” Geoscience Canada Re-
print Series No. 3, Reviews in Economic Geology, Vol. 84, No. 3, p.
725.
Titley, S.R., ed., 1982, Advances in Geology of the Porphyry Copper
Deposits, Southwestern North America, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ, 560 pp.
Walker, R.G., ed., 1984, Facies Models, Reprint Series No. 1, Geoscience
Canada, Geological Association of Canada, Dept. of Earth Science,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NF, 317 pp.
Ward, C.R., ed., 1984, Coal Geology and Coal Technology, Blackwell
Scientific Publications, London 345 pp.
Worthington J.E., and Brown, S.P., 1984, “The Relationship of Produc-
tion Geology to Exploration,” Applied Mining Geology, A.J. Erick-
son Jr. ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 205-209.