AER/AGS Special Report 112: Chapter 28: Global 3D ...the Great Lakes (Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), and it changed its name to the Great Lakes Geologic Mapping

Chapter 28: Global 3D Mapping and Modelling CoordinationInitiatives

Holger Kessler1, Keith Turner2, Richard C. Berg3, and Hazen A.J. Russell4

1 British Geological Survey, Environmental Science Centre, Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, UK;[email protected]

2 Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden USA3 Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 615 East Peabody

Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA; [email protected] Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth St. Ottawa, ON K1A 7E8, [email protected]

Kessler, H., Turner, K., Berg, R.C., and Russell, H.A.J. 2019. Global 3D mapping and modelling coordination initiatives; Chapter 28 in2019 Synopsis of Current Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping and Modelling in Geological Survey Organizations, K.E. MacCormack,R.C. Berg, H. Kessler, H.A.J. Russell, and L.H. Thorleifson (ed.), Alberta Energy Regulator / Alberta Geological Survey, AER/AGS Spe-cial Report 112, p. 294–301.

Introduction

The focus of this Synopsis is on the

activities and methodologies of geo-

logical survey organisations within

their jurisdictions. As described in

Part 2 of this volume, the approaches

and outputs vary in each GSO for

multiple reasons including political

and economical drivers, geological

survey evolution, their place in gov-

ernment, complexity of the geological

environment, and availability and

type of baseline data. This chapter

presents initiatives that cross bound-

aries. Despite their justified inward

looking focus, GSOs and their staff

have been working across boundaries

for several decades often in conjunc-

tion with staff from academic and

professional associations. This chap-

ter aims to give an inventory of these

projects and initiatives to demonstrate

that science and geology does not

stop at political and continental

boundaries and that honest knowledge

exchange is crucial to advance our

understanding of our planet and the

processes acting within and upon it.

International projects and initiatives

fall into three broad categories:

• Advancement of science and tech-

nology through knowledge ex-

change and research projects

• Solving a particular cross-border

scientific, resource, or regulatory

issue

• Development of regional or inter-

national standards and best prac-

tice

Advancement ofScience and Technology

In the late 1980s, the Deutsche

Forschungsgemeinschaft (German

Research Foundation) sponsored an

extensive research program entitled

“Digital Geoscientific Mapping”

(Vinken, 1986) which involved many

German research teams and supported

two International Colloquia – the first

at Dinkelsbühl in 1985 (Vinken,

1988), and the second at Würzburg in

1986 (Vinken, 1992). These colloquia

included participants from the USA,

the UK, and several western Euro-

pean countries, but the knowledge of

this project was not widespread. After

recognizing that much 3D modelling

research was being undertaken in par-

allel by small groups without the ben-

efit of any forum for exchanging

ideas, Raper (1989) published a small

collection of 3D modelling topics that

had been presented in 1988 at

multiple North American and

European conferences.

The first international conference de-

voted to applications of 3D geological

modelling was held at Santa Barbara,

California on 10-15 December 1989

(Turner, 1991). The NATO Science

Committee and the USGS financially

supported this conference; it also re-

ceived significant logistical support

from software and hardware suppliers

and from the National Center for

Geographical Information Analysis

located at the University of California

at Santa Barbara. About 60 partici-

pants representing the majority of the

NATO countries attended.

The Santa Barbara conference initi-

ated a long history of successful co-

operation amongst geologists and

technologists to advance methodolo-

gies related to geological mapping

and modelling. Several participants

modified the focus of their planned

October 1990 conference in Freiburg,

Germany to emphasize geological

modelling topics (Pflug and

Harbaugh, 1992). This became the

first venue to further explore 3D re-

search and technical advances. The

European Science Foundation agreed

to sponsor a series of three work-

shops; these were held in Italy in

1992, the UK in 1996, and The Neth-

erlands in 1997. Each workshop fo-

cused on different aspects of a com-

mon modelling theme (European

Science Foundation, 1992, 1996,

1997). While they served as valuable

sources of communication among

members of the geological modelling

community, there were no published

records of their deliberations.

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 294

By the mid-1990s, the role of 3D

models as a part of groundwater re-

source modelling became an impor-

tant research topic. The International

Commission on Groundwater of the

International Association of Hydro-

logical Sciences (IAHS), with support

from the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) organized two interna-

tional conferences held in Vienna,

Austria. Proceedings for both these

conferences were subsequently

published (Kovar and. Nachtnebel,

1993, 1996).

In 2001, the European Science Foun-

dation agreed to sponsor one addi-

tional workshop which addressed the

importance of modelling the shallow

subsurface for developing subsurface

infrastructure and environmental as-

sessment (European Science Founda-

tion, 2001). The proceedings of this

workshop were formally published

(Rosenbaum and Turner, 2003).

Dedicated workshops and sessions on

3D geological modelling are part of

three prominent international

geoscience conferences 1) Geological

Society of America annual meetings

(https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/

Events/Future_Annual_Meetings/

GSA/Events/Annual_Meeting.aspx),

2) annual European Geoscience Un-

ion meetings (https://www.egu.eu/

meetings/) and, 3) annual American

Geophysical Union meetings (https://

meetings.agu.org/).

The latter two have a slightly more

academic focus, whereas the GSA

meetings offer more opportunities on

applied aspects of geology and there-

fore are the usual home of Three-Di-

mensional Geological Mapping

Workshops (http://isgs.illinois.edu/

three-dimensional-geological-map-

ping). Since 2001, North American

and European geologists have at-

tended, on a biennial schedule, this

series of special workshops (a total

of 10) which provide a unique inter-

national forum for exchange of best

practices and innovation of 3D geo-

logical modelling methodologies and

applications. The Illinois State Geo-

logical Survey maintains an online re-

source for all of the presentations at

these workshops (https://www.isgs.il-

linois.edu/three-dimensional-geologi-

cal-mapping). These workshops allow

the 3D community to present and ex-

change ideas. This has not only as-

sured the continued improvement of

processes in the individual GSOs, but

also has led to countless bi-lateral re-

search projects and ultimately to the

publication of this Synopsis and its

previous version (Berg et al., 2011).

In 2011, a group of European partici-

pants at the Geological Society of

America meeting in Minneapolis

(http://www.geosociety.org/) decided

to establish an equivalent European

3D geological modelling community

to help coordinate and exchange in-

formation among the geological sur-

veys of Europe. Its mission is to “ex-

change progress, problems and

solutions in our common quest to un-

derstand and communicate the 3D

composition and properties of the

subsurface to support science–based

decision making”. Meetings have

been held at Utrecht in 2013, Edin-

burgh in 2014, Wiesbaden in 2016,

Orléans in 2018, and Bern in 2019. A

website contains the presentations,

abstracts, and some images from

those meetings (http://

www.3dgeology.org/).

Together the members of these groups

make up a highly innovative, collabo-

rative, technically diverse, strategic,

and inspiring group of geoscientists

from around the world working to-

gether and motivating each other to

push the boundaries of multi-dimen-

sional geospatial modelling

(K. MacCormack, pers. comm.,

2019).

Cross-BorderCooperation to Solve aParticular Resource,Regulatory orGeoscience Question

In the 2011 Synopsis there were nu-

merous mentions that cross-border

collaborative 3D modelling projects

would be beneficial. As of 2019 many

of these projects that were at the con-

cept phase in 2011 have been success-

fully completed, are proving to have a

positive impact, and are positively

resonating

One of the first cross-border initia-

tives, with a particular focus on the

need to understand the Quaternary de-

posits for groundwater management is

the Central Great Lakes Geologic

Mapping Coalition (Berg et al.,

2016). It was formed in the late 1990s

by the state geological surveys of Illi-

nois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio

and the U.S. Geological Survey. In

2008, the Coalition expanded to in-

clude four additional states bordering

the Great Lakes (Minnesota, New

York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin),

and it changed its name to the Great

Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition. It

expanded again in 2012 by adding the

Ontario Geological Survey. These

eight U.S. states and one Canadian

province have similar geologic condi-

tions and common societal issues

about land and water resources, the

environment, and geologic hazards

that required immediate attention with

a focus on 3D mapping and model-

ling. By integrating their expertise

and resources, geological surveys are

addressing these issues more effec-

tively than could any one agency. The

Great Lakes Geological Mapping Co-


alition was a seed corn for the

establishment of the Three-

Dimensional Geological Mapping

Workshops mentioned above.

The Geological Survey of Canada

(GSC) has developed a national 3D

mapping initiative in collaboration

with provincial and territorial surveys

through the National Geological Sur-

veys Committee (NGSC). The na-

tional committee provides guidance

and coordination between the 10 pro-

vincial and three territorial geological

surveys and the GSC. A recent project

initiated by the GSC called Canada-

3D aims to develop a 3D geological

model and associated knowledge-base

for the approximately 17,000,000 km2

of the Canadian onshore and offshore

subsurface. It is anticipated that Can-

ada-3D will become the authoritative

state of knowledge for the geology of

Canada at a national scale. It is a re-

sponse to shifting scientific methods

and emerging opportunities that fa-

vour digital techniques, as well as a

response to the demands of a Cana-

dian government open data strategy

as well as global open data concerns.

Canada-3D is also developing collab-

orative trans-boundary initiatives with

the United States to provide as seam-

less coverage as possible between the

two nations along their common very

lengthy border. Such rationalization

and synchronization already have

been initiated through a variety of

project scale initiatives, in part to sup-

port groundwater and surface water

management of transboundary aqui-

fers (Canada). Initial national scale

modelling is focused on a three-layer

model of the surficial, bedrock, and

mantle layers along with

consolidation of surface bedrock and

surficial geological mapping.

Several initiatives in Europe are

worth highlighting as they show how

the beginnings of a promising collab-

orative work-driven initiative that is

directed by user needs and

requirements.

Various stakeholders in the Nether-

lands, Flanders (northern Belgium),

and north-west Germany expressed

the need to harmonize the (hydro)

geological models in the shared bor-

der region. Accordingly, the H3O

project was initiated in March 2012

with the aim to produce cross-border,

up-to-date, three-dimensional geolog-

ical and hydrogeological models of

Cenozoic deposits. Details are pub-

lished by Heyvaert et al. (2016) and

Vernes et al. (2016). Figure 1 shows


Figure 1. Cross-border section showing geological edge matches that were corrected during the H30 project from Vernes,R. et al., 2016.

the geological edge match issue at the

border and the resulting harmonised

model. Similar transboundary strati-

graphic reconciliations between Al-

berta (Canada) and Montana (USA)

have supported numerical groundwa-

ter modelling and an improved under-

standing of transboundary aquifers

and it has supported water resource

management.

Project GEORG was co-financed by

the European Union European Re-

gional Development Fund. It devel-

oped a cross-border geological and

geo-thermal model of the Upper

Rhine Graben, which has a high po-

tential for geothermal energy exploi-

tation. The data and model are deliv-

ered in a web-based viewer

(Figure 2).

The Geomol project (http://

www.geomol.eu/home/index_html)

was established to assess the

subsurface potential of the Alpine

Foreland Basins for sustainable plan-

ning and use of natural resources, in

particular geothermal energy. The re-

sults of the initiative are not only an

openly accessible 3D geological

model of the northern and southern

Molasse Basins, but the collaboration

has led to significant progress on the

harmonisation of differing strati-

graphic frameworks and an improved

capability and development of stan-

dards for the interpretation and mod-

elling of geological horizons from

historic seismic data (GeoMol Team,

2015).

A generalised tectonic crustal-scale

model has been developed for the

British Isles (Ireland, Northern Ire-

land, Scotland, England and Wales).

This conceptual model comprises

cross-sections down to 15 km depth

and major fault surfaces (see Fig-

ure 3). It was developed through col-

laboration between the Geological

Survey of Northern Ireland (GSNI),

the Geological Survey of Ireland

(GSI) and the British Geological Sur-

vey (BGS)

Early pan-European initiatives result-

ing in 3D data were the Millennium

Atlas and the Southern Permian Ba-

sin Atlas (SPBA) These were devel-

oped to present a comprehensive and


Figure 2. GEORG web viewer (http://www.geopotenziale.org/geopotenziale/geothermal?lang=2).

systematic overview of the results of

over 150 years of petroleum explora-

tion and research in the North Sea

and Southern Permian Basin area and

to stimulate the petroleum exploration

and production industry to continue

their activities in this mature basin.

The initiatives were funded by the

Geological Surveys of the United

Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, Den-

mark, the Netherlands, Germany, and

Poland (https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-

areas/ecn-part-of-tno/roadmaps/geo-

logical-survey-of-the-netherlands/

geological-survey-of-the-netherlands/

petroleum-geological-atlas-of-the-

southern-permian-basin/).

In addition, several cross-border pro-

jects are ongoing across national bor-

ders to understand groundwater re-

sources, geothermal energy potential

and ground conditions for tunnelling

between Germany, Poland, and the

Czech Republic (Krentz and Zander,

2016). Figure 4 shows their extent.

International Initiativesto Set Best Practice andStandards

One of the most prolific and influen-

tial global projects is the OneGeology

initiative (http://www.onegeology.org/)

which was initiated in the mid 2000s

to deliver the world’s geological data

in a seamless, interoperable, and in-

teractive manner via the OneGeology

portal. In recent years, the interest in

3D geology has grown and as a result,

an Australian led initiative called

“Loop - enabling 3D stochastic geo-

logical modelling” (Figure 5; https://

loop3d.org/) has been established

bringing a range of international

GSOs and researchers together to de-

velop open source modelling solu-

tions to mitigate 3D geological risk in

resources management. It aims to do

so by integrating mathematical meth-

ods, structural geology concepts, and

probabilistic programming to create

new approaches to 3D geological

modelling. The expected outcomes

are an enhanced capability to model

the subsurface, characterize model


Figure 3. Crustal-scale model of Caledonian tectonic terranes bounded by major faultsviewed from the south-west (from https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/ukgeology/nationalGeologicalModel/home.html).


Figure 4. Geological map of Saxony showing study areas of five transboundary projects: 1, Transgeotherm; 2, Caldera ofAltenberg Teplice; 3, Elbe Zone; 4, GRACE; 5, NBS Dresden-Prag. (from: Krentz and Zander, 2016).

Figure 5. The concept behind the Loop project (from https://loop3d.org/).

uncertainty, and test multiple geologi-

cal scenarios.

Sub-Urban (http://sub-ur-

ban.squarespace.com/) is a recently

concluded 5-year pan-European pro-

ject with a focus on improved model-

ling and management of the

subsurface beneath cities. It was initi-

ated by the British and Norwegian

Geological Surveys, and funded by

the European Union’s COST action

programme. Its final reports contain a

large number of case studies from

across Europe, as well as a series of

recommendations and discussions on

how to better integrate subsurface

characterization into regional and city

building planning, as well as for use

by the construction industry.

The development of international

standards for 3D geological model

data and related in/outputs is still in

its infancy. However, a Geoscience

Domain Working Group has been es-

tablished by the Open Geospatial

Consortium which lists relevant ini-

tiatives and attempts to bring together

various strands of standards develop-

ment on its website (https://

www.opengeospatial.org/projects/

groups/geosciencedwg).

The European Union and

EuroGeoSurveys (http://

www.eurogeosurveys.org) are begin-

ning to join forces in to establish a

European Geological Data Infrastruc-

ture (EGDI) initiative to provide ac-

cess to pan-European and national

geological datasets including 3D geo-

logical models (more detail is given

in Chapter 3). Early attempts are

emerging through the GeoEra

3DGEO-EU project (http://geoera.eu/

projects/3dgeo-eu/), where compo-

nents of the Permian Atlas mentioned

above are published on-line.

Conclusions

Geology and science in general does

not recognise borders, and knowledge

sharing and technology transfer is es-

sential in order to avoid repeating

mistakes, progressing our science,

saving time and resources, and ulti-

mately making better predictions

about the subsurface so keenly

needed for a range of societal chal-

lenges. The authors hope that, by the

next edition of this Synopsis, the

above initiatives have continued to

flourish and we will be closer to a

unified model and a more thorough

understanding of the solid earth.

References

Berg, R.C., S.E. Brown, J.E. Thomason,N.R. Hasenmueller, S.L. Letsinger,K.A. Kincare, J.M. Esch, A.E. Kehew,L.H. Thorleifson, A.L. Kozlowski,B.C. Bird, R.R. Pavey, A.J. Bajc, A..KBurt, G.M. Fleeger, and E.C. Carson(2016) A multiagency and multi-jurisdictional approach to mapping theglacial deposits of the Great Lakes re-gion in three dimensions, in Geo-science for the Public Good andGlobal Development: Towards a Sus-tainable Future, (G.R. Wessel and J.KGreenberg; Eds.). Geological Societyof America Special Paper 520, p. 415-447.

De Mulder, E.F.J., Hack, H.R.G.K. andC.C.D.F. van Ree (2012) SustainableDevelopment and Management of theShallow Subsurface. Geological Soci-ety (London). 192 p.

Diepolder, G.W. and GeoMol Team (2015)GeoMol – Assessing Subsurface Po-tentials of the Alpine Foreland Basinsfor Sustainable Planning and Use ofNatural Resources. Project Report. Ba-varian Environment Agency,

Augsburg. 188p., http://www.geomol.eu/report/GeoMol_Re-port_web_reduced.pdf.

European Science Foundation (1992) Eu-ropean Research Conference onSpace-Time Modelling of BoundedNatural Domains. CastelvecchioPascoli, Italy, May-June 1992.

European Science Foundation (1996) Eu-ropean Research Conference on SpaceTime Modelling of Bounded NaturalDomains: Intelligent Tools for 3D In-terpolation and Correlation, Canter-bury, UK. 1996.

European Science Foundation (1997) Eu-ropean Research Conference onSpace-Time Modelling of BoundedNatural Domains: Virtual Environ-ments for the Geosciences, Kerkrade,The Netherlands, December 9-14,1997.

European Science Foundation (2001) Eu-ropean Research Conference: NewParadigms in Subsurface Prediction:Characterization of the ShallowSubsurface, Implications for Urban In-frastructure and Environmental As-sessment. Spa, Belgium, July 7-12,2001.

Heyvaert, V. et al (2016) Towards a cross-border hydrogeological model: harmo-nized data integration within the H3O-projects. Geophysical Research Ab-stracts Vol. 18, EGU2016-16156-2,EGU General Assembly 2016, https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-16156-2.pdf.

Kovar, K. and H.P. Nachtnebel (1993) Ap-plication of Geographic InformationSystems in Hydrology and Water Re-sources Management, Vienna Austria.International Association of Hydrolog-ical Sciences. Nature. 693 p.

Kovar K. and H.P. Nachtnebel (1996) Ap-plication of Geographic InformationSystems in Hydrology and Water Re-sources Management: Proceedings ofthe HydroGIS ’96 Conference, Vienna,Austria, 16-19 April 1996. Interna-tional Association of HydrologicalSciences (IAHS) Publication 235.711 p.

Krentz, O. and I. Zander (2016)Transboundary geological 3D-model-ling – an insight into applied projectsin Saxony. Conference proceedings,3rd European Meeting on 3D Geologi-cal Modelling – Wiesbaden, Germany,June 16th – 17th, 2016, http://www.geologie.sachsen.de/download/3EM3DGM_abstract_Sax-ony_2016_Krentz_Zander.pdf.


Pflug, R. and J.W. Harbaugh [Eds.] (1992)Computer Graphics in Geology: ThreeDimensional Computer Graphics inModelling Geologic Structure andSimulating Processes. Lecture Notes inthe Earth Sciences, Number 41,Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 298 p.

Raper, J. F. [Ed.] (1989) Three-dimen-sional Applications in Geographic In-formation Systems. Taylor & Francis,London. 189 p.

Rosenbaum, M.S. and A.K. Turner (2003)New Paradigms in Subsurface Predic-tion: Characterization of the ShallowSubsurface, Implications for Urban In-frastructure and Environmental As-sessment. Lecture Notes in the EarthSciences, Number 99. Springer-Verlag,Berlin. 397 p.

Turner, A.K., [Ed.] (1991) Three-dimen-sional Modeling with Geoscientific In-

formation Systems. NATO ASI SeriesC: Mathematical and Physical Sci-ences, Vol. 354. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, The Nether-lands. 443 p.

Vernes, R.W., Deckers, J., Verhaert, G. andE. Heskes (2016) The H3O-Project:Closing the Gap Between Our Nation-wide (Hydro)Geological Models. PRE-SENTATION: 3rd European Meetingon 3D Geological Modelling,Wiesbaden, Germany, 16-17 June,2016. [PowerPoint with 17 slides]http://www.3dgeology.org/resources/wiesbaden/D1_S2_02_H3O-Vernes_Deckers_Fi-nal%20presentation.pdf.

Vinken, R. (1986) Digital GeoscientificMaps: A Priority Program of the Ger-man Society for the Advancement of

Scientific Research. Mathematical Ge-ology. 18. p. 237-246.

Vinken, R. [Compiler] (1988) Construc-tion and Display of GeoscientificMaps derived from Databases. Pro-ceedings International Colloquium,Dinkelsbuhl, Germany, December 2-4,1986. Geologisches Jahrbuch, ReiheA, Heft 104, Bundesanstalt furGeowissenschaften und Rohstoffe,Hannover. 475p.

Vinken, R. [Compiler] (1992) FromGeoscientific Map Series to Geo-In-formation Systems. Proceedings Sec-ond International Colloquium,Wurzburg, Germany, September 9-11,1989. Geologisches Jahrbuch, ReiheA, Heft 122, Bundesanstalt furGeowissenschaften und Rohstoffe,Hannover. 501p.


Documents

AER/AGS Special Report 112: Chapter 28: Global 3D ...the Great Lakes (Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), and it changed its name to the Great Lakes Geologic Mapping