CHAPTER 3 – THE NUGGET EFFECT PARAMETER

In Chapter 2 it is mentioned that the behaviour of the semi-variogram at and near the
origin plays a very important role in kriging results and their stability. Now a very
common feature of semi-variograms, especially in mining data (grades, widths and
accumulation), is a discontinuity of the semi-variogram at the origin (discussed in
Section 2.3.1). This discontinuity is called the nugget effect “… because it was first
noticed in gold deposits in South Africa where it is associated with the presence of
nuggets of gold. The grade passes abruptly from zero outside the nugget to a high
value inside it” (Armstrong, 1998 : 27). It is this high degree of variability between
sample pairs at short distance lags that demands the inclusion of a discontinuity at
the origin in the modelled semi-variogram (see, for example, Figure 2.3).

In fact, many authors (such as Cressie, 1991 : 59-60 and Chilès & Delfiner, 1999 :
52) argue that the modelled nugget effect actually comprises a combination of a true
nugget effect and some measurement or positioning error, i.e.

c0 = cMS + cME (3.1)

where: c0 = the modelled nugget effect value
cMS = the true “micro scale” nugget variance
cME = some measurement error variance

The breakdown of the nugget effect in Equation 3.1 into a true nugget variance and a
measurement error variance is discussed further in Section 3.2.

Nevertheless, regardless of how the nugget effect is defined theoretically, it remains

exceedingly important that it is modelled accurately when fitting a semi-variogram
model (as will be seen in Section 3.1).

38
 “Unfortunately, the nugget effect … [is] often difficult to estimate, as usually
only a small number of data pairs exist at these smaller lags. As a result, the
nugget effect is often extrapolated from the behaviour of the first few
experimental semi-variogram values (Goovaerts, 1997 : 101). Armstrong (1998
: 40) sums up this problem by stating that:

‘Unless very closely spaced data are available, the geostatistician

has to choose the shape of the variogram near the origin rather than
fitting it to experimental values. So it is important to understand
the implications of this choice in terms of continuity of the variable
or, on the contrary, its behaviour.’”
(Morgan, 2005 : 164)

3.1 The Importance of Accurately Modelling the Nugget Effect

The importance of the nugget effect has been repeatedly stated throughout Chapter 2
and Chapter 3 thus far, and is now demonstrated by means of an example taken from
the work in Morgan (2005 : 168-172)*.

In this example two semi-variogram models are fitted to the same experimental semi-
variogram. These two models are identical in every way, except for their nugget
effect: the one semi-variogram is modeled with no nugget effect parameter, while the
other semi-variogram is modeled with a large nugget effect parameter.

Using the same data and kriging technique, the example shows that the kriging
prediction surface obtained using the nugget-inclusive semi-variogram model is far
smoother (i.e. has far less small scale definition) than the prediction surface obtained
when no nugget effect was modeled (cf. Figure 3.1 (a) and Figure 3.1 (b)).

“The … [inclusion] of a nugget effect component to a semi-variogram …

implies that samples located close … [together] are more dissimilar [or
variable] in value than if no nugget effect component was assumed.
Consequently, the addition of a nugget effect results in a greater distribution of
the available kriging weight to data values further away…”,
(Morgan, 2005 : 171)

*
An additional example, according to Cressie (1991 : 59), can be found in Laslett et al. (1987).

39
which in turn leads to a greater deal of ‘averaging’ during the kriging process and the
smoother appearance of the kriging prediction surface in Figure 3.1 (b).

(a) (b)
Figure 3.1 The kriging prediction surface obtained using (a) the nugget-free
semi-variogram model and (b) the nugget-inclusive semi-variogram model.

Therefore, incorrectly modelling the nugget effect could have serious financial
implications, as is demonstrated by the following example:

Example 3.1
Suppose that an area of ground is divided into 16 minable square blocks, with a cut-
off grade of 6 g/t, and assume further that the grade of these 16 blocks is to be
estimated through kriging. If the semi-variogram is accurately estimated and
modelled, the grade distribution in Figure 3.2 is obtained:

40
 Figure 3.2: The estimated grade distribution of the 16 minable blocks, assuming
that the semi-variogram is accurately estimated and modelled.

Therefore half the blocks can be profitably extracted and sent to the mill, with the
remaining half being sent to the waste dump. However, it has been shown earlier that
if the nugget effect is too highly estimated, the kriging estimates will become overly
smoothed. Consequently, an over-estimated nugget effect may result in the grade
distribution of the blocks in Figure 3.2 now looking something like that in Figure
3.3*:

Figure 3.3: The estimated grade distribution of the 16 minable blocks, assuming
that the semi-variogram’s nugget effect is now too highly estimated.

*
“Under these circumstances [of increasingly over-estimated nugget effect], selective mining is an
exercise in futility. All the blocks … will have a grade very similar to the mean” (Carrasco, 2010 :
300).

41
Even though the areas of ground in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 average the same grade, over-
estimation of the nugget effect has resulted in overly smoothed estimates and
consequently four pay blocks being incorrectly sent to the waste dump*.

Similarly, should the nugget-effect be under-estimated, the kriging estimates will be

too continuous (overly selective), resulting in pay blocks of ground being incorrectly
sent to the waste dump and waste blocks of ground being incorrectly sent to the mill.
◙

Note 3.1: As highlighted by the previous examples, “the efficacy of geostatistics

depends, to a large extent, on the quality of the estimate obtained for the [semi-]
variogram” (Armstrong, 1984 : 1). Now, with some experimental semi-variograms it
is relatively easy to accurately model the nugget effect parameter. On the other hand,
it is sometimes very difficult to model the nugget effect (consider the quote of
Armstrong, 1998 : 40 given at the beginning of Chapter 3).

In the gold mining industry, kriging estimates are generally required for both gold
accumulation† and reef width‡. In general, gold accumulation behaves rather
erratically over shorter distances (Armstrong, 1998 : 27), while reef width tends to be
far more continuous. The mining geostatistician has to consider this additional
information (see Goovaerts, 1997 : 98) when modeling semi-variograms.

Consider the experimental semi-variogram in Figure 3.4. The range of values at

which the nugget effect parameter can be modeled varies from between 0% to
approximately 20% of the total sill value (see Figure 3.5 (a) and (b)). However, since

*
i.e. payable blocks being discarded. Interestingly enough, if the cut-off grade was reduced to 5g/t,
the over-estimated nugget effect would result in two unpayable blocks of ground being sent to the
mill. The cost of milling these two blocks would therefore not be made up by the amount of gold
recovered.
†
Usually measured in cm.g/t.
‡
Usually measured in cm.

42
the experimental semi-variogram is based on reef width values, the nugget effect
should be expected to be small (because of the greater continuity of reef width
values). Using this ancillary information, a model with a smaller nugget effect such
as that fitted in Figure 3.6, can be considered adequate.

Figure 3.4: An experimental reef width semi-variogram from an actual South

African gold mine.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.5: Two similar semi-variogram models fitted to the experimental reef
width semi-variogram in Figure 3.4, one having (a) no nugget effect, and one
having (b) a large nugget effect.

43
 Figure 3.6: An acceptable spherical semi-variogram model fitted to the
experimental reef width semi-variogram in Figure 3.4.
◙

3.2 Nugget Interpretation

It has already been mentioned that the nugget effect is a discontinuity at the origin of
the semi-variogram resulting from small scale variability between regionalized
variables. In general, this discontinuity is thought of as either:

1. A pure nugget effect (i.e. no other factors influencing the discontinuity), or

2. A combination of a true nugget effect and some measurement or positioning
error (as described in Equation 3.1).

Although most texts make the assumption of a pure nugget effect, some authors
(such as Cressie, 1991 : 60-61 and Chilès & Delfiner, 1999 : 51-52) also consider the
case of measurement or positioning error being included in the nugget effect.

Considering Equations 2.10 and 3.1, a pure nugget effect assumption implies that

γ (0) = 0, and
γ (ε) = c0 = cMS
where ε is an extremely small, positive distance vector

44
whereas an assumption of a combination of true nugget effect and some
measurement or positioning error implies that

γ (0) = cME, and

γ (ε) = c0 = cMS + cME
where ε is an extremely small, positive distance vector.

Although it is not really important how the nugget effect is defined when it comes to
modelling the semi-variogram, it is important when it comes to kriging.

3.2.1 Kriging as an exact interpolator

Most geostatistical texts claim that kriging is an exact interpolator. An exact
interpolator is an estimation method that, given a set of observations
{z (xi ) : i = 1 to n, xi ∈ Ω} as in Equation 2.2, always returns the sample value as the

estimate at any of the sample point locations {xi : i = 1 to n}.

In order for kriging to be an exact interpolator, the semi-variogram must assume a

pure nugget effect at its origin, i.e. γ (0) = 0. This is demonstrated by the following
example:

Example 3.2
Without loss of generality, assume a set of spatial observations
{z (xi ) : i = 1 to n, xi ∈ Ω} , and assume further that an ordinary kriging estimate of the

value at sample location x1 is desired.

From Equation 2.7, the kriging estimate is calculated as

n
z * ( x1 ) = ∑ λ z (x ) ,
i =1
i i (3.2)

45
and from Morgan (2005 : 120) it is shown that the set {λi : i = 1 to n} is calculated by
solving the following matrix equation:

Kok.λok = Mok (3.3)

where

 0 γ (x1 − x 2 ) . . . γ (x1 − x n ) 1
γ (x − x ) 0 . . . γ (x 2 − x n ) 1
 2 1
 . . . .
 
Kok =  . . . .
 . . . .
 
γ (x n − x1 ) γ (x n − x 2 ) . . . 0 1
 1 1 . . . 1 0


 λ1   γ ( x1 − x1 )
λ  γ ( x − x )
 2  2 1 
 .   . 
   
λok =  .  and Mok =  . 
 .   . 
   
λ n  γ ( x n − x1 )
ϖ   1 
   

Assuming γ (0) = 0, Equation 3.3 can be rewritten as

 0 γ (x1 − x 2 ) . . . γ (x1 − x n ) 1  λ1   0 
γ (x − x )   
. γ (x 2 − x n ) 1 λ 2 
 2 1 0 . .
  γ (x 2 − x1 )
 . . . .  .   . 
    
 . . . . . =  .
  
 . . . .  .   . 
    
γ (x n − x1 ) γ (x n − x 2 ) . . . 0 1 λ
 n γ (x n − x1 )
 1 1 . . . 1 0  ϖ   1 
   

46
and it is then easily shown that a solution* to this matrix equation is

λ1 = 1 λ2 = 0 λ3 = 0 … λn = 0.

From Equation 3.2, this implies that

z * ( x1 ) = z ( x1 )

and assuming that γ (0) = 0, the ordinary kriging estimator is an exact interpolator. ◙

Note 3.2: Provided that the semi-variogram model used in the matrix calculations of
Equation 3.3 is valid (see Section 2.3), and that none of the n available data points
{z(xi), i = 1, …, n} are situated at the exact same location, then the solution of
Equation 3.3 will always exist and be unique (Morgan, 2005 : 120-121). In other
words, a kriging estimate at any given point (over any given support size) will
always have one unique solution. ◙

However, by reconsidering Example 3.2 under the assumption that γ (0) = cME†, it
can be easily shown that the exact interpolator property of kriging falls away.

This issue of exact or nonexact kriging estimates is appropriately summed up by

Cressie (1991 : 129) in saying that “… kriging can either honor [sic] the data … or
smooth the data [at the sampled location] …. [Kriging] is an exact interpolator if one
is willing to assume cME = 0….”

*
In fact, a unique solution (see Note 3.2)
†
In other words, by replacing the term γ (x1 − x1 ) in Mok with cME in Equation 3.3. Note that the
diagonal elements in Kok remain zeros (see Cressie, 1988 : 412).

47
Note 3.3: Unless specified otherwise, this thesis will be assuming a pure nugget
effect from now on (i.e. cME = 0 and γ (0) = 0)*. ◙

3.3 Difficulties in Modelling the Nugget Effect

In Section 3.1 the importance of accurately modelling the nugget effect was
demonstrated, and in Note 3.1 it was mentioned that modelling the nugget effect will
sometimes be challenging and require additional information and intuition on the
part of the geostatistician. One of the biggest problems in estimating and modelling
the nugget effect parameter of a semi-variogram however arises when data is widely
spaced (see Chapters 5 and 6). Then little to no information is available at the shorter
lags to facilitate accurate nugget effect estimation.

In the gold mining industry of South Africa, it is common practice for certain zones
of virgin ground (showing potential gold content) to be drilled on grid-like patterns a
few hundred meters apart to provide a representative spatial coverage of the area (see
Figure 3.7) and to offer an initial estimate of the gold content.

Figure 3.7: An example of a drilling programme conducted over the virgin

ground area of a gold mine.

*
The assumption made by many geostatistical texts. Obviously there are also some texts where this
assumption is not made. The interested reader is welcome to consider these texts (see, for example,
Cressie, 1991).

48
If the gold content and reef characteristics in these drilled areas are seen to behave
similarly to other better sampled areas of the mine, then the semi-variograms of the
sampled areas can also be used for these drilled areas. However, should it not be
possible to borrow semi-variograms from other locations, then a major problem
exists in modelling the short-scale structures (such as the nugget effect) of the semi-
variograms of the drilled zones.

Realizing this problem, Journel & Huijbregts (1978 : 152) state that

“… when a sampling programme has been carried out on a [large] systematic

grid … [it is advisable] to take a few other samples on a smaller grid …. In this
way, data are available at two different scales of observation, which makes it
possible to study … and interpret any possible nugget effect.”

Unfortunately, time and cost constraints associated with a drilling programme

usually imply that very little (if any) drilling is done on a smaller scale. The
geostatistician therefore has to make-do with the information at hand. Chapter 6
discusses further, amongst other things, estimating and modelling the nugget effect
when data is widely spaced.

49