Patrick Moore, co-founder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years, is now an independent ecologist and environmentalist based in Vancouver, Canada. In an opinion piece, published in The Australian of 24 November 2014, he discusses the influences of the climate debate on Australian politics and the impacts of changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide through time on biodiversity.
Moore is sceptical regarding the proposition that humans are the main cause of climate change, and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. “There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over”, the “science is settled”.” he states in the article. He expresses skepticism regarding assertions that “the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis that increased CO2 due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures”.
He also discussed the claim that “CO2 is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, gas present at 400 parts per million of the global atmosphere and the most important food for life on earth” and proposes that “without CO2 above 150 parts per million, all plants would die”.
Follow this link to Moore’s article.
The results of the latest Australian Geoscientist Employment Survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Geoscientists show that while there has been some improvement in employment prospects, Australia’s geoscientists continue to struggle in response to a sustained downturn in employment prospects.
The Institute has also warned however, that only governments can take the action needed to break the current investment and job growth bottleneck which has created the ‘perfect storm’ for the exploration and mining sector of over-regulation and low commodity prices for Australia’s mineral resources.
The September 2014 survey attracted an excellent response. In all, 954 geoscientists completed the survey – about one in eight geoscientists in Australia according to the most recent Australian census figures.
The unemployment rate amongst Australia’s geoscientists at the end of September 2014 was 13.5%, down from 15.4% in June 2014. The underemployment rate in the latest survey amongst self-employed geoscientists was 15.4%, a slight increase over the rate of 15.0% recorded in June 2014 and continuing a trend evident since the end of 2013.
“Geoscientists in Australia continued to experience difficulty in obtaining and sustaining employment in the third quarter of 2014,” AIG President, Mr Wayne Spilsbury, said. “In contrast to the sharp increase in employment following the global economic downturn in 2009, any recovery in employment within the geoscience profession has been much slower this time.”
A question was added to the June 2014 survey to assess the degree of underemployment being experienced by self-employed consultants and contractors. Results showed that 41% of those responding as being underemployed, were achieving less than one tenth of their desired workload. A further 16% were achieving between one tenth and one quarter of their desired work. In the latest September survey, these figures were 30% and 20% respectively – considered to represent a small sign of improvement in the sector despite the increase in the number of geoscientists reporting being underemployed overall. “If we reclassify self-employed geoscientists achieving less than ten percent of their desired workload as essentially unemployed, the unemployment rate increases from 13.5% to 18% – almost one in five professional geoscientists”, Mr Spilsbury said.
In the latest survey, one third of unemployed and underemployed respondents had been without work for three months, a further 17% for between three and six months, 16% for between six and 12 months, and the remaining third for more than 12 months.
Three quarters of underemployed and underemployed geoscientists were not confident of returning to full time employment in their chosen field within 12 months. One in 12 were seeking long-term employment outside the profession.
“Geoscientists in Australia continued to experience difficulty in obtaining and sustaining employment in the third quarter of 2014,” AIG President, Mr Wayne Spilsbury, said. “In contrast to the sharp increase in employment following the global economic downturn in 2009, any recovery in employment within the geoscience profession has been much slower this time.”
A question was added to the June 2014 survey to assess the degree of underemployment being experienced by self-employed consultants and contractors. Results showed that 41% of those responding as being underemployed, were achieving less than one tenth of their desired workload. A further 16% were achieving between one tenth and one quarter of their desired work. In the latest September survey, these figures were 30% and 20% respectively – considered to represent a small sign of improvement in the sector despite the increase in the number of geoscientists reporting being underemployed overall. “If we reclassify self-employed geoscientists achieving less than ten percent of their desired workload as essentially unemployed, the unemployment rate increases from 13.5% to 18% – almost one in five professional geoscientists”, Mr Spilsbury said.
The following table summarises the unemployment and underemployment rates observed for Western Australia and Queensland = Australia’s “mining states”.
An improvement in the unemployment rate was observed in every state except Queensland, where unemployment increased by almost six percent. A modest decrease in the under-employment rate observed in Western Australia was not evident in other states.
Some 80% of respondents were in or seeking full-time employment, while 5% were in or seeking part-time work and 15% were self-employed. Some 60% of respondents worked or are seeking work in mineral exploration, 16% in metalliferous mining, 7,7% in coal and petroleum exploration and production, and 6% in engineering geology and groundwater resource exploration and management.
“The latest survey shows the first signs for almost a year of a possible improvement in selective employment opportunities,” Mr Spilsbury said. “As the proportion of geoscientists working in mineral exploration and mining reflects the health of Australia’s exploration and mining industries, and a barometer for the overall outlook for resources, I hope that we are seeing, in this survey, the beginning of an upturn – but it is too early and too gradual to be confident that this is the case. “The slow recovery from the downturn in 2012 and 2013 is something that we have not seen previously since AIG’s survey series commenced in 2009. “We remain however in an environment where Australian-listed, junior exploration and mining companies are critically undercapitalised and finding it difficult to attract new investment – the fundamental driver of geoscientist employment rates. “The Federal Government’s promised Exploration Development Incentive is yet to be introduced and State Governments have yet to act to reduce compliance requirements that are choking a range of industries, all at a time when commodity prices are depressed creating a less than ideal investment climate. “It is something akin to a perfect storm for exploration and mining, but one that governments can help to clear”.
High commodity prices provide an incentive for exploration to increase supply. The 7-10-year lag in this process explains why booms tend a similar time. The rise in exploration spending drives up the cost of exploration inputs where their supply is relatively inelastic.
Engineers are an example, where real average salaries roughly doubled in the boom. Truck drivers in remote locations also received high real wages given the skills needed, but are now often replaced by software (‘driverless trucks’) as firms try to reduce costs.
Oil and gas CAPEX rose with the commodity price as high prices incentivise new supply
Rising exploration spend doubled the real cost of exploration inputs. We see some mean reversion.
Rising commodity prices (especially oil) creates a headwind to new supply as it increases the development and operating costs. MinEx Consulting research suggests cost over-runs were the key cause of delays for copper projects over the last two years. But as commodity prices fall, this should reduce capital and operating costs, which will be a tailwind for supply.
Cost over-runs a key delay to copper projects but this should ease as the cost of inputs falls again.
There is a view among some that declining grades and the need to drill in deeper and more remote and risky locations will increase finding costs over time. We disagree, as we see a cycle in finding costs that is driven by the underlying commodity price. As prices fall, we see lower exploration activity, reduced demand for exploration inputs, and a consequent decline in the per-unit cost of exploration. Managements will also focus on the more prospective areas, and use lower cost technologies, which also helps to reduce costs.
An examination of the discovery costs for an ounce of gold (below) show the cycle in costs over time. Discovery costs have been elevated in a period of high prices, but they also fell from much higher levels in the 1970s/80s and we see this happening again.
Like oil F&D, gold finding costs per ounce do not rise continuously. The gold price drives a cycle.
Macquarie Global Horizon, 10 November 2014
Click here for the full newsletter, available from the Macquarie Bank web site.
The HyspecIQ project – Hyperspectral Satellite Informatics for More Efficient Exploration and Mining
The HyspecIQ project is the subject of AMIRA project P1147. The principal researchers associated with the project, Joseph D. Fargnoli, Pamela Blake, Tom Cudahy and Adele Seymon, will present public lectures, supported by AIG, describing the project and progress to date in Perth and Brisbane during December. Joseph D. Fargnoli is with HyspecIQ, Washington DC, USA. Pamela Blake is with Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems, California, USA. Tom Cudahy is with the CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship, Western Australia, and Adele Seymon represents AMIRA International, Melbourne.
The lectures will be in the form of “tag-team” talks that will cover the HyspecIQ system, application opportunities and the AMIRA project.
HyspecIQ is a global geoscience analytics and remote sensing informatics business which has contracted with Boeing to develop a constellation of hyperspectral imaging satellites to be launched from 2018. The HyspecIQ system has two parts, namely: (i) satellite sensors with superior spatial, spectral and radiometric resolutions and high temporal frequency/coverage (initially a <3 day repeat), combined with (ii) “multi-modal interpretation” (MMI) processing capabilities that ingest these satellite data (as well as other geoscience spatial information) to generate highly specific (and accurate) information products. Expedited digital information products will be delivered to clients within 24 hours from image capture. The first two HySpecIQ satellites will measure over 220 spectral bands between 0.4 and 2.5 µm with a <5 m pixel and a signal-to-noise performance targeting NASA’s AVIRIS-NG . Future HyspecIQ satellite systems will be designed to sense at mid-wave infrared, thermal infrared, LIDAR and/or SAR wavelengths, depending on resource industry requirements.
HyspecIQ aims to collaborate with a team of international researchers and the resources sector (private and public) through an AMIRA International project to design an optimum suite of business-critical information products across the mining cycle, from discovery to mine closure. Potential issues include: measurement of mineral alteration footprints like white mica Tschermak substitution, alunite K-Na chemistry, clinozoisite-epidote mineralogy and chlorite Mg number; exploring in poorly accessible/or and data-poor regions; exploring in deep regolith, snow, ice and/or vegetation cover; accurate characterisation of ore/waste in open pit mines and stockpiles during mining; tracking environmental impacts such as dust sources along mining infrastructure; rehabilitation progress of mining affected lands; and measurable indicators for mine closure criteria.
Joseph D. Fargnoli SVP Products, HySpecIQ
Mr. Fargnoli serves as the senior Vice President for Products within HySpecIQ. In this role Joseph is responsible for ensuring that the design and development of information products will address the core business needs of the user community and in the development of the collection and processing technologies to effectively address customer mission requirements.
Joseph’s areas of technical expertise are in the design and development of remote sensing systems particularly with regards to the exploitation of hyperspectral and multispectral phenomenology and in the integration of hyperspectral and multispectral data with imagery and other forms of information from multiple modalities and sources. In particular, Joseph has expertise in the development of informatics solutions incorporating remotes sensing image science with modern analytic architectures and cloud based IT infrastructure.
Joseph holds a BS in Mathematics and MS degree in Electrical Engineering from The State University of New York, MS in Optics from the University of Rochester, an MS in Telecommunications and Computers from the George Washington University and is currently pursuing further advanced graduate studies in remote sensing informatics at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
Thomas Cudahy
Tom Cudahy has over 25 years of research experience with CSIRO developing capabilities that deliver mineral information to the resources community from drill core, field, airborne and space-borne systems that measure reflectance/emissivity. Tom has led numerous national and international collaborative research projects (including the Western Australian Centre of Excellence for 3D Mineral Mapping) and been involved with many national and international aerospace technology development teams (including ASTER, Hyperion, SEBASS, HyMap, HISUI). His vision is explorers and miners in Australia empowered with scalable, accurate, digital, 3D mineralogy. His career highlights include: (i) 1st civilian satellite hyperspectral SWIR mineral maps of the Earth (Hyperion at Mount Fitton, South Australia); (ii) 1st seamless digital maps of mineralogy from “fresh to space” (Rocklea Dome, Western Australia)); (iii) 1st continent-scale maps of SWIR and TIR mineralogy (Australian ASTER geosciences maps); (iv) plenary keynote at the 34IGC, Brisbane; (v) tens of thousands of airborne and satelite mineral mapping products of Australia generated by Dr Cudahy and his team downloaded by users from over 40 countries; and (vi) being awarded Australian Mining’s “2012 Explorer of the Year”. Tom has a PhD from Curtin University (1999) and a BSc (Hons) from Macquarie University (1984).
It was a great pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to represent the AIG at the launch of the Chinese Translation of the 2012 JORC Code at China Mining in Tianjin last month. As a former member of JORC and past Chairman of the WA Branch of the AIG, I just happened to be in the right place at the right time, as I was on my way to Griffin Mining’s Caijiaying zinc-gold mine north of Beijing.
Peter Stoker (outgoing JORC Chairman) launches the Chinese translated version of the 2012 JORC Code
What is the significance of the Chinese translation of the JORC Code, and what does it mean for AIG Members? It is my opinion that this well attended event held on the afternoon of 21st October at China Mining was a milestone event for Australian geoscientists. As it happened most of the members of the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO) also attended the launch and the Chairperson Edmundo Tulcanaza held a press conference just after the launch ceremony. To me this official launch marked a big step forward in diplomatic terms by putting the western codes, in particular the JORC Code, on the tip of people’s tongues in the mining industry in China. Of course it will take time before any official moves are likely to take place to officially adopt JORC Code style reporting for China; however the first big step would be for China to join the CRIRSCO family. With Mongolia having recently joined CRIRSCO and Russia being represented on CRIRSCO through NAEAN there may be some pressure to further re-assess China’s position.
Gerry Fahey meets Wang Jia Hua, Exec Vice President China Mining Association
I believe that great credit should be given to Peter Stoker and his colleague Zhu Yang Yang for taking the running in making this event happen. I would say that JORC has been to China what PERC has been to Russia; by gaining respect within the reporting communities of the respective countries (Stephen Henley did some great early work with the Russians and later with PERC, similarly Peter Stoker set in place the dialogue with the Chinese). Thanks also to Charles Qin, Xiao Zhenmin, Shaung Kui Ren and Bielin Shi (CSA Global) for their major help with the translation.
Wang Jia Hua (China Mining Association), Geoff Sharrock (President AusIMM), Gerry Fahey (AIG Representative)
JORC hopes that this official Chinese translation of the 2012 JORC Code will enhance mutual understanding of the JORC Code (one of the CRIRSCO family of Reporting Codes and standards) and the Chinese reporting system. JORC and CRIRSCO are committed to providing encouragement and assistance for China to join CRIRSCO.
For more information and to access the Chinese translation of the JORC Code (2012 Edition), click here.
Gerry Fahey
Principal Mining Geologist, CSA Global
By Michael J. I. Brown, Monash University
Scientists should study pseudoscience – see what the pseudoscientists are up to and perhaps (for a laugh) try a few pseudostudies themselves.
Critically, scientists must learn what really distinguishes science from pseudoscience. We can fall for comforting myths, with pseudoscience being the domain of cat palmists on TV claiming to predict earthquakes with the moon. Amusing, sometimes exasperating, but mostly harmless stuff.
But the most dangerous pseudoscience is not produced amateurish cranks, but by a minority of qualified scientists and doctors. Their pseudoscience is promoted as science by think tanks and sections of the media, with serious consequences.
British doctor Andrew Wakefield’s claims about vaccines and autism continue to impact vaccination rates 16 years on, despite Wakefield being deregistered and his research debunked.
Why do a minority of scientists produce pseudoscience? Clearly some pseudoscience is strongly associated with ideological beliefs, and motivated reasoning can overwhelm data, logic and years of training. Perhaps some scientists get complacent, expecting their hunches to always be correct.
But perhaps there’s another reason that’s closer to home. Is part of the problem how we educate prospective scientists?
Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
A key phrase is “testing of hypotheses”. We test hypotheses because they can be wrong.
Hypothesis testing is the first victim of pseudoscience. The conclusions are already known, and the data and analyses are (consciously or unconsciously) chosen to reach the desired conclusion.
Unfortunately, high school and undergraduate science students may have limited exposure to hypothesis testing. A student laboratory exercise may repeat an experiment from decades ago, which has been simplified for teaching, and whose conclusions are well known.
Such an exercise teaches technical skills at the expense of hypothesis testing. Should we expect students to “get” hypothesis testing without real experience? No, and without real experience of hypothesis testing we may undermine years of education.
What is the most time consuming aspect of science? Collecting the data? Producing results?
In a school or university laboratory class, much time is devoted to obtaining the relevant results. However, this doesn’t truly reflect how scientific research is undertaken.
When undertaking scientific research, obtaining a result can be relatively quick. The painful part is cross checking the validity of the result with different experiments and new data, including comparison with already published studies.
Pseudoscience lacks these cross checks. “Discoveries” of alien life appear every year or so in the “Journal of Cosmology”. Inevitably each “discovery” is followed by debunking, showing the “aliens” and “meteorites” have mundane Earthly origins. To a professional scientist, not checking for these obvious and mundane possibilities seems bizarre, but such sloppiness is a hallmark of pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, our teaching laboratory classes don’t always emphasise cross checking. Students often spend most of their time obtaining results, with little time and few marks allocated to validating those results.
Journal articles and media reporting of science also emphasise new results (and understandably so). However, this reporting of science doesn’t reflect how scientists devote their time and effort.
While “the result” is often the prelude to months of painful verification for scientists, are we actually training our students and the public that “the result” is what science is all about?
Fitting mathematical models to data is fundamental to science and its early history. Johannes Kepler’s mathematical laws of planetary motion, developed in the early 17th century, paved the way for Newton’s theories of motion and gravity.
Students often learn (or assume) that the smaller the difference between the data and a model, the better the model. This is often encouraged by the R2 statistic, which is provided by Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Unfortunately, taken to overly simple extremes, this can lead to problems.
When we look at data, we are often looking at a trend with noise superimposed. For example, maximum temperature gradually increases from winter to summer (trend), but from day-to-day it fluctuates up and down (noise).
We can model the trend with time using a relatively simple function (such as a sine curve), but with more complex functions (like high order polynomials) we can reproduce the fluctuations too. This improvement is largely illusory though, as we are fitting to fluctuations that vary from year to year.
In statistics this sin is known as over-fitting, and its dangers are taught in university courses – but I’ve seen first-hand that students don’t always understand the risks. Perhaps the aesthetic appeal of a model following all data is too great.
Pseudoscience embraces over-fitting in a myriad of ways. Overly complex functions (including artificial neural networks), with no basis in physics, are often fitted to data without caution. Data may be shifted, rejected or filtered without justification.
A common consequence of over-fitting is wild “predictions” based on extrapolating functions (into the future). Time and time again, climate change deniers claimed long-term warming will soon be replaced by exceptionally rapid cooling. Such claims did not come to pass, and current claims (promoted by chairman of the Business Advisory Council Maurice Newman, among others) are just as dubious.
Over-fitting isn’t merely an abuse of statistics, but can influence public debate about science. If we don’t teach students about the risks of over-fitting and statistics abuse, public policy may be damaged.
Collaboration is a powerful tool for science, enabling scientists to branch into new disciplines, exchange expertise and reduce errors.
Collaboration is also a powerful weapon against pseudoscience. An astronomer knows that Jupiter and Saturn don’t induce meaningful tides on Earth. An oceanographer knows the strengths and weaknesses of tide gauge measurements.
The flaws of pseudoscience can thrive in the absence of collaboration. The errors in Australian geologist Ian Plimer’s 2009 book Heaven and Earth indicate that Plimer did not collaborate with experts on radiative transfer and astrophysics.
The absence of collaboration by Ian Plimer may be part of a broader pattern. Studies rejecting anthropogenic climate change have an average of 2.0 authors, while studies with no explicitly stated position or endorsing anthropogenic climate change have 3.6 and 3.4 authors. Those who reject climate change collaborate less than other scientists, which can increase the likelihood of errors.
Unfortunately students may have limited experience of collaboration. Students sometimes work in groups of two or three, but these groups often don’t reproduce the dynamics of scientific collaborations.
Students don’t always create their own groups, and they often work with students with similar skills. It is rare for students to create new groups with diverse skills from scratch.
Marking schemes that evaluate performance relative to peers may even actively discourage collaboration and sharing of expertise by students. It may discourage the skills students actually need to succeed in science.
How can we educate scientists, while reducing the number of trained pseudoscientists?
We need to make science education more like science itself, and this has been recognised by many science teachers. Students need the time to explore and test multiple plausible hypotheses. We may sacrifice some discipline specific skills along the way, but perhaps this is a price worth paying.
We need to recognise and encourage the cross-disciplinary approach to science. Statistics is sometimes relegated to a few of undergraduate subjects, whereas it really has to be learnt (and relearnt) throughout an education and career. Budding scientists also need to learn about decision making, logic and logical fallacies.
We need to find means of making science education reflect the collaborative nature of scientific research. This does happen for many PhD students, but many undergraduate students don’t get the opportunity to embrace and be rewarded for collaboration.
If we cannot effectively educate our students about the true nature of science, a harmful byproduct will be a trickle of trained pseudoscientists, who will undermine the effectiveness of science in our society into the future.
Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University, and has developed space-related titles for Monash University’s MWorld educational app.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
The National Graduate Group (NGG) is a new initiative by the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) to better communicate with its graduate and student members. Graduate members of the AIG were nominated by each state, who now sit on the National Graduate Committee (NGC) and are responsible for generating and implementing NGG initiatives to improve communication and engagement by:
The NGG, supporting our next generation of geoscientists!
The National Graduate Group has several initiatives in place and in the making. We always welcome new ideas pertinent to Early Career Geoscientists – send your feedback to ngg@aig.org.au
What the industry wants: Results from the AIG National Graduate Group Geoscience Survey
Pt 1: www.aig.org.au/part-one-of-three-part-series-what-the-industry-wants-results-from-the-aig-national-graduate-group-geoscience-survey
Pt 2: www.aig.org.au/part-two-of-three-part-series-what-the-industry-wants-results-from-the-aig-national-graduate-group-geoscience-survey
Pt 3: www.aig.org.au/part-three-of-three-part-series-what-the-industry-wants-results-from-the-aig-national-graduate-group-geoscience-survey
The NGG have developed information pages on Geoscience Careers.
Information is provided on various industry and government sectors where geoscientists are regularly employed. Information includes:
Go to https://www.aig.org.au/careers-in-geoscience/ for further information.
The Mentoring Programs aim to connect undergraduate students, MSc/PhD Candidates and early, mid career and more mature geoscientists with senior geoscience professionals to seek practical advice, direction and feedback on their future careers.
AIG Mentoring Programs are active in most States including a Distance Mentoring Program for remote and travelling geoscientists. The programs have formal, face-to-face events and allow programs which run over 5-6 months annually. Mentor-mentee contact is through private face to face, telephone or skype meetings as well as programmed formal meetings and social events. This allows time for the development of strong relationships between mentees and mentors and encourages networking with the general geoscience community.
Each year the NGG hosts webinars specifically for early career geoscientists.
Join Patrick McAndless, P.Geo., FGC for an insightful webinar/workshop where participants will uncover their unique way of making a difference to create a personal Brand Statement. The Brand Statement represents your life purpose and internal compass for your entire career journey – vital knowledge for any early career geoscientist (approx 0.5hour).
Patrick McAndless, P.Geo., FGC presents a second webinar/workshop where participants will learn how to market themselves by applying their newly created Brand Statement to a variety of Brand Products including their resume, Linkedin profile and business card. (approx ½-¾ hour).
Patrick McAndless, P.Geo., FGC presents the third and final webinar/workshop where participants will learn to effectively market themselves with confidence in all networking situations and job interviews. (approx ½-¾ hour).
NGG is proud to collaborate with GradAustralia, Australia’s leading graduate recruitment specialists. Head to their website www.gradaustralia.com.au to search for graduate jobs & internships from Australia’s top employers & kick start your career.
GradAustralia has released their 2019-20 STEM Career Guide and it can be found here.
For more information, visit our website for full list of member benefits – www.aig.org.au/about-aig/membership/member-benefits
Careers & education
https://myfuture.edu.au/userhome
http://www.gooduniversitiesguide.com.au
Have you ever been presented with a geophysical plot for interpretation at the end of a long drilling day and wondered how the data was collected and what it really means anyway? Ever wondered how the data can be used quantitatively, perhaps as a proxy to coal quality, or in the calculation of equivalent uranium grade, what geotechnical information can be derived and if the interpretation of petrophysical parameters can go beyond picking gamma peaks?
As part of the ASEG-PESA 2015 conference program, the downhole logging workshop is an opportunity open to all geologists and geophysicists.
With a mix of speakers from industry, research, consultants and service providers, presentations will include practical examples and solutions to the interpretation of downhole logging data and its quantitative use. The workshop will open with a fantastic opportunity to see the set-up of multiple logging vehicles and will close with a panel discussion where participants are able to question respected industry professionals about the future of downhole logging in the mineral industry.
Check the AIG Events Calendar for more details.
This course, offered by Corbett and Menzies Consulting Pty Ltd, will provide field-based training to allow the participant to begin exploration for porphyry Cu-Au deposits. It will be run in the Orange area NSW, mapping field exposures and drill core from the Cargo and Copper Hill exploration projects, and drill core from the Cadia-Rideway and North Parkes porphyry Cu-Au deposits. Mapping will emphasise the identification of porphyry veins styles, alteration styles, mineralisation, structure and lithologic variations. Introductory lectures will include: the staged evolution of porphyry systems including the role of alteration, structure and breccias, moving on to the exploration environment including the erosion level above an ore zone and also mapping techniques.
Cost: $3500 (+GST) pp and 10 places for unemployed geologists at $1750 (+GST) pp.
Fees include accommodation, bus travel, meals and (take home) field equipment.
AIG has agreed to sponsor several of the places for unemployed members – contact your local state branch for details.
Places: Limited to 25
Instructors: Dr Greg Corbett, Doug Menzies and Stuart Hayward.
Duration: 27 February to 5 March 2015 with 5 days of field work (field days might be substituted for lectures in really bad weather). The agenda is as follows:
Day 1 – arrive by midday with an afternoon of lectures (compulsory).
Day 2 – Cargo porphyry Cu prospect – 1:500 scale mapping.
Day 3 – Cargo and Copper Hill projects – log drill core.
Day 4 – Copper Hill project – mapping pit at 1:500 and log drill core.
Day 5 – Ridgeway Porphyry Cu-Au deposit – Log a cross section of drill core.
Day 6 – Goonumbla Cu-Au deposit – Log a cross section of drill core.
Day 7 – Depart.
Evening lectures might include (1-2 hours):
Registration: www.cmcgeos.com
For further information email Doug Menzies. Download a copy of the course flyer here.
Please note that CMC reserves the right to cancel this event should minimum attendance numbers not be met. Registrations will close on 31 January 2015.
The Yilgarn Craton (WA) in the second half of the 20th century witnessed a transformative period in the resources industry which included the discovery and successful exploitation of a new deposit type (komatiite-hosted nickel sulphide), a massive boom in exploration and mining of Archaean lode gold, and developments in a number of other commodities.
This two day symposium will look at the who, why and how of this momentous era 1950 to 1999. The meeting will be a deliberate acknowledgement and record of the achievements of teams and individuals, some of whom are no longer with us.
Further event details are available here. Bookmark this page to stay up to date with information regarding the symposium. For further information contact training@geosymposia.com.au
The symposium’s latest circular and Call for Papers is available here.
