By Jocelyn Brown
Despite the expanding use of 3D modelling in contaminated land management, misconceptions persist.
In the world of contaminated land management, 3D modelling is often misunderstood.
Despite its growing adoption across environmental and engineering disciplines, several myths persist—myths that can hinder progress, inflate perceived costs, and obscure the real value of this powerful technology.
Let’s explore some of the most common misconceptions.
Myth 1: ‘3D models and any revisions take too long to build’
This myth is outdated and doesn’t reflect the advancements in modern 3D modelling tools.
Software like Leapfrog Works and Seequent Central have revolutionised the process, allowing for the rapid creation and updating of models, even with limited initial data.
They enable teams to start with simple models and iteratively refine them as more information becomes available, ensuring that the models remain accurate and up to date without significant time delays.
This efficiency not only saves time but also reduces costs and improves the overall quality of the project.
Myth 2: ‘3D models are only for complex or high-budget projects’
While it’s true that 3D modelling shines in complex environments, such as sites with multiple aquifers or overlapping contamination plumes, it’s a mistake to assume it’s only suitable for large-scale or high-budget projects.
Modern tools like Leapfrog Works and Seequent Central have democratised access to 3D modelling, making it feasible and time-efficient even for smaller remediation efforts.
The key is efficiency: models can start simple and be rapidly updated (including all dependent deliverables) and evolve as more data becomes available.
Combining 2D mapping with 3D subsurface information brings the best of both worlds together
Digital transformation reduces costs and improves communication – Seequent
This case study highlighted how a mid-sized environmental consultancy used Leapfrog Works to model a former industrial site with limited borehole data.
The model helped visualise subsurface contamination and guided targeted sampling, reducing investigation costs and time.
This was not a mega-project; it was a practical, budget-conscious application of 3D tools.
Myth 3: ‘They’re too data-hungry to be practical’
Yes, 3D models thrive on data—but that doesn’t mean you need exhaustive datasets to get started.
One of the strengths of 3D modelling is its ability to highlight data gaps and guide further investigation, for example, delivering expected well geology.
The decision to model in 3D should be based on site-specific needs and the value it brings to understanding risk, not on the false assumption that perfect data is a prerequisite.
There is also publicly available data that can be used to begin the model.
Myth 4: ‘2D cross-sections are just as good’
Traditional 2D cross-sections have their place, but they can’t match the spatial clarity and stakeholder engagement that 3D models offer.
Whether it’s illustrating quantitative contaminant volumes, groundwater flow, or subsurface structures, 3D models provide a holistic view that’s easier to interpret and communicate.
They also support dynamic updates, enabling teams to iterate quickly as new data becomes available.
Myth 5: ‘3D modelling doesn’t add value to risk assessment’
On the contrary, 3D models enhance conceptual site models (CSMs) by integrating geoscience, engineering, and environmental data into a single, interactive framework.
This not only improves the accuracy of risk assessments but also supports better decision-making, from remediation design to stakeholder reporting.
The ability to simulate contaminant flow and assess slope stability in 3D is a game-changer for due diligence and transparency.
Read how Leapfrog Works helps teams intuitively model geology to optimise civil and environmental project outcomes in this whitepaper
Minimising civil project risk with 3D ground modelling – Seequent
Myth 6: ‘It’s too hard to share or collaborate on 3D models’
Thanks to cloud-based platforms like Seequent Central, sharing and collaborating on 3D models is easier than ever.
Teams can manage model iterations, track changes, and provide interactive deliverables to clients and regulators—all from a centralised hub.
This not only streamlines workflows but also builds confidence in the data and interpretations being presented.
WSP developed a groundwater model to evaluate drinking water scenarios for 14 Minnesota communities contaminated with PFAS chemicals. The project’s complex geology, multiple stakeholders, and extensive data requirements presented challenges that previous software could not effectively address.
WSP chose Leapfrog Works and Seequent Central for HoloLens due to their detailed modelling, collaboration capabilities, and interoperability with third-party applications.
Democratising Environmental Risk Management Tech for Sustainable Solutions
3D modelling isn’t just a technical upgrade—it’s a strategic advantage and necessity for modern contaminated site management.
Whether you’re working on brownfield redevelopment, a PFAS plume, or a groundwater protection zone, 3D tools can help you reduce uncertainty, improve efficiency, and make better decisions to deliver better environmental outcomes.