LETTERS TO THE EDITOR — Investors favor rigorous

This geologist commends periodic attempts by The Northern Miner to give a more complete picture of why the mining industry is in such a depressed state these days. Government policies have contributed to the situation, but it is all too easy to blame government when one wishes to avoid examining chronic attitude and priority problems within the industry itself.

There is misunderstanding between a mining corporation’s upper management and the geological community as to the role and responsibilities of the economic geologist. That has contributed to the problems in the industry today.

The geologist’s primary goal within a corporation is to discover ore such that the life of an operating mine is extended or a new one is created. Occurrences and new ground must constantly be accurately and economically evaluated.

Exploration departments have sometimes isolated themselves from the bottom-line realities of the business, and thus have not always been diligent in controlling expenses. Initial exploration projects are carefully thought out, but in the excitement of intersecting mineralization there is often no cost-effective planning of the follow-up program.

Project geologists tend to judge the quality of their program primarily by the size of the drilling budget. I agree with many in the industry who believe that the major shortcoming of the flow-through-share program was that it allowed the inefficient use of exploration funds, resulting in artificially inflated costs to find and develop deposits.

In the current recession, the need for the mining industry to reduce costs has resulted in the reduction of exploration budgets and wholesale laying off of exploration staff. The survivors have been told to increase efficiency by managing more projects.

The result is, in the scramble to submit proposals, contracts and assessment reports, a proper scientific analysis of drilling and field work data is not conducted and the true opportunity to improve exploration efficiency is lost. Such a situation is not in the company’s best interest.

Economic geologists must be allowed to apply their training and experience to conduct scientifically rigorous exploration programs. Investors increasingly favor those mining companies that put their revenues back into the ground in an organized and systematic fashion rather than those that provide the largest dividends.

This does not require increased spending, but rather a more thoughtful allocation of exploration funds. Such a policy is in the mining firm’s long-term economic interest. Economic geologists feel that they have something to contribute to pull us out of this mess. We intend to show it. Trevor Boyd

Toronto