Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping

AER/AGS Special Report 101Three-Dimensional Geological MappingWorkshop Extended AbstractsGeological Society of America Annual MeetingBaltimore, Maryland – October 31, 2015Conveners:Kelsey MacCormack, Harvey Thorleifson,Richard Berg, and Hazen Russell

AER/AGS Special Report 101Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping:Workshop Extended AbstractsK.E. MacCormack1, L.H. Thorleifson2, R.C. Berg3, and H.A.J. Russell4 lberta Energy RegulatorAAlberta Geological Survey2Minnesota Geological Survey3Illinois State Geological Survey4Geological Survey of Canada1October 2015

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2015ISBN 978-1-4601-0152-0The Alberta Energy Regulator/Alberta Geological Survey (AER/AGS), its employees and contractorsmake no warranty, guarantee or representation, express or implied, or assume any legal liability regardingthe correctness, accuracy, completeness or reliability of this publication. Any references to proprietarysoftware and/or any use of proprietary data formats do not constitute endorsement by AER/AGS of anymanufacturer’s product.If you use information from this publication in other publications or presentations, please acknowledgethe AER/AGS. We recommend the following reference format:MacCormack, K.E., Thorleifson, L.H., Berg, R.C. and Russell, H.A.J. (2015): Three-DimensionalGeological Mapping: Workshop Extended Abstracts; Geological Society of America AnnualMeeting, Baltimore, Maryland, Octover 31, 2015; Alberta Energy Regulator, AER/AGS SpecialReport 101, 99 p.Published October 2015 by:Alberta Energy RegulatorAlberta Geological Survey4th Floor, Twin Atria Building4999 – 98th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6B 422.1459AGS-Info@aer.cawww.ags.gov.ab.ca AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015)

ContentsAgenda. viIntroduction.1Rationale and Methods for Regional 3D Geological Mapping Programs.3Building Information Modelling (BIM) – A Route for Geological Models to Have Real World Impact.13National-Scale 3D Mapping – What Approach Might Be Feasible For The United States?.19A Perspective on a Three Dimensional Framework for Canadian Geology.21From wallflower to eye-catcher: 3D geological modelling in Switzerland – more than XYZ,less than a Swiss Army knife.33Geological 3D Modeling Of Large Plains In Italy: Basin Analysis, Active Faults,And Characterization Of Uncertainties.39Modelling The Geological Structure Of Poland – Approach, Recent Results And Roadmap.45A modelling strategy to develop a regional Quaternary geological model across rural andurban areas and administrative borders using existing geological information.51Attributing Groundwater Withdrawals To Aquifers Using 3-D Geological Maps In Delaware, USA.573DT – Constructing A Subsurface Geologic Model Of Texas.63A National 3D Geological Model Of Denmark: Condensing More Than 125 Years Of GeologicalMapping.71Analyzing Lithological And Grain-Size Trends Using A 3D Voxel Model: A Case Study FromThe Holocene Rhine-Meuse Delta.79Systematic Geomodeling: What Does It Actually Imply?.833-D Geological Modelling at the OGS – Products and Applications .89Characterizing Alberta’s subsurface in 3D – exploring innovative solutions to enhancecommunication of geoscience information to stakeholders and provide decision support .95AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015) v

AgendaStartEndMinSpeaker, Affiliation8:008:1010INTRODUCTIONS8:108:3020Harvey Thorleifson, MinnesotaGeological Survey8:308:5020Holger Kessler, British Geological Survey Building Information Modelling (BIM) – a route forgeological models to have real world impact8:509:0010Discussion9:009:2020David R. Soller, U. S. Geological SurveyNational-Scale 3D Mapping -- What Approach Might BeFeasible For The United States?9:209:4020Hazen A.J. Russell, Geological Survey ofCanadaA Perspective on a Three Dimensional Framework forCanadian 10:3520Roland Baumberger, Swiss GeologicalSurveyFrom wallflower to eye-catcher: 3d geological modellingin Switzerland – more than XYZ, less than a SwissArmy knife10:3510:5520Chiara D’Ambrogi, Servizio Geologicod'ItaliaGeological 3D modeling of large plains in Italy:basin analysis, active faults, and characterization arta Tomaszczyk, Polish GeologicalInstituteModelling the Geological Structure of Poland –Approach, Recent Results, and Roadmap11:2511:4520Martin Ross, University of WaterlooA Modelling Strategy to Develop a Regional QuaternaryGeological Model Across Rural and Urban Areas andAdministrative Borders Using Existing :0060LUNCH13:0013:1010Discussion13:1013:3020Peter P. McLaughlin, DelawareGeological SurveyAttributing Groundwater Withdrawals to Aquifers Using3-D Geological Maps in Delaware, USA13:3013:5020Sean C. Murphy, Bureau of EconomicGeology3DT – Constructing a Subsurface Geologic Model ofTexas13:5014:0010Discussion14:0014:2020Peter B.E. Sandersen, Geological Survey A National 3D Geological Model of Denmark:of Denmark and Greenlandcondensing more than 125 years of geological mapping14:2014:4020Jan Stafleu, Geological Survey of EAK15:2015:4020Michiel J. van der Meulen, GeologicalSurvey of the NetherlandsSystematic Geomodeling: What Does it Actually Imply?15:4016:0020Abigail Burt, Ontario Geological Survey3-D Geological Modelling at the OGS – Products andApplications16:0016:2020Kelsey MacCormack, Alberta GeologicalSurveyCharacterizing Alberta’s Subsurface in 3D – ExploringInnovative Solutions to Enhance Communication ofGeoscience Information to Stakeholders and ProvideDecision Support16:2016:4020Discussion16:4017:0020Wrap upvi AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015)Title of PresentationRationale and Methods for Regional 3D GeologicalMapping ProgramsAnalyzing Lithological and Grain-Size Trends Usinga 3D Voxel Model: A Case Study From the HoloceneRhine-Meuse Delta

IntroductionK.E. Maccormack1, L.H.Thorleifson2, R.C. Berg3, and H.A.J. Russell4Alberta Geological SurveyMinnesota Geological Survey3Illinois State Geological Survey4Geological Survey of Canada12AbstractThe objective of this year’s 3D workshop is to bring experiences and knowledgeable people from all overthe world to share advances in their 3D mapping and modelling programs, and discuss future strategies.This is the 9th 3D Geological Mapping Workshop as part of a series that began in 2001. These workshopscontinue to provide opportunities for geologists and geoscience organizations from around the world tocongregate and share information on methods for constructing, visualizing, and delivering jurisdictionalscale 3D models to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders. This event also provides an excellentopportunity to engage international experts in the field to strategize on the future of 3D mappinginitiatives.This year the GSA is honouring the bicentennial of William Smith’s revolutionary map, we will also takea look back at the past, present, and speculate on the future of 3-D mapping.Past – where have we been?Looking back to the geological maps produced by William Smith 200 years ago, the cross-section viewson his map to give users an appreciation of the third dimension. Early 3D mapping workshops hostedspeakers focussing on necessity for developing stratigraphic framework models at a variety of scales,and the benefits of using these models to support hydrostratigraphic modelling efforts. As such, it wascommon for geoscience organizations to develop numerous models for a particular region, each for aseparate purpose or objective function in mind.Present - where are we now?It has been 14 years since the first 3D mapping workshop (hosted in 2001), and we have seen thetalks evolve from how to generate surfaces and access data suitable for building models, to talks onsophisticated, systematic modelling workflows capable of accounting for data quality, optimizing modeloutput, and providing estimates of model uncertainty.Models are typically constructed much earlier in the project lifecycle to assist with communicationbetween interdisciplinary teams, and as a means to integrate and catalogue vast amounts of data andinformation. Speakers increasingly refer to their models as multi-purpose, as they are able to integratemore and more data into their models, turning them into 3D data repositories. This has resulted in anoverall reduction in the number of jurisdictional scale models that are being built, with a much greateremphasis on data and information integration. Now that many organizations are focused on maintainingfewer models, they can focus their efforts on updating select models with new information to improvemodel accuracy and/or add additional resolution and detail to reflect the current subsurface understanding.This increased focus and efficiency of model updates has allowed static geological models to appeardynamic as they evolve, reflecting developments in our subsurface understanding over time.AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015) 1

Technological advances in modelling hardware and software have allowed current models to ingest vastamounts of data, and in turn, the models themselves are generating numerous realizations, scenarios,and information that must all be catalogued and stored. Although data management has always beenimportant, society now expects to be able to access, view, manipulate, query, and download huge amountsof data at the touch of a button. Many of the talks in this workshop discuss the challenges of dealing withexceptionally large datasets, and the need for improved information dissemination mechanisms.Future – Where are we going?The demand for 3D models has been steadily increasing, and this trend will likely continue for quitesome time. Many jurisdictions are requiring 3D models to assist with decision making and for policydevelopment. Three-dimensional models are increasingly being used to facilitate stakeholder engagementand improve access to open data in a timely manner. In support of these initiatives, jurisdictions aretransitioning from building separate models for specific uses, to building a single multi-disciplinary modelthat can be used for multiple uses. This will promote continual development of primary, multi-disciplinarymodels that will be designed to adapt and evolve over time. These developments will likely have cost andstaff resourcing implications for geoscience organizations needing to find ways to integrate increasingamounts of data, and build models more efficiently. As a result, we will likely see more organizationspush towards the development of systematic and semi-automated workflows allowing models to beupdated with new data and information, and disseminated to stakeholders in a timelier manner. We willalso likely see an increasing trend towards more interactive data dissemination methods, providingusers with the ability to choose the information they are interested in visualizing, and view it within aninteractive 3D geological context. Rather than provide users with maps or images of the information wethink they would like to see, dissemination tools will continue to develop allowing users to interact andaccess a wide variety of information in a timely manner. This will allow geoscience organizations to morereadily adapt to changing requirements, and meet user needs.SummaryAt this year’s 3D workshop, the focus will be on how various geoscience organizations and their partnersare characterizing subsurface strata in 3D space at a variety of scales for multi-disciplinary analysis, anddeveloping dissemination mechanisms to communicate data and information to a variety of stakeholders.Extended abstracts and presentations from all workshops are available on the Illinois State GeologicalSurvey web site.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank: 2Our presenters and their employers, for agreeing to share their experience and progressIllinois State Geological Survey staff for maintaining the workshop series websiteReviewers and editors of the extended abstract volumesGeological Society of America for agreeing to host this workshop AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015)

AER/AGS Special Report 101 (October 2015) 1 Introduction K.E. Maccormack1, L.H.Thorleifson2, R.C. Berg3, and H.A.J. Russell4 1 Alberta Geological Survey 2 Minnesota Geological Survey 3 Illinois State Geological Survey 4 Geological Survey of Canada Abstract The objective of this year’s 3D workshop is to