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

Abstract

Most greenfields mineral exploration projects involve a process of testing targets that have been selected on the basis of geoscientific data. Although this data can be used to rank targets, questions still arise as to how many targets should be tested before the area is dropped. This paper addresses this question with a probabilistic model of the exploration process and illustrates the method with a geophysical example.

The model is governed by the target and background distributions of the variable used to rank targets, various economic parameters and two geologically determined probabilities. It generates Expected Value, Probability of Success and Return on Investment (ROI) for a range of possible project budgets showing where each is maximized. It is argued that a lower and upper limit for the number of tests to be undertaken can be defined in terms of this model. The lower limit, called the Equal Opportunity Truncation point, occurs where the ROI is maximized and is relevant when other equally attractive prospects are available. The upper limit, called the Economic Truncation point, occurs when the Expected Value is maximized.

The kimberlite exploration case study illustrates a new method of estimating the target distribution using magnetic modelling and shows how the probabilistic model could have been used to budget this exploration project.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2018abW9_2D
2018-12-01
2026-01-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barnett, C.T., and Williams, P.M., 2006, Mineral exploration using modern data mining techniques: Society of Economic Geologists, Special Publication 12, 295-310.
  2. Bonham-Carter, G., 1994, Geographic information systems for geoscientists: Pergamon.
  3. Green. A. and Hunter, D., 2004, AEM Target detection in geological noise: Extended Abstracts, 17th ASEG Conference Sydney, August 2004.
  4. Green. A., 2004, Exploration, risk and the value of geophysics: Extended Abstracts, 17th ASEG Conference Sydney, August 2004.
  5. Hronsky, J.M., and Groves, D.I., 2008, Science of targeting: definition, strategies, targeting and performance measurement: Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 55, 3-12.
  6. Kreuzer, O.P., Etheridge, M.A., Guj, P., McMahon, M.E., and Holden, D.J., 2008, Linking mineral deposit models to quantitative risk analysis and decision-making in exploration: Economic Geology, 103, 829-850.
  7. Makenzie, B. 1989, Economic guidelines for gold exploration: Australian Mineral Foundation Course Notes 628/89.
  8. Porwal A.K. and Kreuzer, O.P., 2010, Introduction to the special issue: Mineral prospectivity analysis and quantitative resource estimation: Ore Geology Reviews, 38, 121-127.
  9. Scharf, L.L., 1990, Statistical signal processing: Addison-Wesley.
  10. Singer, D.A., and Kouda, R., 1999a, A comparison of the weights of evidence method and probabilistic neural networks: Natural Resources Research, 8, 287-298.
  11. Singer, D.A., and Kouda, R., 1999b, Examining risk in mineral exploration: Natural Resources Research, 8, 111-122.
  12. Singh, S.K. and Sabina, J.S., 1978, Magnetic anomaly due to a vertical right cylinder with arbitrary polarization: Geophysics, 43, 173-178.
  13. Smith, J.L., 2005, Petroleum prospect valuation: The option to drill again: The Energy Journal, 26, 53-68.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2018abW9_2D
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Mineral exploration. Expected Value; Return on Investment; ROC curve
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