Chapter 28: Global 3D Mapping and Modelling Coordination Initiatives Holger Kessler 1 , Keith Turner 2 , Richard C. Berg 3 , and Hazen A.J. Russell 4 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 USA 3 Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 615 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA; [email protected]4 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 in 2019 Synopsis of Current Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping and Modelling in Geological Survey Or ganizations, 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 of Science 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
8
Embed
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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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-
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 295
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
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 296
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
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 297
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
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 298
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).
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 299
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,
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.
AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 300
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.