1887
1st Australasian Exploration Geoscience Conference – Exploration Innovation Integration
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Most currently constructed 3D geological models are to a first order the result of transformations of data with different dimensionality into 3D:

  • 0D (e.g. outcrop data, at the regional scale),
  • 1D (e.g. drill hole data, at the mine scale),
  • 2D data (e.g. satellite data, at the regional scale) or
  • 3D data (e.g. seismic data, when high resolution 3D geophysical data are available, such as in basins),
  • 4D models (3D evolutions with time).

The datasets used to project between dimensions vary according to the scenario, however they generally consist of a mixture of 0D observations and local temporal or spatial relationships (their topology). Modern software systems are able to use a sub-set of these relationships (fault-stratigraphy relationships for example) to build 3D geological models, however the relationships are not typically used as an independent constraint on how much of the 3D model is constrained by observations, and how much is generated by the end user (or the algorithms they use).

This study explores the relationships between topological observations in 1, 2 and 3D in order to better understand how these may be used in the future as inputs to a revised 3D modelling workflow. We have investigated both synthetic cases, where we have full control, and natural examples, which permit alternate hypotheses. This approach has potential relevance to mine-scale and regional 3D models where the 3D topologies are poorly defined by the existing data, but 1D and 2D constraints are available.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2018abW10_3D
2018-12-01
2026-01-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Burns, K., 1975. Analysis of geological events. J. Int. Assoc. Math. Geol. 7, 295-321.
  2. Burns, K., Shepherd, J., Marshall, B., 1978. Analysis of Relational Data from Metamorphic Tectonites; Derivation of Deformation Sequences from Overprinting Relations. Recent Advances in Geomathematics, Pergamon New York, NY, pp. 171-199.
  3. Burns, K.L., 1981. Retrieval of tectonic process models from geologic maps and diagrams. In: Proc. GIS. Geoscience Information Society, pp. 105-111.
  4. Eidsvik, J., Mukerji, T., Bhattacharya, D. 2016. Value of Information in the Earth Sciences : Integrating Spatial Modeling and Decision Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 396 pp.
  5. Giraud, J., Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Jessell, M.W., Lindsay, M.D., Martin, R., Ogarko, V. 2017. Uncertainty reduction through spatially conditioned petrophysical constraints in joint inversion. In Press Geophysics.
  6. Jaccard, P., 1901. Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et du Jura. Impr. Corbaz.
  7. Perrouty, S., Lindsay, M. D., Jessell, M. W., Ailleres, L., Martin, R., & Bourassa, Y. 2014. 3D modeling of the Ashanti Belt, southwest Ghana: Evidence for a litho-stratigraphic control on gold occurrences within the Birimian Sefwi Group. Ore Geology Reviews, 63, 252-264.
  8. Potts, G.J., Reddy, S.M., 1999. Construction and systematic assessment of relative deformation histories. J. Struct. Geol. 21, 12451253.
  9. Thiele, S.T., Jessell, M.W., Lindsay, M. Wellmann, F., Pakyuz-Charrier, E. 2016. The Topology of Geology 1: Topological Analysis. Journal of Structural Geology, 91, 27-38.
  10. Thiele, S.T., Jessell, M.W., Lindsay, M., Wellmann, F., Pakyuz-Charrier, E. 2016. The Topology of Geology 2: Topological Uncertainty. Journal of Structural Geology, 91, 74-87.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2018abW10_3D
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D geological modelling; Topology; Value of Information
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error