Kriging Hydrochemical Data

  • Donald E. Myers
Part of the Computer Applications in the Earth Sciences book series (CAES)


As a part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation Program (NURE) water samples were collected from existing wells in all the continental United States. These samples were analyzed for some 30 elements and ions. Data were assembled for each 2 degrees RMTS quadrangle. The objectives of the NURE program included identification of areas favorable for exploration and producing estimates of recoverable resources. Other authors have reported on the use of pattern recognition, cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis to identify favorable areas.

In cooperation with the Uranium Resource Evaluation Group at Oakridge, the author utilized data from Plainview Quadrangle (Plainview, Texas) to examine the effectiveness of kriging to contour data on 13 variables including uranium. These variables were selected for their chemical association with the deposition or leaching of uranium salts. Because of strong dissimilarities between the Ogallala (Pliocene) and Permian groupings, the data were segregated.

Variograms were computed for each variable, separately for the Permian and Ogallala. Variogram models were cross-validated using randomly selected data subsets. In addition to kriged contour maps for the 13 variables and kriging variance maps in both the Permian and Ogallala, weighted linear sums also were considered. Two different weightings were considered, the weights were determined by a discriminant analysis model. Unusual regions were identified as those for which the kriging error exceeded two kriging standard deviations. These regions were correlated strongly with those identified by a discriminant analysis model and by the quadrangle evaluation.


Natural Factor Variogram Model Untransformed Data Favorable Area Hydrogeochemical Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amaral, E. J., National Uranium Resource Evaluation Plainview Quadrangle: Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Grand Junction, Colorado, G. JQ-001(79), 26 p.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, J. J., Begovich, C. L., Kane, V. E., and Wolf, D. A., 1980, Application of discriminant analysis and generalized distance measures to uranium exploration: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 12, no. 6, p. 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgess, T. M., and Webster, R., 1980, Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties I., The Semi-variogram and punctual kriging: Jour. Soil Science, v. 31, p. 315–331; II., Block kriging: Jour. Soil Science, v. 31, p. 533-541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr J., Myers, D. E., and Glass, C., 1985, Cokriging — a computer program: Computers & Geosciences, v. 11, no. 2, p. 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Everhart, D., 1977, Status and progress of the NURE program: Industry Seminar, U. S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado, p. 69-102.Google Scholar
  6. Journel, A. G., and Huijbrechts, Ch., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.Google Scholar
  7. Kane, V. E. 1977, Geostatistics: Symposium on hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance for uranium in the United States, March 16 and 17, 1977, U. S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado. [GJBX-77(77)], p. 203-222.Google Scholar
  8. Kane, V. E., Begovich, C. L. Butz, T. R. and Myers, D. E., 1982, Interpolation of regional geochemistry using optimal interpolation parameters: Computers & Geosciences, v. 8, no. 2, p. 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matheron, G., 1965, Les variables regionalisees et leur estimation: Mason et Cie, Paris, 305 p.Google Scholar
  10. Matheron, G., 1971, The theory of regionalized variables and its applications: Cahiers du Centre de Morphologie Mathematique de Fontainebleau, v. 5, 211 p.Google Scholar
  11. Matheron, G., 1973, The intrinsic random functions and their applications: Advances Applied Probability, v. 5, p. 437–468.Google Scholar
  12. Myers, D. E., 1982, Matrix formulation of cokriging: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 14, no. 3, p. 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myers, D. E., 1983 Estimation of linear combinations and cokriging: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 13, no. 5, p. 633–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Myers, D. E., 1984, Cokriging-New developments, in Verly, G., and others, eds., Geostatistics for natural resource characterization: D. Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 295–305.Google Scholar
  15. Myers, D. E., Begovich, C. L., Butz, T.R., and Kane, V. E., 1980, Application of kriging to hydrogeochemical data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation Project: ORGDP, Oakridge, Tennessee, K/UR-44, 124 p.Google Scholar
  16. Myers, D. E., Begovich, C. L., Butz, T. R., and Kane, V. E., 1983, Variogram models for regional geochemical data: Jour. Math. Geology, v. 14, no. 6, p. 629–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roach, C., 1978, Possible NURE resource assessment methodologies: U. S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado, 11 p.Google Scholar
  18. Uranium Resource Evaluation Project, 1978, Hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance basic data for Plainview NMTS Quadrangle, Texas: ORGDP, K/UR-101, 36 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald E. Myers
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaUSA

Personalised recommendations