The other day, two modeling papers landed in my inbox as recommended reading. Nothing unusual there. But what struck me was how diametrically opposed they were. One (Brown et al., 2012) made a compelling case for using simple, fast, on-the-fly models for mine dewatering. The other (Martinez & Ugorets, 2010) championed complex, 3D numerical models as essential for handling all the nuance and risk that modern mining demands.
Both papers were excellent. Both were right – in their own way.
But only one perspective seems to dominate in academic and regulatory circles: the bigger, denser, more complicated the model, the better. That prompted me to write this piece – not as a takedown of complexity, but as a reminder of why we still love simple models.
Let’s get this out of the way: simple groundwater models are not lazy, outdated, or dumbed down. In fact, when done right, they’re some of the sharpest tools in the hydrogeologist’s shed.
We’ve spent the past few decades in a modeling arms race. More dimensions. More layers. More calibration targets. More acronyms than a military parade. And don’t get us wrong – there’s a place for that. Regulatory submissions, long-range forecasting, or simulating groundwater flow beneath a glacier-splitting, permafrost-riddled, fault-fractured copper deposit? Yeah, you’ll need the heavy artillery.
But out in the real world – where pits are being blasted, pumps are spinning, and someone is yelling about a water truck that’s 3 days late – you don’t always need a supercomputer to answer a question.
Sometimes you just need an answer.
Simple Models Answer the Question That Matters Now
Brown et al. (2012) said it best: “We need tools with the flexibility to enable ‘on-the-run decision-making.’” In other words: models that move at the speed of mine operations. When dewatering doesn’t match the plan and field conditions change weekly, the last thing you need is a model that takes two months to update and a PhD to run.
With a simple model, you can test a new well location, tweak a pumping rate, or see how far your drawdown reaches before the next shift change. Try doing that with a model that needs its own version control system.
Simple Models Keep You Honest
Simple models force you to understand the system. There’s nowhere to hide. You can’t sneak in a fudge factor, mask your uncertainty with a colored contour map, or blur your conceptual sins with high-res mesh refinement.
You have to build it on a clear idea of how the aquifer works. And if the model falls apart? Good! That tells you your thinking needs to evolve.
Complex models, on the other hand, can lull you into a false sense of confidence. “Look how detailed it is!” Yeah… but that river you added? It’s still a guess. And that fancy calibration? Still underdetermined.
Simple Models Save Money. And Time. And Sanity.
Field crews don’t stop because your boundary condition isn’t behaving. Construction doesn’t wait for a transient calibration to converge. And let’s be blunt: a 6-month model build that ends with a disclaimer and a shrug doesn’t add value – it adds paperwork.
Simple models cost less to build, are easier to maintain, and faster to run. That’s not cutting corners. That’s fitting the tool to the job. Because, while sometimes you undoubtedly need the chainsaw…don’t bring it to slice butter.
They Work for the People Who Need Them Most
Most mine operators don’t care what version of MODFLOW you used. They care if they’re going to hit water tomorrow. They care whether the pumps will keep up. They care whether there is enough water for milling.
Simple models are tools engineers can actually use. Not just something pretty to file away and forget on your server.
Not Anti-Complex. Just Pro-Smart.
Here’s a real-world example. In one of our own case studies – a four-stage excavation for a pump station – we benchmarked two Anaqsim models against actual field results. One was a 2D single-layer model; the other was a more detailed, multi-layer 3D model. Not surprisingly, the 3D model gave a slightly better match to observed behavior. But the simpler 2D model gave an answer that was close enough that you would have made the same decision. Read the full case study here.
It was also faster to build, easier to run, and far more nimble to adjust as the excavation progressed. (And yes, Anaqsim makes both approaches easier than you’d think. But we’ll save that pitch for another day.) That’s the real power of simplicity: it gives you what you need, when you need it – without sacrificing decision quality.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about trashing numerical models. Martinez & Ugorets (2010) show exactly why they’re useful too. But complexity should be earned, not assumed. And it should never become a barrier to insight or agility.
So yes – we still love simple models.
Because they do what modeling was always meant to do: help us think better, faster, and more clearly.
References
Practical Groundwater Ltd. (2025). Benchmarking Anaqsim 2D and 3D Models for a Multi-Stage Pump Station Excavation. Link to case study.
Brown, K., Trott, S., & Nabi, A. (2012). An alternative approach to managing dewatering in an open pit mine. Proceedings of the International Mine Water Association Annual Conference, McCullough, Lund and Wyse (Eds.), pp. 557–566.
Martinez, C., & Ugorets, V. (2010). Use of Numerical Groundwater Modelling for Mine Dewatering Assessment. In Proceedings of WIM 2010, Santiago, Chile, Chapter 6, pp. 318–326.