Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 45, Issue 7, pp 777–798 | Cite as

The Value of Information in Mineral Exploration Within a Multi-Gaussian Framework

  • Jo EidsvikEmail author
  • Steinar L. Ellefmo


In mineral resource evaluation a careful analysis and assessment of the geology, assay data and structural data is required. One important question is where to position the exploration boreholes, another is what method to use when analyzing the grade in the collected material. Here, a challenge of this type is whether one should analyze the collected core samples with accurate and expensive lab equipment or a simpler hand-held meter. A dataset of about 2000 oxide observations is available, along with relevant explanatory variables, from a deposit in Norway. A Gaussian geostatistical model is used to predict the grade parameter on block support. To improve the predictions, several new boreholes are planned, giving 265 additional samples. The associated uncertainty reduction is evaluated, and a resource evaluation is performed with and without the planned data. Then the value of information of the planned data is computed, using assumed costs, recovery rates and revenues. The data acquired with the hand-held meter has almost the same value as the more expensive acquisition strategy, given that the already established correlation between the two datasets is valid.


Geostatistics Kriging Resource classification Oxide Value of information 



The authors would like to acknowledge the mining company for use of the data.


  1. Ahmed S, De Marsily G (1987) Comparison of geostatistical methods for estimating transmissivity using data on transmissivity and specific capacity. Water Resour Res 23:1717–1737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford C, Brazil M, Lee DH (2007) Optimisation in underground mining. In: Weintraub A et al (eds) Handbook in operations research in natural resources. Springer, New York, pp 561–578 Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharjya D, Eidsvik J, Mukerji T (2010) The value of information in spatial decision making. Math Geosci 42:141–163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel JE (2008) The relationship between perfect and imperfect information in two-action two state systems. Decis Anal 5:116–128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boland N, Dumitrescu I, Froyland G, Gleixner AM (2009) LP-based disaggregation approaches to solving the open pit mining production scheduling problem with block processing selectivity. Comput Oper Res 36:1064–1089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouma JA, van der Woerd HJ, Kuik OJ (2009) Assessing the value of information for water quality management in the North Sea. J Environ Manag 90:1280–1288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiles JP, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics. Modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of information theory. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  10. Eidsvik J, Bhattacharjya D, Mukerji T (2008) The value of information of seismic amplitude and electromagnetic resistivity data. Geophysics 73:R59–R69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Froyland G, Menabde M, Stone P, Hodson D (2007) The value of additional drilling to open pit mining projects. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Spectrum Series 14, 2nd ed, pp 245–252 Google Scholar
  12. JORC (2012) Australasian code for reporting of exploration results, mineral resources and ore reserves. 2012 edn.
  13. Le ND, Zidek JV (2006) Statistical analysis of environmental space–time processes. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  14. Mardia KV, Marshall RJ (1984) Maximum likelihood estimation of models for residual covariance functions in spatial regression. Biometrika 73:135–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinelli G, Eidsvik J, Hauge R, Førland MD (2011) Bayesian networks for prospect analysis in the North Sea. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 95:1423–1442 Google Scholar
  16. Matheron G (1978) Technical parameterization of ore reserves. Tech Publ C-70, Fontainebleau Google Scholar
  17. Matheron G (1983) The selectivity of the distributions and the second principle of geostatistics. Tech Publ N-800, Fontainebleau Google Scholar
  18. Miller AC (1975) The value of sequential information. Manag Sci 22:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moel A, Tufano P (2002) When are real options exercised? An empirical study of mine closings. Rev Financ Stud 15(1):35–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Odeh IOA, McBratney AB, Chittleborough DJ (1995) Further results on prediction of soil properties from terrain attributes: heterotopic cokriging and regression-kriging. Geoderma 67:215–226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips J, Newman AM, Walls MR (2009) Utilizing a value of information framework to improve ore collection and classification procedures. Eng Econ 54:50–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pilger GG, Costa JFCL, Koppe JC (2001) Additional samples: where they should be located. Nat Resour Res 10:197–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raiffa H (1968) Decision analysis. Addison–Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  24. Rivoirard J (1987) Two key parameters when choosing the kriging neighborhood. Math Geol 19:851–856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rivoirard J (1994) Introduction to disjunctive kriging and non-linear geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  26. Trainor-Guitton WJ, Caers JK, Mukerji T (2011) A methodology for establishing a data reliability measure for value of spatial information problems. Math Geosci 43:929–949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wellmann JF, Horowitz FG, Regenauer-Lieb K (2011) Towards a quantification of uncertainty in 3-D geological m odels. In: IAMG 2011: proceedings. doi: 10.5242/iamg.2011.0147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zimmerman DL (2006) Optimal network design for spatial prediction, covariance parameter estimation, and empirical prediction. Environmetrics 17:635–652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesNTNUTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Geology and Mineral Resources EngineeringNTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations