International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Coal Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcoalgeo

Comparison of three geostatistical approaches to quantify the impact of drill spacing

on resource confidence for a coal seam (with a case example from Moranbah North,
Queensland, Australia)
Alastair Cornah a,⁎, John Vann a, b, c, d, Ian Driver e
a
Quantitative Group, PO Box 1304, Fremantle, Western Australia 6959, Australia
b
Centre for Exploration Targeting, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
c
WH Bryan Mining and Geology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
d
School of Civil Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
e
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal, Resource Development and Operational Excellence, Level 10 201, Charlotte Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Three approaches to characterising the uncertainty associated with coal resource estimates are presented and
Received 27 July 2012 compared: global estimation variance (GEV); local confidence intervals via the discrete Gaussian model
Received in revised form 15 November 2012 (DGM); and the conditional simulation (CS) approach. The methods are applied and compared for three
Accepted 15 November 2012
variables (Thickness, Yield and Sulphur) in a coal deposit at Moranbah North.
Available online 27 November 2012
All three approaches result in a broadly similar characterisation of uncertainty, but each has associated
Keywords:
strengths and weaknesses. GEV is appropriate for 2D situations (like coal seams), is fundamentally robust
Coal (if its assumptions are respected), it is straightforward and is quick to apply. However, being global the
Geostatistics results are somewhat limited (although in some instances a global result may still be ‘fit for purpose’), and
Drill spacing importantly, it does not properly account for skewness and proportional effect. DGM is more sophisticated
Estimation variance and accounts properly for skewness and proportional effect. It allows assessment of local uncertainty at
Conditional simulation the block scale whilst also being relatively computationally efficient but requires increased expertise to
Discrete Gaussian model implement. CS also provides local results and conceptually is the most rigorous solution. However CS is the
Proportional effect
most computationally intensive solution and requires significant amounts of user input and validation. A
short study on the influence of the number of realisations on the reliability of uncertainty assessments
made from CS models is also documented.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Coal seam resources are conventionally estimated and classified on
the basis of input data derived from sampling of drillholes that are
spaced at very large distances in comparison to the diameter of the
drillholes themselves. Drillhole samples are typically several tens of
millimetres in diameter but inter-hole distances typically range from
hundreds of metres to over a kilometre. The ratio of sampled volume
to the unsampled volume of in situ coal blocks that are estimated is
characteristically in the order of 1:105 to b1:10 7. The Concise Oxford
Dictionary defines uncertain as “not known, reliable, or definite” and
in this sense, resource estimates are inherently uncertain because of
this relative lack of data compared to the volumes being estimated.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 9433 3511.
E-mail address: ac@qgroup.net.au (A. Cornah).
The interested reader is referred to Morgan and Henrion (1990) for
more complete discussion of uncertainty concepts.
Because coal resource estimates are intrinsically uncertain, charac-
terisation of this uncertainty is vitally important. Resource classification
schemes used internally by most mining companies and mandated by
many stock exchanges rely, at least in part, on expert assessment of
uncertainty. The uncertainty related to estimates of coal chemical and
physical attributes is clearly in part related to drill hole spacing — closer
spaced drilling increases the ratio of sampled to unsampled volume and
therefore inevitably reduces the uncertainty associated with the esti-
mated values.
Three different geostatistical methods to characterise uncertainty
associated with estimation of key coal attributes are compared in
this paper. The first method is ‘global estimation variance’ (GEV),
which is a longstanding approach in linear geostatistics (David, 1977)
and is well suited to coal deposits which can be modelled in two dimen-
sions (2D), that is where the thickness is insignificant relative to the

0166-5162/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.11.006
 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124
planar extent; approaches for three dimensional modelling of heteroge-
neous facies are provided by Faliven et al. (2007).
GEV relies on calculation of an ‘extension variance’ which mea-
sures the average squared error incurred when we assume that a
block can be estimated by using a single sample value located at its
centre as the estimate. The extension variance is the term given to es-
timation variance in the specific case where a single block is informed
by a single sample. This extension variance for a block of specified size
and geometry (or ‘block support’ in geostatistical parlance) can be cal-
culated from the variogram of the relevant attribute. The variogram,
in turn, is calculated from the sample data and is a model for the spatial
variance; i.e., the average variance between samples as a function of
separation vector between the sample pair. From the unitary extension
variance, we can easily calculate the global estimation variance associ-
ated with a volume (or area) comprised of N unit blocks.
The second method considered is a non-linear geostatistical ap-
proach based upon the ‘Discrete Gaussian Model’ (DGM) framework
(see Riviorard, 1994). This framework is widely used to model global
or local grade and tonnage relationships; in this case it is used to pro-
vide the local probability of meeting a given grade criteria and thus
local block-by-block confidence intervals.
The third approach is conditional simulation (CS); this involves
the generation of multiple images of the deposit which reproduce the
global declustered histogram and variogram at the scale of the sample
data, these results can then be ‘averaged’ to generate block-scale results.
Additionally the simulations honour sample data locations. From the
full set of realisations, local probability distributions can be constructed,
which provide a route to calculation of local (or global) confidence in-
tervals. Recent studies involving applications of conditional simulation
in coal resource assessments are provided by Heriawan and Koike
(2008a, 2008b), and by Olea et al. (2011); another recent study which
applies of conditional simulation and in gas emission zone modelling
is provided by Karacan et al. (2012).
This paper explores the benefits, limitations and assumptions of
these three methods and aims to inform the industry geologist in
choosing a ‘fit for purpose’ methodology for assessing uncertainty in
coal resource estimates. Moranbah North Coal Mine in Queensland,
Australia provided the data used to facilitate this comparison.
1.1. Case study: location and geology
The Moranbah North coal deposit is located in the Central Highlands
area of Queensland, Australia (see Fig. 1) and is currently being mined by
long-wall underground methods. The deposit is situated near the town
of Moranbah which is approximately 180 km inland from the major
regional center and coastal port of Mackay. The Moranbah North Coal
Mine is operated by Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (formerly
Anglo Coal). The study area is located in the northern portion of the
Permo-Triassic Bowen Basin and is contained in the late Permian
Moranbah Coal Measures. These Coal Measures are considered to be flu-
vial and fluvio-deltaic in origin and formed in an upper delta plain envi-
ronment with attendant shallow marine incursions (Michaelsen and
Henderson, 2000).
Overall the Moranbah Coal Measures are approximately 300 m in
thickness and contain nine coal seams, which may split locally (Laws
and Bos, 2000). Only one of these seams, the Goonyella Middle (GM)
seam (which dips at about 3° to the east, see Fig. 2), currently offers
potential for economic underground extraction.
The GM seam has traditionally been subdivided into five plies for coal
quality analysis. This subdivision is mainly based on the recognition of
consistent, identifiable stone bands. A working section has been defined
(Laws and Bos, 2000) to reflect the maximum economic thickness of coal
that could be extracted by the longwall mining method which is desig-
nated the GMI (GM — Ideal Section). The GMI working section is the sub-
ject of this study. A zone with poor washability characteristics occurring
115
in the southern part of the case study area may be partly related to the
depositional environment and the occurrence of siderite (Diessel, 1999).
1.2. Case study: data
As for most essentially flat dipping coal seams in the Bowen Basin,
the Moranbah North deposit is drilled using vertical drill holes. The
variables considered were:
1. Vertical seam thickness in metres (herein referred to as ‘Thickness’);
2. Washed yield (%) targeting an 8.5% target ash content (herein re-
ferred to as ‘Yield’); and
3. Raw (i.e., unwashed) total (%) sulphur content (herein referred to
as ‘Sulphur’).
In geostatistical (spatial) analysis, an important consideration is
spatial stationarity: in general a prior decision must be made about
volumes or areas that can be considered as ‘sufficiently statistically
homogeneous’ for the purposes of the geostatistical tools at hand. In
most cases, the operative assumption is ‘intrinsic stationarity’ which
implies that a single variogram can characterise spatial variability with-
in a specified ‘domain’ (Wackernagel, 2003). In the 2D case, given that
the top and bottom of the seam have been stratigraphically defined,
the main domaining considerations relate to lateral geochemical or
facies variations.
For this study, two domains are of interest: the Main (MAIN) do-
main was defined on the basis of spatial variations in the Thickness
and Yield, and the non-contiguous Low (LOWTS) domain is based
upon spatial variation of Sulphur. Base maps for Thickness and Yield
within the MAIN domain and Sulphur within LOWTS are shown in
Fig. 3. The figure shows that the attributes are not sampled at all com-
mon locations and also that the three data sets overlap. The test zone
within the overlapping area comprises eight planned longwalls which
each amount to approximately one year of production. Within the
test area, a total of 45 samples exist for Thickness (equating approxi-
mately to a 375 m × 250 m drill spacing), whilst 15 and 16 samples
respectively exist for Yield and Sulphur, equating approximately to
a 500 m × 625 m drill spacing. Fig. 3 reveals a trend of increasing
Thickness from west to east, although this variable is relatively con-
sistent within the test area. The domains defined are considered to
be acceptable for the three geostatistical methods which are tested.
In earth science data sets, variables often have skewed distributions
and are heteroscedastic (i.e., subsets of the data show differences in var-
iability). Where variability (and consequently also estimation error
variance) is related to the local mean this is known as the proportional
effect (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978). Testing for the presence or ab-
sence of skewness and proportional effect is a key prerequisite to the
choice of uncertainty characterization method as they are not properly
accounted for by all of the techniques which are discussed in this paper.
Histograms and statistics for the three variables within entire do-
mains are shown in Fig. 4; statistics for each within the entire domain
and within the test area are shown in Table 1. The histograms indicate
that the three variables are skewed to different extents, although not
markedly so in comparison to other mineral deposits. Yield and Thick-
ness are slightly negatively skewed whereas Sulphur has a more signif-
icant positive skew resulting from localised ‘spikes’ in pyritic Sulphur
and a significantly higher coefficient of variation (CV). Table 1 indicates
that the mean of Thickness in the test area exceeds the entire domain,
but the means of Yield and particularly Sulphur within the test area
are slightly lower than the domain means. The standard deviation of
Sulphur within the test area is also significantly lower than that of the
full LOWTS domain.
A simple test for proportional effect involves analyzing moving win-
dow statistics for the key variables (a 3 km× 3 km moving window was
used in this case). The average value within each window is plotted
against the standard deviation of the data within the window for each
of the three variables in Fig. 5. Windows which contained less than
116 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124

Fig. 1. Regional map showing the Moranbah North Area.

five samples were excluded from the analysis; a higher minimum
would be ideal in the characterization of local variability, but was pre-
cluded in this case by data scarcity.
Fig. 5 indicates that for Thickness and Yield very little dependency
exists between the mean and the standard deviation, this is a state
which is known as homoscedasticity. For Sulphur, however, a relatively
strong positive linear dependency exists (Pearson correlation 0.85):
local variability is greatest in higher grade areas and least in low grade
areas. Sulphur clearly exhibits heteroscedasticity and therefore the
proportional effect should be accounted for in the characterization of
Sulphur uncertainty.
Fig. 6 shows modelled experimental variograms for Thickness,
Yield and Sulphur over the study area. Thickness is the most continu-
ous of the three attributes and exhibits zonal anisotropy with greater
variability in the east–west orientation than the north–south orienta-
tion. It is modelled using a nugget effect, a cubic structure and a
spherical structure. Yield is less continuous modelled using a nugget
effect and two isotropic spherical structures; Sulphur is the least
 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124 117

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic column showing Moranbah Coal Measures.

continuous attribute and is modelled using a nugget effect and single
spherical structure.
1.2.1. Additivity of case study data
Geostatistical methods typically assume that the variables of interest
behave additively (i.e. that the mean calculated through a simple linear
average is unbiased). Sample assays represent a concentration of an
attribute per unit of mass. In coal, attributes are generally measured
over varying seam thicknesses, and therefore sample determinations
represent variable masses. As such some attributes of interest may be
strictly non-additive and an accumulation type approach may be pref-
erable. The authors consider direct approach is acceptable in this case
(i.e. assuming additivity of the attributes, given that the GM seam is
well behaved), but the reader is referred to Bertoli et al. (2003) for
more information on accumulation approaches.
However, certain types of variables may behave non-additivity
even if measured under uniform support or following an accumulation
approach to dealing with variable supports. Coward et al. (2009), pro-
pose a framework within which variables may be classified as either
‘primary’ or ‘response’ depending upon the degree to which the variable
reflects an intrinsic attribute of the rock (‘primary’) or its response to
measurement process (‘response’). The authors argue that response
variables tend to behave non-additively whereas primary variables
can usually be considered as additive. Under this framework, Thickness
118 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124

Fig. 3. Base maps for Thickness and Yield within the MAIN domain and Sulphur within LOWTS. The test area which represents 8 longwall panels is also shown as north-south ori-
entated blocks.

is clearly a primary variable; total Sulphur is a primary variable (although
washed Sulphur would be a response variable); Yield, however, is a
‘response’ variable. For the purpose of this paper Yield was treated as
additive, but for further information on testing additivity of response
variables, and in particular Yield, the reader is referred to Carrasco et al.
(2008).
2. Explanation and implementation of methods
2.1. Global estimation variance
The GEV approach uses the variogram model to make an assess-
ment of how precisely a single sample can be expected to estimate
a 2D block of given dimensions and shape. The variogram model
characterises variance as a function of separation distance (strictly,
vector). In a one sample, one block situation, it is therefore possible to
calculate the expected error variance (or the expected squared error)
incurred when we attempt to estimate the block with a sample. This
result, applying to a single ‘typical’ block, can then be used to infer the
global error variance for a given drillhole spacing (assuming that all
the blocks have a central hole, i.e. regular coverage of drilling and a rect-
angular grid pattern centred on the blocks). The method used to obtain
global estimation variance from the single block estimation variance is
summarised with an example by David (1977).
The GEV method accounts for the geometry of the sample data and
the spatial continuity of the attribute of interest but does not account

Fig. 4. Histograms for Yield, Thickness and Sulphur.

 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124 119

Table 1 [G] Plot this relative precision (expressed as a percentage) vs. the
Statistics for Yield, Thickness and Sulphur within their entire domains and within the dimensions of the sampling grid defined in [A] (which can be
test area.
correlated to a drilling cost for the area).
Area Variable Count Min Max Mean SD CV Skew [H] Repeat for a different grid spacing (which will also imply dif-
Entire domain Thickness 348 4.45 5.95 5.28 0.27 0.051 −0.573 ferent N).
YLD8.5 79 66.40 92.50 83.31 4.59 0.055 −0.901
RTS 96 0.34 0.77 0.45 0.04 0.095 2.978 2.2. Local confidence intervals via the discrete Gaussian model
Test area Thickness 45 4.92 5.95 5.40 0.25 0.046 0.472
YLD8.5 15 66.40 89.00 83.04 5.63 0.068 −1.509
RTS 16 0.41 0.50 0.44 0.02 0.048 1.179 Kriging is an interpolation method that provides the estimated point
or block value (generally block values for resource estimation applica-
tions) and also gives an indication of the local precision of that estimate
for skewness or the proportional effect. The key assumptions of the via the kriging variance (David, 1977). However the kriging variance ac-
method are, firstly, that the domain is relatively statistically homoge- counts only for spatial variability (via the variogram model) and the
neous; i.e., that there are no major trends in the data within a domain geometry of the neighbouring sample data. It is independent of the
and that the variogram is a reasonable representation of behaviour of local data values employed in interpolation and its utility to build
the variable throughout the domain. Secondly, homoscedasticity is confidence intervals requires an assumption that the local error distri-
required. Thirdly, it assumes that the domain has been (or will be) bution is symmetric. In the presence of skewed distributions and pro-
systematically sampled on a regular grid and that the domain shape portional effect, the local error distribution will also be likely to be
matches the sample pattern without geometric effects on the mar- skewed and its variance will be related to the local mean via the propor-
gins. The fourth assumption is that errors are uncorrelated between tional effect; the local distribution of uncertainty therefore cannot be
blocks. fully specified by the kriged estimate and kriging standard deviation
The authors were comfortable with the first assumption within the (see Olea et al., 2011). Local confidence intervals derived from these
test area. The second assumption was met for Thickness and Yield but will therefore be erroneous to some degree. The DGM framework
clearly not for Sulphur (see Fig. 5). The third assumption is considered (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978; Vann and Sans, 1995) can be used to
to be approximately met for the three variables and the authors consid- overcome this difficulty.
er that block size (at the current drill spacing) is sufficient to assume A major advantage of the DGM framework is that, if the variable of
that errors are independent. interest conforms to the properties of the multiGaussian distribution
The GEV approach, as implemented and subsequently shown in (see Goovaerts, 1997), the local estimation error distribution is fully
Fig. 12, can be summarised as follows: specified by the mean and variance of the Simple Kriging (SK); see
Journel and Huijbregts (1978) and Goovaerts (1997). Of course, few
[A] Select or assume grid mesh dimensions X (m) × Y (m) — note earth science data sets in their original (i.e., untransformed) units Zα
that, because we have 1 block per sample in this exercise, the would adhere to multiGaussian properties. Therefore, in practice, a
block dimensions are the same as the sampling grid dimen- prior transform is required to transform data Z to Gaussian values
sions. Y; i.e. (Z → Y). A normal score transform (Z → Y): was performed to
[B] Using the appropriate variogram model, calculate the estima- calculate standard N(0,1) Gaussian values denoted as Yn corresponding
tion variance σe2 when a block of size X (m) × Y (m) is estimat- to each raw data value denoted as Zn. Then the relationship between Yn
ed using one central sample. and Zn was fitted using a summation of Hermite polynomials of Yn, as
[C] Calculate the number N of samples (and therefore blocks) at shown in the formula below:
the specified grid spacing required to cover the area of interest.
[D] Calculate the theoretical variance of estimation of the mean for
X
∞
σ2 Z ¼ φðY Þ ¼ Ψi H i ðY Þ:
the variable of interest over the entire area as σ 2E ¼ Ne .
i¼0
[E] Calculate the equivalent standard deviation σE (i.e. square root
of the calculated variance).
[F] As a first approximation, calculate the relative precision, being The normal score transform does not guarantee that all of the
the ratio of the standard deviation in [E] to the global mean of multiGaussian properties are met by the Gaussian equivalents (Yα)
the variable of interest, calculated from the actual samples in but they can at least be tested to a bivariate level; see Goovaerts
the area): σ E =m . (1997). Assuming the properties of the multiGaussian distribution

Fig. 5. Mean versus standard deviation plots for Thickness, Yield and Sulphur; rho is the Pearson linear correlation coefficient.
120 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124

Fig. 6. Modelled experimental variograms for Thickness (two directions shown: N0 is north, N90 is east), Yield (omnidirectional) and Sulphur (omnidirectional).

are met, a confidence interval on the Gaussian equivalents can be cal- Given this, the Gaussian confidence can be related back to original
culated at unknown locations using the SK mean (YVK) and variance units for blocks.
(σK2): n    o
K K
Pr φr Y V −1:96σ K < φðY V Þ < φr Y V þ 1:96σ K ¼ 95%
n o
K K
Pr Y V −1:96σ K < Y V < Y V þ 1:96σ K ¼ 95%:
In practice the data values are transformed into their Gaussian equiv-
alents and are centred into the blocks to be estimated. An anamorphosis
For points, these confidence intervals can be related back to the orig- model of the transform is fitted and block equivalent calculated. Next the
inal units using the block anamorphosis function introduced above block discretised Gaussian variogram is obtained from the variogram
φ(Y). In order to relate to block values it is necessary to calculate a model in original (Z) units and the block anamorphosis model. A SK
block support correction coefficient r (which is the Pearson correlation estimate and SK standard deviation (σK) is calculated for each block
coefficient between Gaussian points and Gaussian blocks) determined using the centred Gaussian data and the bounds of the 95% confidence
from the variance of blocks to give: intervals are calculated as:
 
K
Z min ¼ φr Y V −1:96σ K
X
∞
i  
Z v ¼ φr ðY v Þ ¼ Ψi r H i ðY v Þ: K
Z max ¼ φr Y V þ 1:96σ K :
i¼0

Fig. 7. 95% confidence intervals for Thickness, Yield and Sulphur using the Discrete Gaussian Model approach; the longwall test area is also shown.
 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124
This approach was introduced by Roth and Armstrong (1996).
Fig. 7 shows the local block 95% confidence intervals for Thickness,
Yield and Sulphur derived using the DGM approach.
2.3. Conditional simulation
CS models (Chilès and Delfiner, 1999; Journel, 1974) consist of
sets of equiprobable, realistically variable, spatial realisations for rel-
evant coal attributes. These realisations are ‘conditional’ in the sense
that they agree with the known but limited drillhole sampling data
from the deposit. CS can also be extended to account for spatial corre-
lations between variables (Conditional Co-Simulation or CCS; Chilès
and Delfiner, 1999).
Importantly, a set of CS realisations collectively constitutes a versa-
tile model of uncertainty which can be interrogated at scales from pro-
duction periods (e.g., annual, quarterly, monthly or weekly) down to
individual Selective Mining Units (SMUs). CS is thus a route to inferring
the uncertainty associated with specific volumes of coal and thus defin-
ing estimation variance.
CS is computationally intensive compared to kriging methods; how-
ever, as previously mentioned, the data lend themselves to two dimen-
sional projections in this case (as is also the case for other coal seams
where there is relatively limited post-depositional folding and faulting).
This means that the generation of simulations was very rapid for this
case study.
There are numerous approaches to CS now available. The two
main approaches used in the mining industry are the Turning Bands
Method (TBM; Journel, 1974) and Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS;
Deutsch and Journel, 1992). In our experience these methods, in their
modern implementations, produce very similar outputs in most situa-
tions. The key commonality is that they both rely upon a multiGaussian
model and a spatial distribution of attributes which can be considered
to reasonably approximate the diffusion model (see Riviorard, 1994;
Vann et al., 2000). In this study we produced the simulations using TBM.
It should also be noted that there is always uncertainty on the pa-
rameters and moments used to build the realisations of a CS model
(for example, uncertainty on the variogram models and histograms
of various attributes). In a comprehensive approach to model uncer-
tainty of mineralisation, such ‘parameter uncertainty’ should be con-
sidered. However, in this simple study we have used ‘best estimates’
of the various parameters required.
As with the DGM approach, confidence intervals derived from CS
are local and account for spatial variability, skewness and any propor-
tional effects which are associated with the variables of interest.
Fig. 8. Comparison of 95% confidence intervals for Thickness derived from 100, 500 and 1000 conditional simulations.
121
In this study, CS realisations were generated for Thickness, Yield and
Sulphur using the TBM algorithm. Declustering of the drillhole data
was carried out using cumulative Ordinary Kriging (OK) weights. This
declustering approach is recommended above other alternatives be-
cause it is the only method which guarantees internal consistency with-
in the multiGaussian algorithms. The ensemble of Gaussian realisations
will feature zero mean on expectation only if the weighting applied to
each sample during initial declustering is equal to the cumulative
weighting that sample receives during the conditioning phase of the
simulation process (which in TBM is by kriging). Given this the ensem-
ble of Gaussian realisations can be back transformed to match the
declustered sample mean on expectation, thus avoiding the introduction
of bias.
2.3.1. Investigation into minimum number of realisations
In order to investigate the impact of choice of number of realisations
used to generate confidence intervals, 1000 realisations were generated
and subsets of 500 and 100 realisations were drawn from these; all
three ensembles of realisations were used to generate 95% confidence
intervals on a block by block basis for Thickness; these are compared
in Fig. 8. There are significant local differences between 95% confidence
intervals derived from 100 and 500 realisations, but no global bias ex-
ists. There is little difference (evident as scatter around the 1:1 line on
the charts) between the 95% confidence intervals derived from 500
and 1000 realisations, in this case therefore a set of 500 realisations
can be considered from a practical viewpoint to adequately characterise
the full probability distribution, but 100 realisations arguably cannot.
For brevity we have shown Thickness results only; a sequence of poten-
tial tests to validate a platform of conditional simulation realisations is
provided by Emery (2008).
3. Comparison between methods
3.1. Local block-by-block comparison
The GEV approach provides global results and therefore cannot be
compared locally against the DGM approach or the CS approach. DGM
and CS, however, can be compared both globally with GEV and locally
with each other. In order to make localised comparisons each of the
125 m × 250 m blocks in the test area has been processed into a one
dimensional time series string which can be considered to represent
a longwall mining sequence across part of the study area (which is
shown in Figs. 3 and 7). The sequence assumes that the eight longwalls
(each representing approximately one year of production) are mined
122 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124

Fig. 9. Comparison of DGM and conditional simulation 95% confidence intervals on Yield over an 8 year mining sequence on a block-by-block basis.

from west to east over an 8 year period with the direction of mining alter-
nating between years. In Figs. 9 to 11 the block-by-block 95% confidence
intervals throughout the sequence derived from conditional simulation
are shown as a grey band, and the minimum and maximum of a 95% con-
fidence interval derived from DGM approach are shown as a dashed black
line series respectively. The comparison between the two methods is
shown for Thickness in Fig. 9, Yield in Fig. 10 and Sulphur in Fig. 11.
In general, at the local level, the comparison is relatively close. For
Thickness the minimum of the DGM 95% confidence interval is gener-
ally marginally lower than that derived from conditional simulation
but is otherwise similar. For Yield the DGM confidence interval mini-
mum and maximum are significantly lower than conditional simula-
tion in year 8 but otherwise match relatively closely.
General similarity between these two approaches is expected, as
are some potential theoretical and practical differences. Both methods
account for sample data geometry, spatial variability, skewness and
heteroscedasticity and both involve broadly similar multiGaussian
assumptions. However the centring of sample data which is required
as part of the DGM approach can result some divergence from the
conditional simulation result. Additional discrepancy between the two
approaches is likely as a result of OK being used in the conditioning
of the CS realisations; this allows for some local departure from
stationarity conditions. DGM, however, requires SK and is consequently
more sensitive to departures from stationarity.
3.2. 8 year production period comparison
The GEV of the three variables at two standard deviations is shown
for drill spacings from 50 m × 50 m to 1000 m × 875 m over the full
8 year production period (representing 4.75 million m 2, as shown
in Figs. 3 and 7) in Fig. 12. In addition each of the CS realisations
were averaged into the same area; the E-type estimate of the
realisations (the block-by-block mean of the realisations) was also
calculated over this area and the difference between each of the
realisations and the E-type calculated. Intervals of 2 standard devia-
tions of the resulting residuals can express confidence intervals, as
are shown in Fig. 12. These are plotted at the equivalent regular
drill spacing (calculated as number of holes/total area) equating to
the conditioning data. The implied confidence interval is labelled on
Fig. 12 as the “global standardised estimation precision”:
.
2σ E
 :
m

Fig. 10. Comparison of DGM and conditional simulation 95% confidence intervals on Thickness over an 8 year mining sequence on a block-by-block basis.
 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124 123

Fig. 11. Comparison of DGM and CS 95% confidence intervals on Sulphur over an 8 year mining sequence on a block-by-block basis.

Fig. 12 indicates that for Yield and Thickness, where the assump-
tions behind the GEV method are reasonably met, GEV provides a
very reasonable approximation of the estimation error provided by
full CS. Crozel and David (1985) presented an alternative GEV approach
using combined kriged error variances of block estimates for both 2D
and 3D situations. In a subsequent commentary on this work, Buxton
(1986) cites his doctoral research (Buxton, 1985) and makes conclu-
sions similar those made here that “…the classical method of composit-
ing extension variances is a perfectly adequate” in many applications
(Buxton, 1986, p694). The classical method referred to by Buxton is ex-
actly the GEV approach as used in this paper.
Probably no easier way exists to calculate global estimation variance.
For Sulphur, where the required GEV assumptions are not met (in par-
ticular the assumption of homoscedasticity), then GEV significantly
over-estimates the estimation variance compared to that derived from
CS. This is undoubtedly due to the proportional effect associated with
Sulphur (the test area is relatively low grade for Sulphur, see Fig. 3).
The authors note that the observed overestimation of uncertainty by
the GEV method is not always guaranteed and that in some circum-
stances an underestimation may occur; the key point being that if a
strong proportional effect exists the utility of results generated by GEV
methods may be compromised.
4. Conclusions
This study indicates that prior testing of the assumptions associat-
ed with each method is critical. Where the required assumptions of
the GEV method are met it provides a reasonable approximation of

Fig. 12. Comparison of global standardised estimation precision derived from global estimation variance (GEV) approach and conditional simulation (CS) for the three variables of
interest over an 8 year production area.
124 A. Cornah et al. / International Journal of Coal Geology 112 (2013) 114–124
full CS, even in a semi-local setting (e.g., for subsets of the coal seam
approximating annual production intervals). Since GEV is conceptually
simple and expeditious, its use should not be excluded in situations
where simple geological seam geometry that can be approximated rea-
sonably in two dimensions and the assumptions and limitations are
likely to be acceptable. The key limitations are that it does not perform
well in the presence of high skewness and proportional effect and that it
only quantifies uncertainty associated with (at best) the semi-locally
estimated mean value.
DGM and CS quantify uncertainty associated with local estimations of
the mean. The DGM approach represents a computational saving over CS
and is applicable to large scale deposits which are modelled in three
dimensions; similar key assumptions underlie both methods. The CS ap-
proach has the most flexibility and also provides a platform for address-
ing many other issues related to coal quality variability, drill spacing, and
blending for example. The price to pay is increased time requirements;
this relates not only to computational time (which in this case was not
significant), but also the manipulation and checking of CS models can
be time consuming for the professionals involved. The DGM approach
should be considered as a viable alternative to CS where the full granular-
ity and flexibility of the latter is not required.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the staff of Anglo American Met-
allurgical Coal for their permission to conduct this work and publish
the results. The original study referred to in the text was conducted
by a team consisting of two of the current authors (John Vann and
Ian Driver) along with Olivier Bertoli (then of Quantitative Group,
now at Geovariances), see Vann et al. (2004). The authors would
also like to thank Michael Harley of Anglo American and Mike Stewart
of Quantitative Group and the two anonymous reviewers; their con-
tributions improved the paper. Any remaining deficiencies are of
course entirely the responsibility of the authors.
References
Bertoli, O., Job, M., Vann, J., Dunham, S., 2003. Two-dimensional geostatistical methods —
theory, practice and a case study from the 1A shoot nickel deposit, Leinster, Western
Australia. Proceedings 5th International Mining Geology Conference. The Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 189–195.
Buxton, B., 1985. Geostatistical determination of the precision of global recoverable
reserve estimates: Ph.D. thesis, Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Stanford
University.
Buxton, B., 1986. Letter to the Editor: global estimation variance. Mathematical Geology
18, 693–696.
Carrasco, P., Chilès, J.P., Segurét, S., 2008. Additivity, metallurgical recovery and grade.
Proceedings Eight International Geostatistical Congress, pp. 237–246.
Chilès, J., Delfiner, P., 1999. Geostatistics — Modelling Spatial Uncertainty. John Wiley
and Sons, New Jersey.
Coward, S., Vann, J., Dunham, S., Stewart, M., 2009. The primary-response framework
for geometallurgical variables. Proceedings 7th International Mining Geology Confer-
ence. The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 109–113.
Crozel, D., David, M., 1985. Global estimation variance: formulas and calculation.
Mathematical Geology 17, 785–796.
David, M., 1977. Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Amsterdam.
Deutsch, C.V., Journel, A.G., 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's
Guide. Oxford University Press, New York.
Diessel, C.F.K., 1999. An Assessment of the Zone of Coal Deterioration at Moranbah North
Mine Based on Petrographic Analyses. Consultant Report Prepared for Anglo Coal
Australia Pty Ltd.
Emery, X., 2008. Statistical tests for validating geostatistical simulation algorithms.
Computers and Geosciences 34, 1610–1620.
Faliven, O., Cabrera, L., Sáez, A., 2007. Optimum and robust 3D facies interpolation strat-
egies in a heterogeneous coal zone (Tertiary As Pontes basin, NW Spain). Internation-
al Journal of Coal Geology 71, 185–208.
Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation (Applied Geostatistics
Series). Oxford University Press, New York.
Heriawan, M.N., Koike, K., 2008a. Identifying spatial heterogeneity of coal resource
quality in a multilayer coal deposit by multivariate geostatistics. International
Journal of Coal Geology 73, 307–330.
Heriawan, M.N., Koike, K., 2008b. Uncertainty assessment of coal tonnage by spatial
modeling of seam distribution and coal quality. International Journal of Coal
Geology 76, 217–226.
Journel, A., 1974. Geostatistics for the conditional simulation of ore bodies. Economic
Geology 69, 673–688.
Journel, A.G., Huijbregts, C.J., 1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, London.
Karacan, C.Ö., Olea, R.A., Goodman, G., 2012. Geostatistical modeling of the gas emission
ozone and its in-place gas content for Pittsburgh-seam mines using sequential Gauss-
ian simulation. International Journal of Coal Geology 90–91, 50–71.
Laws, A.J., Bos, F., 2000. Moranbah North and Grosvenor geological review (6 Volumes).
Shell Coal Unpublished Company Report Dated June 2000. Anglo Coal ref: CR3448
MN/GV (01).
Michaelsen, P., Henderson, R.A., 2000. Facies relationships and cyclicity of high-
latitude, late Permian coal measures, Bowen Basin, Australia. International Journal
of Coal Geology 44, 19–48.
Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M., 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in
Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Olea, R.A., Luppens, J.A., Tewalt, S.J., 2011. Methodology for quantifying uncertainty in
coal assessments with an application to a Texas lignite deposit. International
Journal of Coal Geology 85, 78–90.
Riviorard, J., 1994. Introduction to Disjunctive Kriging and Non-Linear Geostatistics.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Roth, C., Armstrong, M., 1996. Confidence intervals for local estimation: application to
the Witwatersrand basin. In: Ramani, R.V. (Ed.), 26th Proceedings of the Applica-
tion of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry, APCOM'96.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, USA.
Vann, J., Sans, H., 1995. Global resource estimation and change of support at the Enter-
prise gold mine, Pine Creek, Northern Territory: application of the geostatistical
Discrete Gaussian model. Proceedings of APCOM XXV Conference, Brisbane,
Queensland, 9-14 July, 1995. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Melbourne, pp. 171–180.
Vann, J., Guibal, D., Harley, M., 2000. Multiple indicator kriging — is it suited to my deposit?
Proceedings of the 4th International Mining Geology Conference, Coolum, Queensland.
The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Parkville, pp. 171–179.
Vann, J., Bertoli, O., Driver, I., 2004. Geostatistical resource management: Assessment of
clean coal quality and classification guidelines based on a Moranbah North case
study. Anglo Coal Australia Pty.Ltd., Unpublished Report Dated April 2004.
Wackernagel, H., 2003. Multivariate Geostatistics: An Introduction with Applications,
3rd edition. Springer, Berlin.