Can mining analysts help reverse the decline in basic geologist’s field skills?

In my SEG Discovery article “Capture Codes for Better Geology” (No. 128, 1/2022 pp 15-23), and in a recent geohug webinar ( https://lnkd.in/dJ235JXc ) on the same subject I proposed a challenge; to conduct a geologic audit. The object was to assess the consistency of project geologic coding; an often sited complaint of manual logging and mapping. The audit simply consists of selecting ten distinct hand samples, and without indicating the locations, have the all project geologists code them independently. This exercise is not unlike QA/QC protocols regularly conducted for geochemical samples. No one would consider doing thousands of assays with no controls, so why should coding for lithology, alteration, and mineralization be any different?

I am curious if anyone actually did conducted a geologic audit, and if so, what the results were. I can fully understand why many management teams would prefer not to conduct such an audit. The most obvious reason is the fear of what they might find. For if inconsistencies were revealed, what does imply for their geologic database, or their own competency. Suggesting management conduct such an audit is much like pushing on a rope, with the same expected results. What is needed is a way to pull on the rope; this is where the mining analysts can lend a hand. 

Over my career I have given dozens of presentations to mining analysts. Generally I have found that the more remote and less comfortable the project conditions, the less experienced analysts are sent. Although, checking the “site-visit” box was a major reason for their trip. So, while they are there anyway, why not do some good, by pulling the rope to improve the quality of geology being done? After all, their visit is to ascertain the quality of the project, and provide first hand observations to determine if it warrants their clients investment. Following the logic that the better the project geology is understood, the lower the exploration risk should be. The negative is certainly true. 

As an aid these junior analysts the following series of questions will help them determine the understanding of the project geology.  

Unless the project is completely under cover, the project should have a geologic map. The basic geologic map should:

1. Clearly define the location and lithology of all bedrock exposures, with interpreted geology between outcrops. If outcrops are note shown, and the map consists of large patches of color, then the map must be considered merely an interpretation and the understanding of the geology must be down-graded. 
2. Are field stations clearly marked and identified? Without these there is no way of determining what is real and what is interpreted. Lack of outcrops and field stations means no other interpretation can be made without remapping.
3. Dose the map have a stratigraphic column with detailed description of the map units, or are large portions of the map defined as “undifferentiated”? If so, then the stratigraphy is likely to be poorly understood; and stratigraphy is the primary attribute in understanding the geology, with structure, and geochemistry secondary. 
4. Does the map have geologic cross sections? This is really the acid-test for understanding the geology into the third dimension. 
5. Do faults appear as long continuous lines that cross with no off-set at their intersections? If so, this would mean the faults dip vertically and all movement is strictly dip-slip, a highly unlikely occurrence in the real world.
6. Is lithology mixed with alteration on the same map, for example on the periphery rock units are used, but the at the center alteration facies are used? Lithology and alteration must be mapped separately; otherwise there is no way to determine the location, or movement on faults. Also, the correlation, if any, between lithology and mineralization can not be determined.
7. Ask to see the rock library. Do not be gaslighted by mineralized samples, as these do not indicate an understanding of the host geology. If there is no rock library, ask how the geologists define and differentiate map units?  

The paper and video referenced above can provide a fuller explanation with examples, both positive and negative, on the importance of these basic features of geologic mapping.

I hope this helps mining analysts do their job better in ascertaining the level of understanding of the project geology. This list can also serve for geologists evaluating property submittals, or viewing geologic maps in geologic conferences, or student posters. I once asked these same questions of a student posting their work here in LinkedIn who’s work failed on nearly every point; their feeble excuse was “is how geologic mapping is now done”. Well maybe for those too lazy to do it right, whose who think they can just google the answers, or get by without putting in the effort to walk the ground, not just the bits they can drive to, or parachute into a project pick up a handful of rocks and return to the lab for months and think they can produce a geologic map. This could also serve as a heads-up for project managers, to review their own understanding of the project geology before their next mining analyst site visit. 

I’m retired, so why should I care? Because I am passionate about my chosen career and it disheartens me to see the decline in the quality in basic geologist’s field skills, both in industry and academia. I highlight shortcomings I have observed for decades, but also provide open source solutions in the form of the capture codes. At this phase of my career it is time to give back, and this is the form I have chosen to do so.