LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Editor,


Re: Bill Feyerabend’s “Field Geologist: Evolve!” (April-May-June 2020).


I read with pleasure Bill Feyerabend’s article in the last issue discussing a path towards project generation as one gains experience in the exploration and mining industry. He hit on many of the important points of our business and how to get into the project generation game. I also am a bit of a gray hair, as most of us are in the business these days, and have some additional thoughts and recommendations following up on Bill’s suggestions, to assist those interested in participating in the “evolutionary process.”


First, remember your ethics (see applicable past “Professional Ethics and Practices” columns by David Abbott Jr.). All too often I have been approached by someone peddling a very nice and pro- spective prospect and/or property, but with data not of their own generation: in many cases it is from a former employer (or client) from whom they have not obtained a release to disclose it. Needless to say, this is inappropriate, a violation of AIPG (and most other professional organizations) ethics, but in many cases entails flat out theft. If you have data from a former employer or former client get permission to use it. In some cases,


if you’re smart about it you can often get MORE data to support your project with minimal strings attached. For instance, one can obtain rights to utilize the data you have or want to use in your explora- tion endeavors, as well as maybe a larger dataset, in return for allowing the former employer/client to participate in future financing or to have a right of first refusal on the project. For that matter they may like the idea years later, after they didn’t the first time around. By using this approach, if your efforts to expand a prospect are successful you may have a built-in means for obtaining money and assistance to develop it, versus having to go out and be a salesperson.


Second, don’t overhype your pros-


pects. Be realistic in your expectations of how others view your data. Just because you spent months climbing through poi- son ivy or cacti, dodging rattlesnakes, picking ticks, chiggers or other creepy- crawly-itchy-bitey things off does not mean that your prospect is the next best thing to buttered bread (or better). Good sound science and practical application and interpretation of low-cost explora- tion work/tools goes a long way.


Third, to re-emphasize a point made by Bill, have realistic expectations for what the prospect is worth. You may actually have discovered the next best thing to buttered bread, but if you ask too much for it or are unrealistic in your financial expectations you won’t place your property and you will be out bucks, as well as having lots of bug bites and


blisters for nothing in return. Next to people trying to sell me properties with other people’s data that they have no right to use, my next biggest gripe and #2 on my hate list of prospect generators (the less than scrupulous data thieves are #1) are those folks who shoot too high and have unrealistic expectations for compensation AND are not negotiable. A point Bill noted, “NO is not NO until NO is explicitly said” is valid, but you can get a “NO” pretty darn quick if you are asking for a small fortune for a poorly developed prospect in Podunk, Nowhere.


Lastly, don’t be afraid to go out on


a limb. If you have a good idea and exploration concept, do the research. If it is too big, too hard, too difficult to do alone, get a partner and spread the load. Numerous small prospect genera- tors (meaning individual scientists and prospectors) have traditionally bonded together on bigger projects and done the foot work to bring prospects to the drill stage (where you really make the discov- ery) and provide the opportunity for oth- ers with more financial capital to get into the now “ready to drill” prospect. Some of the best projects I have ever worked on in my 30+ year career were those generated by “evolutionary” people as Bill so aptly described. So follow Bill’s advice and get out and find the next mine.


Christopher Dail, CPG-10596 Exploration Manager Midas Gold Idaho, Inc.


Note: These are the last two items on climate change that I intend to publish in my term as Editor – enough, already!


COMMENT ON


Thomas Spalding’s “The Future of Geology and the


Military: at the CO2 Frontier” TPG v.57, no.2, p.55 Apr.May.Jun 2020, by Raphael Ketani, CPG- 09003.


In his article “The Future of Geology


and the Military: at the CO2 Frontier”, Thomas S. Spalding (CPG-9973) states


that CO2 is causing various changes in regional and world climate. Figure 1 in the article shows a five-year average temperature deviation using the base- line period 1951 to 1980. However, it


www.aipg.org


must be noted that 1951 to 1980 was a period of comparatively lower tempera- tures. So, of course, any global tempera- ture map using this baseline will show a strong future warming trend. If one were to consider the longer baseline from 1850 to 2017, then an animated map would show three periods of comparatively higher temperature (1850 to 1890, 1920 to 1940, 1980 to 2017) separated by two periods of lower global temperatures (HadCRUT4, 2017). The planet tem- perature maps would show only normal global climate variability.


Sea level rise is also discussed in regards to its impact on the naval station at Norfolk, Virginia. Satellite measurements of mean sea surface height have indicated an approximate rise of about two millimeters per year


(Houston, 2011). Having analyzed tide gauge records that start at the year 1700, Jevrejeva et al (2008) have deter- mined that sea level is responding to multi-decadal variability in combination with sea level rise acceleration. Though whether the sea really appears to be rising depends upon where and when you take your measurements. Nuisance flooding along the Atlantic Coast of the United States from southern New England to South Carolina, due to rela- tive sea level rise or sinking of the land, has been increasing at a higher rate. Still, this has appeared to have stopped and reversed in the first decade of the 21st Century up to 2015 due to ground- water replenishment under southern Chesapeake Bay, Virginia (Karegar et al, 2017). Even more dramatically, relative


Jul.Aug.Sep 2020 • TPG 5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64