Skip to Main Content
Book Chapter

Chapter 4: Assessing and Mitigating Uncertainty in Three-Dimensional Geologic Models in Contrasting Geologic Scenarios

By
Mark Jessell
Mark Jessell
1
Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Evren Pakyuz-Charrier
Evren Pakyuz-Charrier
1
Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Mark Lindsay
Mark Lindsay
1
Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Jeremie Giraud
Jeremie Giraud
1
Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Eric de Kemp
Eric de Kemp
2
Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth St., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
Published:
January 01, 2018

Abstract

The management of uncertainty in three-dimensional (3D) geologic models has been addressed by researchers across a range of use cases including petroleum and minerals exploration and resource characterization, as well as hydrogeologic, geothermal energy, urban geology, and natural hazard studies. Characterizing uncertainty is a key step toward informed decision-making because knowledge of uncertainty allows the targeted improvement of models, is indispensable to risk analysis, improves reproducibility, and encourages experts to explore alternative scenarios. In the minerals sector there is not a unified approach to uncertainty characterization, nor its mitigation.

Assessing and mitigating uncertainty in 3D geologic models is a growing field but quite compartmentalized among different subdisciplines within the geosciences. By comparing uncertainty analysis as implemented for three modeling scenarios: basins, regional hard-rock terranes, and mines; at different stages of their respective workflows, we can better understand what a future “complete” modeling platform could look like as applied to the minerals industry.

We analyze uncertainty characterization during the different steps in building 3D models as a generic workflow that consists of (1) geologic and geophysical data acquisition followed by processing and inversion of geophysical data, (2) the interpretation of a number of discrete domains boundaries defined by stratigraphic and structural surfaces, (3) homogeneous or spatially variable properties infilling within each domain, and finally (4) use of the models for downstream predictions based on these properties, such as resulting gravity field, gold grade distribution, fluid flow, or economic potential.

Although regional- and mine-scale modelers have much to learn from the basin modeling community in terms of managing uncertainty at different stages of the 3D geologic modeling workflow, perhaps the most important lesson is the need to track uncertainty throughout the entirety of the workflow. At present in the minerals sector, uncertainties have a tendency to be recognized within discrete stages of the workflow but are then forgotten, so that at each stage a “best guess” model is provided for further analysis, and all memory of earlier ambiguity is erased.

You do not currently have access to this article.

Figures & Tables

Contents

Metals, Minerals, and Society

Society of Economic Geologists (SEG)
Volume
21
ISBN electronic:
9781629496405
Publication date:
January 01, 2018

GeoRef

References

Related

Citing Books via

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal