Letters Seeing Things

During the last few years i have had the opportunity to work with a number of young geologists from whom I have learned that geological mapping or core-logging is an illusion — an illusion in the sense that what one perceives is not necessarily what others perceive. In general they have trouble identifying rock types and are frustrated by definitions of rocks that have sources outside of Canada. Because I share their problems, I thought a letter might start the process of solving this shortcoming.

I believe the illusion is created by the lack of basic training. Other causes, which add to poor interpretation/analysis, may be attributed to pre- conceived ideas such as models when approaching the problem — an outcrop, a drill hole, an ore deposit and possibly the growth of a promotional climate which requires favorable news. All of these do not improve the scientific approach to geology. We all have heard stories of how geologists on the same outcrop can come up with different interpretations. We generally assume it is because of different experiences or lack of experience. And we generally shrug our shoulders, shake our heads and walk away from the problem. I would suggest more — that it is poor training by our institutions, the industry or whomever. There is plenty of blame to go around.

And this training is becoming poorer and poorer because 1) fewer undergraduate students are being employed (nor are they being trained by industry prior to graduation); 2) the federal and provincial governments are doing less mapping; and 3) junior mining companies, the major employers today, do not have the money to train graduates or undergraduates. Lately the people with whom I have been working have been using computers to develop consistency in logging and to improve communications between the field and the office — a giant step forward in making geology more of a science. In this particular instance it has been very educational to see how different geologists perceive something as simple as color.

I would suggest that the institutes digress from models and phase diagrams and first train geologists to identify minerals and rocks in Canada. For a start, a good mineralogical and petrological book with tested examples from across Canada should be produced — tested in the sense that nine out of 10 geologists agree with the interpretations. There are many guidebooks and provincial reports backed by some scientific research which would produce accessible examples. Armed with a good basic understanding, each geologist would be in a position to interpret the illusion. In approaching the illusion, the well-trained geologist records all the (boring?) facts and, on the basis of the facts, suggests possible interpretations. With this in mind it is possible to maintain the credibility of our profession and do our job well — working hard and collecting many facts, reporting these facts honestly, without bias, and, if the facts should lead to some conclusion, reporting it humbly. Tom Neelands, Global Geoscience Consultants, Timmins, Ont.