mining 2023

Adaptive Drilling Optimisation Platform

Global mining major

ML comparison framework with GP, BNN, and ensemble methods achieving ~40% sampling cost reduction through uncertainty-driven placement.

~40%
Cost reduction
4+
ML methods compared
6
Sampling strategies

Context

Exploration drilling is one of the largest costs in mining. Traditional grid-based sampling ignores what’s already been learned — placing holes at uniform intervals whether the geology is well-understood or completely unknown.

Problem

  • Redundant samples: Budget spent where uncertainty is already low
  • Coverage gaps: Faults, intrusions, and complex geology under-sampled
  • No feedback loop: Strategy doesn’t adapt to collected data
  • Model uncertainty ignored: All samples treated as equally valuable

What We Built

Multi-Model ML Pipeline

Implemented four approaches for ore grade prediction, each with uncertainty quantification:

  • Gaussian Processes: GPFlow with Matern52/RBF kernels — best on smooth geological variations
  • Bayesian Neural Networks: TensorFlow Probability, 3×128 layers with MC sampling — handles complex non-linear patterns
  • Random Forest Ensembles: 100-500 trees with inter-tree variance — fast, robust to outliers
  • Deep Ensembles: Multiple BNNs with aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty decomposition — most reliable confidence estimates

Synthetic Data Generation

Built a configurable geology simulator for algorithm validation:

  • 14 geological patterns: Layered deposits, fault displacements, ore body intrusions, vein systems, fractal variations
  • 8 noise models: Measurement error, outliers, missing data, spatial correlation
  • Parametric control: Tune complexity to match real deposit characteristics

Adaptive Sampling Engine

Six sampling strategies with head-to-head comparison:

  • Uniform grid (baseline)
  • Random / stratified random
  • Space-filling curves (spiral, Hilbert)
  • Uncertainty-driven adaptive: Next sample placed where model is least confident
  • Along-feature: Follows predicted geological boundaries

3D Drill Data Integration

  • Spatial coordinates with depth profiles
  • Iron content assays (Fe_PPM)
  • Surface elevation interpolation
  • Handles missing/erroneous measurements

Uncertainty Quantification

  • Confidence intervals with calibration validation
  • Aleatoric (inherent noise) vs epistemic (reducible with more data) decomposition
  • Real-time uncertainty maps showing where to drill next

Results

  • ~40% cost reduction for equivalent geological model confidence
  • Adaptive strategy outperforms grid across all sample densities
  • Largest gains in complex geology (faults, intrusions)
  • Well-calibrated uncertainty estimates across all methods

Technical Stack

GPFlow, TensorFlow Probability, scikit-learn, NumPy/SciPy, GeoPandas, Matplotlib


Work conducted with a top-3 global mining company; specific data anonymized.

Client details anonymized; some numbers approximated.

Want similar results?

Let's discuss how we can help with your specific challenge.