Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-377
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-377

Submitted as: methods for assessment of models 07 Jan 2022

Submitted as: methods for assessment of models | 07 Jan 2022

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

loopUI-0.1: uncertainty indicators to support needs and practices in 3D geological modelling uncertainty quantification

Guillaume Pirot1,2, Ranee Joshi1,2, Jérémie Giraud1,2,3, Mark Douglas Lindsay1,2,4,5, and Mark Walter Jessell1,2,4 Guillaume Pirot et al.
  • 1The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
  • 2Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
  • 3GeoRessources Lab, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France
  • 4ARC Industrial Transformation and Training Centre in Data Analytics for Resources and the Environment (DARE), Sydney, Australia
  • 5CSIRO Mineral Resources, Perth, Australia

Abstract. To support the needs of practitioners regarding 3D geological modelling and uncertainty quantification in the field, in particular from the mining industry, we propose a Python package called loopUI-0.1 that provides a set of local and global indicators to measure uncertainty and features dissimilarities among an ensemble of voxet models. Results are presented of a survey launched among practitioners in the mineral industry, enquiring about their modelling and uncertainty quantification practice and needs. It reveals that practitioners acknowledge the importance of uncertainty quantification even if they do not perform it. Four main factors preventing practitioners to perform uncertainty quantification were identified: lack of data uncertainty quantification, (computing) time requirement to generate one model, poor tracking of assumptions and interpretations, relative complexity of uncertainty quantification. The paper reviews and proposes solutions to alleviate these issues. Elements of an answer to these problems are already provided in the special issue hosting this paper and more are expected to come.

Guillaume Pirot et al.

Status: open (until 04 Mar 2022)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse

Guillaume Pirot et al.

Guillaume Pirot et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 174 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
132 38 4 174 2 2
  • HTML: 132
  • PDF: 38
  • XML: 4
  • Total: 174
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 2
Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jan 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jan 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 189 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 189 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 27 Jan 2022
Download
Short summary
Results of a survey launched among practitioners in the mineral industry show that despite recognizing the importance of uncertainty quantification it is not very well performed due to lack of data, time requirements, poor tracking of interpretations and relative complexity of uncertainty quantification. To alleviate the latter, we provides an open-source set of local and global indicators to measure geological uncertainty among an ensemble of geological models.