|
|
Practical Geostatistics 2000 Read
the reviews |
|
Contact Isobel Clark with new errata or errors
We would like to thank everyone who provided feedback.
Errata from First Edition and First reprint may be found on the original errata page
Errata from PG2000, Answers to the Exercises click here
|
|
Latest corrections courtesy of Kathy Flanders at |
|
Author’s
Note [Isobel]: There are stylistic idiosyncrasies that some readers/reviewers
disagree with or are irritated by. We make no apologies for these. To conform
to another's writing style would be to stultify and/or ossify the tone and
content of our book. How's that for pompous? |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bibliography Tables Index
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Why a statistical approach?
Page 11,
Section 2.3: missing a ‘2’ in the simplification of the variance calculation.
Cross production simplification should read:
Page 16,
Section 2.8.1: missing a “÷” sign in the calculation of V, replace second half
of page with
Page 17,
Section 2.8.1: first sentence after Figure 2.2 should read “From this
histogram, we find a modal (highest, most samples) interval between 23.92 and
24.92 MJ.”
Page 21,
Section 2.8.3: another division sign problem, this time too many of them!!
Skewness and kurtosis calculations should look like this
Chapter 3 Normal distributions
Page 36,
Section 3.2: modified Figure
3.4
Page 41,
Section 3.3.2: after definition equation for s@, next line should read “where s@ is now an
unbiassed estimator for s@, the true
variance of the population.” Throughout this chapter, you should replace “best
unbiased estimate for the standard deviation of the population” with “ ‘best’
estimate for…….”.
Page 45,
Section 3.4: third line of second paragraph, ‘pay value’ should be ‘pay limit’
Page 55,
Section 3.6.2: modified Figure 3.11
Page 59,
Section 3.6.3: third bullet down, last sentence should read “That is, 58.5\% of
the distribution lies between m ± 0.815s.”
Chapter 4 Lognormal distributions (and others)
Page 71, Section 4.1: that pesky division sign again! Equation for V should read:
Page 79: Section 4.2: typo in the last line of the three parameter calculation. Should read:
Page 80, Section 4.3: last text line should read “the constant should also be added to the values before taking logarithms:”
Page 81, Section 4.3: definition of P’ should read:
Page 84, Section 4.3.2: paragraph starts "From Table 4, F (+1.5056)=0.9339" should read "From Table 1, F (+1.5056)=0.9339". Double apologies for CD readers, as the hyperlink is also to Table 4.
Page 88: slip of the fingers produced an additive constant of 2.8337 instead of the correct one of 2.3887 (sorry!)
Page 92, Section 4.5.2: some major aberrations here
guys. Can only assume it was a
and the last paragraph before Section 4.5.3 should just read “It would seem from this table that the outlier has little impact on the Sichel's lognormal estimator.”
Chapter 5 Discrete distributions
Page 141,
Section 6.3.1: there were 22 post graduate students not 23! I must have written
this example at
Page
143: 
and 
Page 149,
Section 7.1.1: paragraph just before table, first mention of “graph c” should
be “graph b”.
Chapter 8 The Spatial aspect
Page 186,
Section 8.1: modified Figure
8.2
Page 208,
Chapter 9: modified Figure
9.1
Pages
210-212, Chapter 9: every incidence of ‘121’ should be changed to ‘141’.
Apologies for Isobel’s innate stupidity.
Page 211,
Chapter 9: calculation of variance at 141/NE. Multiple blunders in one
calculation here. All Isobel’s fault, once again. Should read:
Page 212,
Chapter 9: “estimated standard deviation of 2.778 %Fe” and confidence interval
calculation becomes:
Page 218,
Section 9.2.3: definition of mixed Spherical model at the bottom of the page,
should read:
Chapter 10 Estimation and Kriging
Yet another
apology from Isobel: it has been pointed out to me that many of the ‘hand’
calculations differ from the answers given in the text. This is the same old
‘precision’ problem but largely my fault. For example, on Page 254, the text
quotes a distance of 212. In fact, the distance is 150Ï2=212.132 which is what I used in my calculations. If you
use 212, you will get noticeable differences. We’ll address this problem in the
second edition next year.
Spotted by Sven Altfelder.
Page 271, Section 10.2.4: the second equation:
"With a standard error of
ssk = Ï 0.94175 = 0.97 MJ "
should read:
" ssk = Ï 0.9177 = 0.96 MJ "
since it is a copy of the last line in section 10.2.1 (Page 269).
Page 296,
Chapter 11: Paragraph below Figure 11.1, fourth sentence should read “In the
block on the right, we see a block whose value is only 28.8….”
Page 306,
Chapter 11: Figure 11.6 horizontal axis should be labelled “cutoff value
(lb/ton SnO2)”.
Chapter 12 Other kriging approaches
Table 1
has been mislabelled. Headings for probability column should read F not f. Apologies for
all confusion.
Index