Skip to main content

A new approach for the geological risk evaluation of coal resources through a geostatistical simulation

Case study: Parvadeh III coal deposit

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

An Erratum to this article was published on 09 January 2014

Abstract

Estimations of mineral resources and ore reserves have been recently widely used by mining engineers and investors. The classification framework based on the prepared code by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC code), which is one of the international standards for mineral resource and ore reserve reporting, provides a template system that conforms to international society requirements. Recent research has shown that an existing fault risk can affect the mineral resource and ore reserve estimation. According to this research, the faulted area that is involved in the effect on the estimated region is so extensive that it is not distinguishable. In this research, a new method called FGT (F for fault, G for grade and T for thickness) is introduced and presented for the estimation of mineral resources. The proposed method can provide an error map of a particular aspect of the combination of coal accumulation (G), fault risk (F) and thickness (T), and its output would categorise the mineral resources. This method was implemented in the Parvadeh Ш coal deposit, which is located in the eastern portion of Central Iran. The deposit contains five seams named B1, B2, C1, C2 and D; of these, C1 was selected as the most important seam in the exploratory grid analysis. Thus, C1 alone can reflect the properties of the Parvadeh Ш deposit. In this study, we compared the conventional method and the FGT method. This comparison indicated that the areas that should be rejected from the region in the FGT method are less and more distinguishable than those determined with the conventional method. Therefore, the inferred resources can be completely differentiated from the indicated and measured resources with a high resolution. The conventional method cannot distinguish between these three categories at this level of resolution. Therefore, the FGT approach has high precision in classifying the coal resource compared to the conventional method.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  1. Basarir H, Kumral M, Karpuz C, Tutluoglu L (2010) Geostatistical modeling of spatial variability of SPT data for a borax stockpile site. Eng Geol 114:154–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dimitrakopoulos R, Li S (2001) Quantification of fault uncertainty and risk management in underground long wall coal mining. In: Proceedings Geological Hazards (eds: R Doule and J Moloney), pp 175–182

  3. Dimitrakopoulos R, Luo X (2004) Generalized sequential Gaussian simulation on group size v and screen-effect approximations for large field simulations. Math Geol 36(5):567–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dimitrakopoulos R, Scott J, Li S (2005) Quantification of geological uncertainty and risk assessment in coal resource/reserve classification. ACARP Project C11042 Report, Volume I, W H Bryan Mining Geology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 250 pp

  5. Dowd PA (1993) Geostatistical simulation. Course notes for the MSc in Mineral Resource and Environmental Geostatistics, University of Leeds, 123 pp

  6. Emery X (2008) Statistical tests for validating geostatistical simulation algorithms. Comput Geosci 34:1610–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Escuder J, Carbonell R, Matri D, Perez-Estaun A (2003) 3-D stochastic modeling and simulation of fault zones in the Albala granitic pluton, SW Iberian Variscan Massif. J Struct Geol 25:1487–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC) (2004) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne) [online]. Available at: http://www.ausimm.com.au/main/about/docs/Jorc0105.pdf. Accessed: 7 May 2007

  9. Journel AG (1989) Fundamentals of geostatistics in five lessons. American Geophysical Union Publication, Washington, DC, 40 pp

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Li S, Dimitrakopoulos R (2002) Quantification and assessment of fault uncertainty and risk using stochastic conditional simulations. J Coal Sci Eng 8:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Li S, Dimitrakopoulos R, Scott J, Dunn D (2008) Quantification of geological uncertainty and risk using stochastic simulation and applications in the coal mining industry. Ore Body Model Strategic Mine Plann Spectrum Ser 14:253–260

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mwasinga PP (2001) Approaching resource Classification: general practices and the integration of geostatistics. Comput Appl Min Ind J 97–104

  13. Tabas Unit Exploration (1999) Report of primary exploration in Parvadeh III, Vol. 1, 517 pp

  14. Yu Y (2010) Geostatistical interpolation and simulation of RQD measurement. MSc thesis in Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, 90 pp

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omid Ashgari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashgari, O., Madani Esfahani, N. A new approach for the geological risk evaluation of coal resources through a geostatistical simulation. Arab J Geosci 6, 929–943 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-011-0391-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mineral resource classification
  • JORC code
  • Geostatistical simulation
  • FGT