aig_pagebanner02_Bulga-coal-mine

Skill shortages study: Commonwealth Department of Jobs and Small Business

DJSB study 70 professions including geologists and mining engineers by tracking job vacancies and following up with employers.  Previous DJSB reports can be found here.  The latest resources sector survey was released in April, 2017, examining employment prospects for geologists and engineers.

The survey found, for geologists, that:

  • the labour market for geologists and geophysicists has been well supplied with qualified and experienced applicants since 2014
  • there were, on average, 39.3 applicants per vacancy, with an average of 5.5 per vacancy considered suitable by employers.
  • the current survey showed a notable decline in the number of applicants and suitable applicants per vacancy compared with last year and a number of employers attributed this to a recent improvement in recruitment activity following the upturn in mining commodity prices.
  • Applicant numbers, however, remain high compared with those between 2007 and 2013.
  • All employers required applicants to hold at least a bachelor degree in geology or a closely related field.
  • Employers usually sought applicants with experience in a particular type of mine (underground or open cut), mining commodity, job role (for example, exploration or mine production) and a specific mining-related software package.
  • The full-time employment outcome for geology graduates declined from 70.8 per cent in 2013 to 54.6 per cent in 2015.

Proportion of vacancies filled (%), average number of applicants and suitable applicants per vacancy (no.), Geologists and Geophysicists, Australia, 2007 to 2017

DJSB  found that forward Indicators suggest a further softening in mining investment activity over the short term which is likely to have a dampening effect on the demand for resource industry professionals. AIG met with DJSB last week to discuss the survey and compare results with the AIG quarterly employment surveys.

Australian Geoscientist Employment Survey – September 2017

The 2017 September quarter Australian geoscientist employment survey is open for contributions until 21st October.  You can complete the survey here.

This survey will provide data on trends in geoscientist employment in Australia during the third (June to September) quarter of 2017.

The June 2017 employment survey showed that unemployment and under-employment for geoscientists continued to improve, although the rate of improvement was observed to differ markedly between different sectors of our profession.  Mineral exploration fared worse than metalliferous mining and energy resource exploration and production.  The survey results supported a broader perception of improving employment conditions for mining professionals but demonstrated that Australia’s mineral project pipeline remains fragile due to a lack of exploration contributing to new discoveries needed to sustain the industry.  Exploration investment, however, has also increased according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.  This survey will provide data on whether this has contributed to improved employment opportunities.

AIG needs your support by completing this survey.  The survey results are reported widely and used to promote and inform others of the health of our exploration and mining industry.  The data supports advocacy by AIG on the need for responsible, sustainable resource exploration throughout Australia.

The survey takes only two minutes to complete.  You do not need to be an AIG member to contribute.  No data that could personally identify respondents is collected.

Your completing the survey really helps to make a difference to the standing and knowledge of our profession.

The survey will remain open for contributions until 21st October but please take two minute to complete it now.

What’s Happening with Mineral Exploration in Australia?

This question was the subject of a topical, joint GSA-AIG-AusIMM technical talk in Brisbane during July.  The meeting focussed on the situation in Queensland but many of the issues and ideas have national relevance.

Any geoscientist working in mineral exploration in Australia over the past few years will tell you that the sector has been doing it tough. Junior explorers have experienced di culties raising capital. There appears to have not been a lot of mid-tier to major company interest in exploration in recent years, with a few notable exceptions. The industry as a whole has faced a growing burden associated with gaining access to land in the form of long lead times between applying for exploration licences and having them granted, and a mountain of red tape associated with permitting for even very low- impact exploration activities. The latest Australian Geoscientist Employment Survey showed that the unemployment rate for geoscientists in exploration is two to three-times that of geoscientists working in other sectors of our profession.

Governments, state and federal, have tried numerous approaches, mostly centred around nancial support of exploration drilling or limited tax incentives to attempt to promote exploration investment. A further,
tax incentive based scheme was presented by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in a speech to the Liberal Party Western Australia state conference only last weekend. To date, though, there’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that these schemes are having any real or lasting impact.  The proportion of each Australian state held under some form of exploration title has fallen steadily since 2011 according to information compiled by Doug Brewster, a Brisbane based AIG member.

Some Australian states are perceived to be poor destinations for exploration investment according to the Fraser Institute’s annual Survey of Mining Companies in 2016, in which only Western Australia was ranked in the top 10 exploration investment destinations globally.

What’s the answer?

A survey has been established to harness the ideas and experience of geoscientists working in the exploration sector. Please take time to complete the survey and contribute your views and opinions.  The survey will remain open until 27th October.

You can also participate in the conversation via the AIG website, by posting comments here, and via the AIG Linkedin Group.

AIG Professional Issues Subcommittee – Upcoming Member Survey

The AIG Professionals Subcommittee is a subcommittee of Council comprising:

  • Wayne Spilsbury MAIG, FAusIMM (CP), PGeo
  • Dr Julian Vearncombe BSc. PhD. FGS. FSEG. FAIG. RPGeo.
  • Kaylene Camuti   MAIG, RPGeo
  • Josh Leigh MAIG
  • Dr Robert Findlay MAIG

AIG’s vision statement is “The AIG will strive to be the preeminent Australian professional institute in advocacy for, and public promotion of, all Australian geoscientists”. This is not a static statement. As the practice of geoscience evolves with changes in technology and changes in society’s expectations of professional practice, so must AIG change to preserve its preeminent status.

Benchmarking against the major international geoscience professional institutes shows AIG may be falling behind in its entrance requirements, expectations of Continued Professional Development (CPD) by members and governance.

The Professional Issues Subcommittee was formed at the Face to Face Strategic Planning meeting in June 2016.  Its mandate was to create a “Road Map” to improve competency and increase professionalism (and the community perception of professionalism) of AIG members. The Subcommittee’s Charter is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. AIG Professional Issues Subcommittee Charter and Objectives

A PDF copy of Figure 1 (above) is available here.

AIG members will soon receive a link to an on-line survey prepared by the Professional Issues Subcommittee.  We are seeking your input as we prepare the Road Map for presentation to the AIG Council.  Your responses will assist the subcommittee in its recommendations to Council for AIG to demonstrate best practice.

The survey is seeking your input on the following issues:

Membership Requirements – Education and Communication Skills

The current minimum requirements for AIG Membership are a 3 year bachelor’s degree in the geological sciences and five years relevant professional experience that includes two years in which the applicant has been required to exercise professional judgement and discretion, and is supported by at least two AIG members with personal knowledge of the applicant’s relevant professional experience.

For industry employers, an Honours degree is the desired minimum qualification for graduate employment.  This is because, under the modern degree system, most students are not exposed to work requiring problem solving and the exercise of technical and professional judgement until their Honours year.  That is, until students complete Honours, they have little to no experience in the acquisition, assessment, compilation and interpretation of data, and little experience in technical writing and professional reporting.

Some institutions require applicants to submit a recent report and undertake a personal interview to demonstrate their functional literacy skills.

In many comparable jurisdictions (Canada, USA, South Africa and Europe) the minimum education requirement for professional institute admission is a 4 year Bachelor’s degree. AIG is currently not, but could potentially be at risk of losing its Recognised Overseas Professional Organisations (ROPO) status which allows our Members to identify as Qualified Persons or Competent Persons in these jurisdictions because of our lesser education requirement[1].

Should the education requirement be changed to an Honours degree or equivalent and should new applicants be interviewed and be required to submit a recent report (or other example of written, geoscientific work)?

Membership Requirements – Law and Ethics Examination

Some professional organisations require applicants to complete a professional Law and Ethics short course, and pass an examination. The short courses are designed to increase knowledge of corporate law, stock exchange rules and other relevant legislation, and teach the obligations and responsibilities that come with adherence to a Code of Ethics. Typically these Law and Ethics short courses involve a seminar followed by an on-line exam.

Membership Requirements – Continuous Professional Development (CPD)

AIG promotes the benefits of CPD to all members and requires Registered Professional Geoscientists to complete and document a minimum of 50 hours of CPD, on average, annually over a three year period.  CPD is not a guarantee of competence.  The community at large, however, sees a commitment to CPD as being at the core of an individual being able to describe themselves as a “professional”.  Should AIG follow many professional organisations in other disciplines to make undertaking and recording CPD activities a requirement of membership?

Authoring Reports

Because geoscience is largely unregulated in Australia, essentially anyone can submit a geoscientific report to an employer, client, the public at large, or a government authority.  This arguably undermines the practice of professional geoscientists and exposes the public to risks inherent in the misrepresentation and misinterpretation of geoscientific data and observations, not just confined to exploration results and mineral resource reporting.   Should Members be encouraged to sign and seal all formal public documents that have been created by them in their professional capacity to employers, clients and the public? Should AIG promote the benefits of only accepting geoscientific reports prepared by members of a professional institute including AIG and AusIMM in Australia, or a Recognised Overseas Professional Organisation?

JORC Competent Person

The JORC Code defines a ‘Competent Person’ as “… a minerals industry professional who is a Member or Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, or of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, or of a ‘Recognised Overseas Professional Organisation’ … and … must have a minimum of five years relevant experience in the style of mineralisation or type of deposit under consideration and in the activity which that person is undertaking.” (JORC 2012)  The key qualifier in the definition of a Competent Person are the words ‘relevant experience’.  What  constitutes relevant experience is left to the judgement of the Competent Person (CP) who must be confident of being able to demonstrate competence to a panel of their peers if called on to do so (convened by the AIG or AusIMM Complaints or Ethics and Standards committees)

Several reviews of JORC reports (AIG JORC Representatives, 2015 and Combes, 2016) have identified frequent shortcomings in:

  • Competent Person reports issued in compliance with the JORC Code that range from procedural breaches (e.g. omitting a consent statement by the CP);
  • provision of inadequate technical information of substance (e.g. cut-off grades and maximum internal dilution in a drill intercept, physical characteristics of industrial minerals); and, less frequently,
  • a lack of market-sensitive technical information (e.g. inadequate, opaque description of mineralisation in “intersections of massive sulphides” without describing the sulphide minerals observed or their respective abundances) which represent a failure to comply with the underlying transparency and materiality provisions of the JORC Code.

Australia, arguably, benefits from a non-prescriptive standard for exploration results, mineral resource and ore reserve information to securities exchanges.  This information, particularly for junior companies, is almost invariably market sensitive, making a high standard of compliance with JORC imperative if JORC is to be preserved, rather than replaced by more prescriptive requirements.  There appears to be a compelling argument that our JORC reporting skills need improvement.

Should the definition of a Competent Person under JORC be changed to require Registered Professional Geoscientist (RPGeo) status (and Chartered Professional status for AusIMM members) to implement a requirement for CPD and a higher standard of independent peer review of the CP’s relevant experience?  A change for Australian geoscientists would bring them into alignment with Canadian geoscientists who already need to be registered with the relevant provincial registration authority (PGeo).  This could be seen to be strengthening the access to reciprocal reporting arrangements to the TSX and TSXV, by far the world’s largest sources of exploration and mining investment capital.

Licencing or Registration

Geosciences are one of only a handful of fields of professional practice in Australia where some form of professional registration is not either mandated by government, or effectively essential due to industry imposed requirements (Waltho 2012).

The Professional Issues Subcommittee is concerned that regulation could be imposed on us, as illustrated by recently proposed Commonwealth legislation for Financial Advisors.  The Commonwealth government has released an exposure draft of legislation to raise education, training and ethical standards for Financial Advisers, including a Tertiary degree, an entrance exam, mandatory CPD and an enforceable Code of Ethics for public comment and consultation.  Geoscience could be considered to have escaped the attention of government regulators due to the limited exposure of the community to the actions of geoscience professionals.  This could, however, change rapidly should there be a scandal relating to the share price of an exploration or mining company that could, for example, have wide reaching consequences for both direct and indirect investors.  Many Australian’s superannuation investments have exposure to mining shares.

A number of Australian professional institutes are accredited through the Professional Standards Council (PSC) and regulated through State Professional Practice Acts. Information about this organisation is provided at http://www.psc.gov.au/

This accreditation provides limitations on the liabilities of an organisation and its members, and ensures that organisational self-regulation meets the current Australian standards applicable to other comparable professional organisations (such as Engineers Australia).

Accreditation of AIG by the PSC would require AIG to undertake the following (some of which are already within the scope of current activities):

  1. Both provide and track Continued Professional Development by members
  2. Maintain an effective complaints handling and disciplinary process for members
  3. Use of the PSC disclosure statement
  4. Undertake an annual risk management program review
  5. Improvements and changes to professional standards
  6. Insurance cover, claims and business asset monitoring
  7. Annual audit of members and the provision of an independent certificate

Additionally there is a cost for PSC membership including a one-time fee of $35,000 and an annual levy equivalent to $50 per AIG member.

Should AIG investigate accreditation and regulation through State Professional Practice Acts?

Paid Executive

AIG has experienced steady growth over the past 15 years with fee-paying Members doubling to about 2500. AIG’s management, however, continues to be managed by volunteer members with outsourced administrative (back office) support engaged on a contract basis. The Institute has no paid employees. If the above changes are approved, it is proposed that AIG will need to employ appropriately skilled and experienced staff to manage increased requirements for Membership, raising awareness of AIG’s activities and requirements of membership to universities, employers and regulators that will exceed reasonable expectations of volunteers.

The survey has only 9 questions and should take only about 10 minutes to complete.  Please consider your responses – your opinions are important to us.

References

AIG JORC Representatives (2015) – Strengthening the integrity of Public Reports made under the JORC Code– a confidential green paper prepared for the Australian Institute of Geoscientists

Coombes, J. (2016) Scoping Study Review – Discussion Paper presented to JORC

JORC (2012). The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, from http://www.jorc.org/jorc_code.asp

Waltho, A. W. (2012) It’s Time to Think About Professional Registration, from https://www.aig.org.au/its-time-to-think-about-professional-registration/
[1] To date, professional experience has been assigned greater weighting than education in assessing competence.  We cannot, however, rely on the status quo continuing in view of developments overseas.

20th Annual Survey of Exploration and Mining Companies

 

 

 

 

The Fraser Institute’s 20th annual survey of mining companies has commenced.  Collection of data will continue until Friday November 4th, 2016. 

The data collected will allow the survey team to identify those provinces, states, and countries that pose the greatest barriers to investment in the mining sector, as well as the reasons underlying any significant shifts in the jurisdictional rankings from a year ago.

The report on the findings of last year’s survey, Survey of Mining Companies 2015, can be downloaded here.

AIG members are invited to participate in the 2016 survey.  Greater participation will help to ensure that the results reflect the views of professionals with first-hand knowledge of the mining investment climate in countries around the globe.  Broad involvement in the survey will also increase the number of jurisdictions evaluated, thereby providing more governments with candid and anonymous opinions on their mining policies.

The survey in past years has provided a comparison of the ability of Australian states to compete for exploration and mining investment compared with other mining jurisdictions globally.

The survey can be completed in less than 15 minutes. All information collected through the survey remains confidential.

Executives, managers, and other experts with mining exploration and development companies, and their advisors, are asked to complete the 2016 survey questionnaire with respect to jurisdictions about which they are knowledgeable.

For more information, or to participate in the survey, contact Taylor Jackson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, Canada.