1001 reasons why Leapfrog Mining is still better than Leapfrog Geo

Jun Cowan
Mar 22, 2013

ARANZ Geo released Leapfrog Geo software on 25 February 2013.  They claim that Leapfrog Geo ‘fast tracks understanding, enhances productivity and reduces risk’ (Figure 1). Orefind will test these claims in a follow-up post, but for the moment, here are our first impressions of this newly released software.

Figure 1.  A proclamation of very vague things Leapfrog Geo can do, but I’m more interested in what it cannot do.

Leapfrog Geo will not open Leapfrog Mining projects!

This is not a typo.  Let me repeat it: Leapfrog Geo will not open Leapfrog Mining projects!

That's one clear reason why you should stick with Leapfrog Mining if you are already an expert at building geological models.

What about the other 1000 reasons?

As at March 2013, I estimate that there are between 700 and 1000 active licences of Leapfrog Mining in use around the world.  These active users may have up to twenty Leapfrog Mining projects each; personally, I have over 600 projects created in Leapfrog Mining.

So, conservatively, there are more than 1000 Leapfrog Mining projects in existence that geologists have built.

Not one of these Leapfrog Mining projects can be opened with Leapfrog Geo.

If you decide to switch to Leapfrog Geo (as ARANZ Geo is encouraging you to do), your existing Leapfrog Mining projects have to be ‘converted’ to Leapfrog Geo format.  I've put ‘converted’ in quotation marks as there appears to be no automated way of converting your projects. You either have to do this ‘conversion’ manually (i.e. you rebuild the entire project), or you have to pay ARANZ Geo to do it for you.

I contacted a Leapfrog sales rep and asked if ARANZ Geo will be footing the price for project ‘conversions’.  The sales rep was understandably noncommittal.

Effectively, this means that approximately 1000 licence holders of Leapfrog Mining, each of whom has multiple projects built over the past decade, will not be able to open their old projects with Leapfrog Geo, without performing a manual ‘conversion’ process on each project at their own cost.  That’s many thousands of projects.

If a software company is willing to risk their business and their existing client base by suddenly introducing a completely new software application (Leapfrog Geo) for their clients to switch to from the tried and tested software (Leapfrog Mining), then this new software must be FULL of fantastic innovations, right?

Well, let’s open the hood and take a closer look…

‘Innovation’ really means GUI rearrangement

It seems to me that Leapfrog Geo, ARANZ Geo’s latest ‘innovation’, is actually a graphical user interface (GUI) repackaging of Leapfrog Mining, with a few additional workflow features that aren't present in Leapfrog Mining—and without a whole lot of features currently available in Leapfrog Mining.  I am yet to find any ground-breaking innovations that equal Leapfrog Mining’s fast grade interpolation (based on Fast RBF), its 3D drawing tool, its structural trends using localised interpolation, or its structural form interpolator.

As far as I can see, the most compelling feature of Leapfrog Geo is the ability to rapidly subdivide the project volume into faulted blocks (as an aside, GeoModeller has been doing this for more than a decade), but apart from this I struggle to see any benefits.  Geological chronology is something that is now formalised in Leapfrog Geo, but I’ve been using and teaching chronology-based modelling methods in Leapfrog Mining for many years.  The recent Leapfrog Mining improvements to the domains area mean that consideration of relative geological chronology is really simple and very fast.   In fact, if you know the basic building blocks of Leapfrog Mining, virtually everything Leapfrog Geo can do in this area, and more, can be done with Leapfrog Mining.

In contrast, the language used in Leapfrog Geo can be very confusing.  Contrary to the claims that this new software works on terminology that is familiar to geologists, let’s look at an example. What do you think the word ‘deposit’ means and in what context would you expect it to be used in the minerals industry?  ‘New Deposit’ is one of the options in the surface chronology drop-down list; however, it does not equate to ‘mineral deposit’, but to a ‘sedimentary depositional unit’ (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Leapfrog Geo talks about ‘surface chronology’ rather than relative chronology of geological units or volumes.   Also ‘New Deposit’ shown here does not mean what you think it means!  None of this unnecessary terminological confusion exists in Leapfrog Mining.

If you delve into the details ‘New Deposit’ is actually referring to the basal surface of this deposition unit!  That’s completely unintuitive for software that’s meant to be used by the minerals industry that rarely ever has any record of layer-cake stratigraphy.  Perhaps we are meant to unravel the stratigraphic order of rock packages that have been folded multiple times first to make sense of this software?  Has this software has been designed by people who looked up terms in a geological dictionary, but who didn’t know the relevance of these terms to industry practice?

Much of the ‘innovative’ geological chronology feature in Leapfrog Geo looks to me very like the tools in GeoModeller, who invented this approach in the 1990s as its predecessor Web Editeur Géologique or 3DWEG.  Even the stratigraphic model outputs that ARANZ Geo uses in their marketing material appear very similar to GeoModeller’s (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. GeoModeller or Leapfrog Geo?

In terms of features, there appear to be fewer features in Leapfrog Geo compared to those in Leapfrog Mining.  One very experienced Leapfrog Mining user who has also tested this new software described it this way: ’…Leapfrog Geo appears to have removed up to 50% of Leapfrog Mining's functionality’.  This sentiment is confirmed by looking through the Leapfrog Mining FAQ (Figure 4), although these missing features are interestingly not listed in the Leapfrog Geo FAQ so their new customers remain uninformed.  Strangely though the vein modelling tool that is listed as missing appears in the Leapfrog Geo promotional video, which is really confusing (Figure 5).

Not completely replicating Leapfrog Mining’s features in Leapfrog Geo for a release version is an interesting decision on the part of ARANZ Geo, especially as the price of Leapfrog Geo is the same as Leapfrog Mining! You pay the same but get 50% fewer features? That just doesn't add up to me.

Figure 4.  These are the missing features from Leapfrog Geo which are all available in Leapfrog Mining according to Leapfrog Mining FAQ.  Vein modelling is not possible, so sites that depend on this tool, such as Boddington, will be sticking to Leapfrog Mining.

Figure 5.  These sheet-like models which very much appears to have been created with the ‘vein modelling tool’ of Leapfrog Mining appears in the main promotional video of Leapfrog Geo.  A little confusing as this tool is listed as being missing from Leapfrog Geo in the Leapfrog Geo FAQ (Figure 4).  

The real risk – the illusion of bug-free perfect software

Leapfrog Mining has been tested in the field and has evolved over nearly a decade; as it is new software, I can confidently assume that Leapfrog Geo has not been tested with the same rigor or as exhaustively.  Thus there is an unknown risk for any company considering switching to this new software, particularly if they are building models for resource evaluation purposes.  Some of these are very complex models built over several months or years, with a significant investment of time and knowledge. 

ARANZ Geo is encouraging companies to switch to this new software.  This is despite the fact that these projects will have to be rebuilt (by the user) from scratch using software that has not been proven.  Switching to newer, untested software does not reduce risk, but increases it for the end user of Leapfrog.  What’s more, that unquantified risk won’t be borne by ARANZ Geo, but by your company, and your time.

As the conceptual founder of Leapfrog software (now called Leapfrog Mining), I played a fundamental role in its design, but I had no part in designing Leapfrog Geo.  I know a few things about software development and I know that the development of bug-free software simply does not occur overnight.  In the case of Leapfrog Mining, the process of perfection and evolution took more than a decade and only happened because I worked closely with a very good listener—Dr Hughan Ross—who was Leapfrog’s Chief Software Architect in the early years. And then there were the countless individuals who provided enhancement suggestions and feedback about bugs.  These people were effectively beta testers of new versions and as such were integral to Leapfrog Mining’s success.  I doubt that Leapfrog Mining in its current form could have been developed without this close working partnership between Zaparo staff and the many geologists who provided useful feedback.

Unless ARANZ Geo bears the responsibility for risks associated with buggy software, I think their comment about ‘reducing risk’ will have to be taken with a large grain of salt.  I can guarantee that there will be bugs (all software has bugs), possibly some serious ones.  Since Leapfrog Geo’s GUI is so different from Leapfrog Mining’s, issues that were dealt with years ago in Leapfrog Mining may resurface.  There will likely be a lot of bug-fixing, patches, new releases etc. for many years to come, all of which can negatively impact the customer’s ability to run their business.  Is that ‘reducing risk’? 

Leapfrog for Dummies?

With ARANZ Geo pushing Leapfrog Geo so eagerly to new users, or those who aren’t  ‘Leapfrog experts’ (Figures 6 and 7), I expect that new customers will purchase the workflow-based Leapfrog Geo over its more full-featured cousin Leapfrog Mining —or turn to a competitor who makes consistently up-gradable software. 

After all, why bother learning how to use an espresso machine when you can use a pod coffee machine?  No mess, no pain, and you get the same consistent—and terrible—result every time!  Personally, I wouldn’t fork out for a pod coffee machine if an espresso machine was available for the same price.  Likewise with software—I would rather get the full version and get competent training from geologists who have years of experience modelling real data with Leapfrog Mining.

Figure 6. Leapfrog Mining is stated as being suitable for “Leapfrog experts” according to the Leapfrog3d.com website.

Figure 7.  In contrast, the word ‘expert’ is missing from Leapfrog Geo’s description, and instead the workflows are described as ‘easy to grasp’.  Perhaps this software is for Leapfrog Dummies?

The sad thing is that those new Leapfrog Geo users will never know what Leapfrog Mining could have done for them.

In the next post to follow on this topic, I’ll talk about some fabulous features in Leapfrog Mining that are completely missing from Leapfrog Geo.


  1. 1 Angel Rios 22 Mar
    I was checking Geo 1.2 but I still prefer Mining 2.5.2.
    In my opinion Geo was designed mainly for "easy" geological models and for a wider audience (new Leapfrog users) with no large data. I don´t like that some parameters shown in Mining now are behind scenes in Geo considering that some bugs can appear.
    Against Aranz statement, I use Geo as a toolbox while my geological model is still in Mining.
  2. 2 Jun Cowan 24 Mar
    Thanks Angel,
    Your comments are very much appreciated.  I remember you as a Leapfrog trainer and a competent user from Simon Mortimer's company in South America who provides Leapfrog support.
    From talking with various experienced users of Leapfrog Mining, I know that Leapfrog Geo has never been tested on so-called "complicated" datasets.  But the fact of the matter is that "complicated" datasets are the norm in the minerals industry!  Just because Leapfrog Geo can handle stratigraphic datasets actually does not demonstrate that it is a useful software product for the minerals industry, yet ARANZ Geo appears to be pushing this software to all types of potential users regardless.
    Mineral deposits set in a simple stratigraphic setting are rare (I estimate 5% of over 500 deposits that I've modelled), and in fact companies who think they have simple stratigraphic systems are largely driven to this conclusion by published theoretical academic deposit hypotheses (e.g., SEDEX models come to mind).  Unfortunately these academic models are not based on actual 3D geometry, but theoretical ideas that are still to be independently verified by the studies of 3D geometry.  I find the simple techniques of modelling methods that I've developed using Leapfrog Mining is far more illuminating than Leapfrog Geo's workflow system that locks the user into a particular method of modelling, but I will discuss the specifics of this in future blog posts.
    I also agree with you that burying details is a huge backward step.  There are a lot of workarounds that I do in Leapfrog Mining that requires access to the raw data. Many of these workarounds are done because of bugs we encounter or we do it to get around the default actions taken by Leapfrog Mining that I do not like (and ARANZ Geo does not want to change!).  If the details are hidden, then we simply cannot do the workarounds, thus rendering the software practically unusable.  If the software remains flexible as a toolbox, then we can always use it, so this is why I prefer Leapfrog Mining.
    Unfortunately I can see many people preferring a workflow-based software like Leapfrog Geo because they do not want to think, and they may actually represent the majority. It appears that ARANZ Geo has concluded that they prefer to sell Leapfrog Geo to these people as they will generate more revenue for them faster regardless whether it is beneficial to them in the long run.
  3. 3 Darren Lindsay 10 Apr
    After a quick look at the booths during Mining Indaba and PDAC I had a presentation of Leapfrog Geo in my office, with my data. Using my data for the preview seemed a little unique for the pitch team, although they were more than happy to do it. The struggles with real data are always educational for geologists when it gets to the modeling stage - visualisation versus 3D thinking from plan and sections. Looking at Geo I thought of it as a good training tool for junior geologists or initial learning stages of computer-based modeling that highlighted the need for consistent data collection and a reasonable introduction to modeling workflow. The software is still buggy and the pitch included a number of workarounds for some of the basic workflow steps (the real data helped highlight some of these issues). There are some nice tools that would be good additions into Mining, however Leapfrog Mining is where any modeling would and should be done. It would be a shame to lose support for and fixes and advances for the Leapfrog Mining software that provides the flexibility and transparency needed to execute a good 'ore' model within a good geological model. To be frank, I do little modeling myself now but use Leapfrog Mining regularly for quick reviews/guidance on internal targeting as well as project evaluations that span very early greenfields targeting through to mine and brownfields targets. As I have been an on and off user from the very early days of Leapfrog but perhaps it is time to see what else is out there?
  4. 4 Jun Cowan 11 Apr
    Hi Darren,
    You're not alone in thinking that ARANZ Geo is abandoning Leapfrog Mining users and putting all of their development efforts into Leapfrog Geo. It would certainly be disappointing if ARANZ Geo stops developing upgrades for Leapfrog Mining as users have been paying annual leases for many years and are expecting upgrades.  If ARANZ Geo was to discontinue the development of Leapfrog Mining, intentional or not, it will feel like a bait-and-switch to the long-term Leapfrog Mining users.
    This type of uncertainty is asking for disloyalty from those who have stuck with Leapfrog since inception, and your sentiment expressed at the end of your comment is certainly not an isolated opinion!   And there will be plenty of choices in terms of Leapfrog alternatives for people to try out in 2013.  Virtually all of the GMPs are releasing some type of product to compete with Leapfrog this year.  I will review some of these products once they are released.   I even know of a geologist (whom I taught Leapfrog) who developed his own implicit modelling software and the output he can generate cannot be distinguished from outputs of Leapfrog Mining!  If a keen hobbyist working alone in his garage can achieve this, any GMP software company with plenty of cash and resources can come up with viable alternatives to Leapfrog, and that can only be a good thing for the consumers!  
  5. 5 Ramón Aguirre 17 Apr
    I agree with all the comments, but I am still optimistic though. As long as Leapfrog GEO is considered work in progress and offered as a sidekick to Leapfrog Mining, there is room to grow. There are a few workflows in Leapfrog mining than can be very repetitive and I do look forward to see them made more automatic (there´s not really much to think when all you want to do is split a data set into 15 different domains, for instance). But it clearly cannot be at the expense of all those precious tweaks and workarounds we just cannot do without. I'm hoping it'll eventually come down to an "expert mode" button that will take to, essentially, Leapfrog Mining 64-bit. There has to be an option for the hacker-minded geologist.

    I had the same impression as Darren, GEO may be useful if you want yo teach the basic concepts of faulted domains, cross-cutting relationships and data consistency without having to go into the details of the interpolation, which In my experience can be confusing for beginners in a "tree not letting you see forest" kind of way.

    Great blog, by the way.
  6. 6 Jun Cowan 18 Apr
    Hi Ramón,
    I agree with you that Leapfrog Geo should be provided along with LFMining until it is perfected. If ARANZ Geo does not do this, geologists who can build models will choose LFMining over LFGeo and this will mean that there will not be enough feedback for LFGeo to be developed.  I don't think ARANZ Geo has much choice in the matter as they had released the software prematurely.
    There are good features in LFGeo which are not available in LFMining. The quick ability to subdivide using faults, and also splitting of a single lithological code into subcodes are both very useful (these features should have been developed for LFMining!).  If these features are not going to be available for LFMining, then ARANZ Geo should be made available for LFMining users.  Unfortunately because the way LFGeo was built, your idea of 'expert mode' to take you to LFMining would simply not be possible (I agree with you though).
  7. 7 Darren 29 May
    Hey Jun,
    Have your receieved any critical comment about Leapfrog versus the ThreeDify products?
    just curious.
  8. 8 Jun Cowan 02 Jun
    Hi Darren,
    I had not heard about ThreeDify until recently. I think someone had mentioned seeing it at PDAC?
    I honestly do not know much about the product, but what I've seen on the website does not seem all that groundbreaking to me.
    What has been groundbreaking are implicit modelling software products from MineSight and Micromine.  I've seen both of these products in the last two weeks, and they are real competitors to Leapfrog (unlike Dynamic Shells of Geovia).  Geologists who already use these software products should check out these products.  I will be reviewing both of these products within the next month. - Jun

You are not allowed to post comments.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the Orefind blog posts do not represent the views of any hardware or software manufacturers, or their staff.   The opinions and recommendations expressed are completely independent, and are based on the practical experience of Orefind staff. Orefind does not have any referral or financial arrangements with companies that are mentioned in our blog posts.

Copyright © Orefind Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Register with us!

To get the most out of our posts and the website, please register with us so that you can download special files available only to registered users (instructional videos, whitepapers, 3D models of deposits).

Registered users can also comment on our blogs.

Register Today

Registered users can have access to special features on our website.

These include features such as videos, whitepapers, 3D models of deposits and the ability to comment on our blogs.

Click here to register
Why Orefind?
Orefind's mission is to make a material difference to mining operations and exploration companies through the investigation of structural geology at all scales in the quickest possible time. Contact us to discuss how our approach can benefit your mining and exploration needs.
Contact Us
e: info@orefind.com 

p : PO Box 230
Fremantle, WA 6959

© Orefind. All rights reserved.