Advertisement

Constrained Kriging: An Alternative to Predict Global Recoverable Resources

  • Nadia MeryEmail author
  • Denis Marcotte
  • Raphael Dutaut
Original Paper
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

In most NI-43-101 resource assessment reports the prediction of global in situ resources is performed by either inverse distance weighting, ordinary kriging (OK) or uniform conditioning (UC). These methods have known drawbacks: OK estimates are oversmoothed, and UC necessitates an additional step to localize resources within panels. An alternative, named constrained kriging (CK), enables to circumvent the smoothing issue of OK by imposing the desired theoretical variance to the interpolated variable. CK is not used in NI-43-101 reports, possibly due to a lack of real application examples and little detailed study of its properties. This paper seeks to fill the gap by comparing the prediction performance for global resources of OK, UC and CK on a synthetic lognormal dataset and two real datasets, the Walker Lake and a gold deposit. Results indicate that CK, although being slightly less precise than OK, provides better predictions of grade-tonnage curves than OK and predictions comparable to UC, a remarkable achievement considering that UC is a widespread nonlinear method specifically designed to predict recovery functions. CK is also shown to provide resource estimates more robust than UC with respect to the variogram model specification. Hence, CK appears as a valuable tool allowing simultaneously to localize resources and easily account for change of support in resources estimation.

Keywords

Ordinary kriging Constrained kriging Uniform conditioning Kriging neighborhood analysis Recovery functions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Chilean Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) through the program “Doctorado Becas Chile” (Grant Number 72180581), National Research Council of Canada (Grant RGPIN-2015-06653), Merit Scholarship Program for Foreign Students, PBEEE (Grant Number 0000274857) and Polytechnique Montreal (doctoral scholarship program) for supporting this research. Also, the authors would like to thank Georges Verly for helpful comments and suggestions about a preliminary version of this manuscript. Comments made by three anonymous reviewers were also helpful in improving the manuscript.

References

  1. Abzalov, M. Z. (2006). Localised uniform conditioning (LUC): A new approach for direct modelling of small blocks. Mathematical Geology, 38, 393–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-005-9024-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldworth, J., & Cressie, N. (1999). Sampling designs and prediction methods for Gaussian spatial processes. In S. Ghosh, (Ed.), Multivariate analysis, design of experiments, and survey sampling (pp. 1–54). New York volume 159.Google Scholar
  3. Aldworth, J., & Cressie, N. (2003). Prediction of nonlinear spatial functionals. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 112, 3–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3758(02)00321-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camus, Y., & Desharnais, G. (2015). Practical Application of Kriging Neighbourhood Analysis for the selection of Interpolation Parameters. White Paper, 9 p. Technical Report SGS.Google Scholar
  5. Chilès, J., & Delfiner, P. (2012). Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cressie, N. (1993). Aggregation in geostatistical problems. In A. Soares (Ed.), Geostatistics Tróia ’92: Volume 1 (pp. 25–36). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cressie, N., & Johannesson, G. (2001). Kriging for cut-offs and other difficult problems. In P. Monestiez, D. Allard, & R. Froidevaux (Eds.), geoENV III—Geostatistics for environmental applications (pp. 299–310). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ertunç, G., Tercan, A., Hindistan, M., Ünver, B., Ünal, S., Atalay, F., et al. (2013). Geostatistical estimation of coal quality variables by using covariance matching constrained kriging. International Journal of Coal Geology, 112, 14–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldsmith, T. (2002). Resource and reserves—Their impact on financial reporting, valuations and the expectations gap. In CMMI Congress 2002 (pp. 1–5). Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.Google Scholar
  10. Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resource evaluation (Vol. 42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hofer, C., Borer, F., Bono, R., Kayser, A., & Papritz, A. (2013). Predicting topsoil heavy metal content of parcels of land: An empirical validation of customary and constrained lognormal block kriging and conditional simulations. Geoderma, 193–194, 200–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofer, C., & Papritz, A. (2010). Predicting threshold exceedance by local block means in soil pollution surveys. Mathematical Geosciences, 42, 631–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofer, C., & Papritz, A. (2011). Constrainedkriging: An r-package for customary, constrained and covariance-matching constrained point or block kriging. Computers & Geosciences, 37, 1562–1569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hosseini, E., Gallichand, J., & Marcotte, D. (1994). Theoretical and experimental performance of spatial interpolation methods for soil salinity analysis. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 37(6), 1799–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isaaks, E., & Srivastava, R. (1989). An introduction to applied geostatistics (Vol. 33). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Journel, A. G. (1974). Geostatistics for conditional simulation of ore bodies. Economic Geology, 69, 673.  https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.69.5.673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krige, D. (1997). A practical analysis of the effects of spatial structure and of data available and accessed, on conditional biases in ordinary kriging. In E. Baafi & N. Schofield (Eds.), Geostatistics Wollongong ’96 (Vol. 1, pp. 799–810). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matheron, G. (1963). Principles of geostatistics. Economic Geology, 58, 1246–1266.  https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.58.8.1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morley, C., Snowden, V., & Day, D. (1999). Financial impact of resource/reserve uncertainty. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 99, 293–301.Google Scholar
  20. Rivoirard, J. (1987). Two key parameters when choosing the kriging neighborhood. Mathematical Geology, 19, 851–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rivoirard, J. (1994). Introduction to disjunctive Kriging and non-linear geostatistics (Vol. 25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rossi, M. E., & Parker, H. M. (1994). Estimating recoverable reserves: Is it hopeless ? In R. Dimitrakopoulos (Ed.), Geostatistics for the next century. Quantitative Geology and geostatistics (pp. 259–276). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0824-9_31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tercan, A. E. (2004). Global recoverable reserve estimation by covariance matching constrained kriging. Energy Sources, 26, 1177–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vann, J., Jackson, S., & Bertoli, O. (2003). Quantitative kriging neighbourhood analysis for the mining geologist - a description of the method with worked case examples. In S. Dominy (Ed.), 5th international mining geology conference (pp. 215–223). Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  25. Verly, G. (1983). The multiGaussian approach and its applications to the estimation of local reserves. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 15, 259–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01036070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnique MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mining EngineeringUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.IAMGOLD CorporationLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations