SEG Discovery

January 2020 | Number 120 | www.segweb.org

100 Years of Science and Discovery

Announcing SEG Discovery
Woodcutters 55 Years Later: A New Look at an Old Discovery
Geology and Mining: Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining
Cognitive Biases and Fallacies in Decision-Making During Mineral Exploration
The Case for Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning in Minerals
Exploration: An Oasis in the Desert or Another Mirage?
SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of Discovery
 Activation Laboratories Ltd. (Actlabs)
Leaders in Quality, Innovation and Service

A global company with local full laboratory presence for over 30 years.

Adapting the latest technologies to help solve our customer’s

challenges.

Complete Assay and Geochemical Services, Radiochemistry,

Mineralogy, Metallurgy, On-site Laboratories,
Environmental Analysis
and more...

www.actlabs.com
CustomerService @actlabs.com
1.888.228.5227 (1.888.ACTLABS)

PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT

A new gold standard

Introducing Carlin gold ore standards

choose OREAS Carlin gold ore standards

(OREAS 277 to 279).

should not be overlooked.

Incorrect matrix-matching can result in low metal
recovery at laboratories.

With over 120 gold CRMs to choose from,

we have the right match for you.

Australia www.oreas.com Canada www.explorationgeochem.com West Africa www.xandmsupplies.com Russia www.enprotech.ru

 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 3
DISCOVERY
Nº 120 — JANUARY 2020
Executive Editor.................... Brian G. Hoal
Technical Editor...............J. Bruce Gemmell
Views Editors................ Jeffrey Hedenquist
John Thompson
Production Editor..................... Chris Brandt
News Editor............................. Alice Bouley
Assistant Editor...................... Myra Holmes
Graphic Design
   & Advertising...........................Laura Doll
Announcements....................Deanne Rider
Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.
7811 Shaffer Parkway
Littleton, CO 80127-3732 USA
Tel. +1.720.981.7882 • Fax +1.720.981.7874
E-mail: seg@segweb.org
www.segweb.org
Feature articles are
peer-reviewed before they
are accepted for publication.
Please submit material to the
Technical Editor.
Tel. +1.720.981.7882
Fax +1.720.981.7874
E-mail: bruce.gemmell@utas.edu.au
SEG Discovery is published quarterly in January, April, July,
and October by the Society of Economic Geologists, Littleton,
Colorado, exclusively for members of the Society. Opinions
expressed herein are those of the writers and do not neces-
sarily represent official positions of the Society of Economic
­Geologists. When quoting material from the SEG Discovery
please credit both author and publication.
© 2020 The Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.
Printed by MODERN LITHO–PRINT CO.
Jefferson City, Missouri
SEG Discovery non-receipt claims must be made within
four (4) months of the date of publication in ­order to be
filled without charge.
— FOR CONTRIBUTORS —
SEG Discovery is published for the benefit of the world-
wide membership of the Society of Economic Geol-
ogists. We invite news items and short articles on
topics of potential interest to the membership. If you
have questions on submittal of material, please call the
SEG office at +1.720.981.7882 or send details by FAX to
+1.720.981.7874; by e-mail to publications@segweb.org.
DEADLINE FOR SEG DISCOVERY #121:
February 28, 2020
On the cover: Quartz-bornite-
chalcopyrite-magnetite specimen
from the Red Chris mine, East
zone. Photo courtesy of the British
Columbia Geological Survey.
doi:10.5382/SEGnews.2020-120
CONTENTS
F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S
15 Woodcutters 55 Years Later: A New Look at an Old Discovery
22 Geology and Mining: Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining
COLUMNS
5 From the Executive Director: SEG Council Actions
8 Presidential Perspective: Happy 100th Birthday, SEG!
9 SEGF Presidential Perspective: Moving Forward in 2020…
12 Regional Affairs: 2020: An Exciting Year Ahead for Regional Affairs
13 Diversity and Inclusion: How Good Are We? – Assessing the Results of Our Survey
VIEWS
32 Cognitive Biases and Fallacies in Decision-Making During Mineral Exploration
SEG NEWS
7 Society of Economic Geologists Awards 2020
10 Contributions – SEG, SEG Foundation, and SEG Canada Foundation
35 Announcing the SEG 2020 Distinguished Lecturer
35 Announcing the SEG 2020 Traveling Lecturers
37-39 SEG 2019 Conference – Santiago, Chile
40 SEG Awards Ceremony at the SEG 2019 Conference
47 Dyslexic Mentor – The Case for Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning in Minerals
Exploration: An Oasis in the Desert or Another Mirage?
50 The Diverse (And Inclusive!) Roots of SEG
SEG STUDENT NEWS
51 Round II SEG Student Chapter Grant Recipients for 2019
51 Round I 2020 Student Chapter Funding
52 Student Research Grants Available for 2020
53 Graduate Student Fellowships Available for 2020
54 Announcement: SEG Foundation Student Field Trip No. 19
55 Michael J. Fitzgerald Mapping Course, New Mexico
56 Akita University Student Chapter Field Trip
56 University of Michigan Student Chapter Field Trip
57 China University of Geosciences Student Chapter Field Trip
57 Université du Québec à Montréal Student Chapter Field Trip
E X P L O R AT I O N R E V I E W S
58 Alaska •  58 Australasia •  59 China •  60 Northern Eurasia • 
60 Contiguous United States
MEMBERSHIP
63 SEG Membership: Candidates and New Fellows, Members, and Student Members
66 Personal Notes and News
69-70 SEG 2020 Officers and Committees
ANNOUNCEMENTS
4 New from SEG – Ore Deposits of South America: A Compilation
7 Announcing SEG Discovery
11 Gordon Research Conferences
14 European Exploration Targeting Bootcamp 2020
21 PDAC – SEG Student Minerals Colloquium 2020
31 14th International Nickel-Copper-PGE Symposium
41-46 SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of Discovery
59 Introducing GSW's Lithosphere
67 Recruit a New Member!
68 SEG Special Publication 20 – Available for Purchase
S E G E D U C AT I O N & T R A I N I N G C U R R I C U L U M
61 SEG at PDAC 2020 – Gold: Geology, Geochemistry, Genesis and Exploration
62 SEG Practical Exploration Methods Workshop
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
4 Calendar
ADVERTISERS —
2 Actlabs, Ltd. (inside front 49 Exploration Geological 34 Recursos del Caribe, S.A.
cover) Consulting 54 Resource Geosciences de
54 AVRUPA Minerals 36 Lufkin, John L. Mexico
49 Birak, Donald J. 36 Minerals 2020 34 Shea Clark Smith
34 Condor Consulting, Inc 2 OREAS (inside front cover) 71 Strachan, Donald G. (inside
71 Discoveries 2020 Mining 50 MDRU Career Opportunities back cover)
Conference (inside back 36 Petrographic Consultants 2 Zonge Engineering &
cover) International, Inc. Research (inside front cover)
 4 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Send entries to the SEG Office

7811 Shaffer Parkway, Littleton, CO 80127 USA
Tel. +1.720.981.7881 / Fax +1.720.981.7874 /
deannerider@segweb.org

Further event details at www.segweb.org/events

Date SEG Calendar of Events Year 2020 Date SEG Calendar of Events Year 2020

JANUARY 20–23 AME Roundup 2020 – Vancouver, BC, Canada.
https://roundup.amebc.ca.
FEBRUARY 1–2 SEG-Sponsored Short Course: Orogenic Gold
in Africa and Worldwide – University of Cape
Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.
FEBRUARY 23–26 2020 SME Annual Conference & Expo – Phoe-
nix, AZ, USA. www.smeannualconference.com.
FEBRUARY 28–29 SEG Short Course: Gold: Geology, Geochem-
istry, Genesis and Exploration at PDAC 2020
Convention – Toronto, ON, Canada.
See p. 61.
MARCH 1–4 PDAC 2020 Convention – Toronto, ON,
Canada. www.pdac.ca/convention.
MARCH 3 PDAC-SEG Student Minerals Colloquium 2020.
PDAC 2020 Convention - Toronto, ON,
Canada. See p. 21.
MARCH 2–8 36th International Geological Congress –
Delhi, India. www.36igc.org
MARCH 7–13 Regional Event: Metallogeny of the Sierra
Madre Occidental in Mexico - Mexico, Central
America, and the Caribbean Region.
APRIL 15–22 Regional Event: Southwest U.S.
Cu-Mo Porphyry Systems – North America
Region.
APRIL 29–MAY 1 SEG Practical Exploration Methods Course –
Littleton, Colorado, USA. See p. 62.
MAY 17–22 SIMEXMIN 2020 – Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais,
Brazil.
MAY 18–21 GSN Symposium 2020 – Sparks, Nevada, USA.
www.gsnsymposium.org.
MAY 24–29 Gordon Research Conference and Seminar
on the Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits –
Barcelona, Spain. See p. 11.
JUNE 11–18 Regional Event: The Gawler Craton and
Olympic Dam IOCG Deposit – Australasia
Region.
JUNE 16–25 Regional Event: Neoproterozoic Through
to Archean Hosted Au, Cu, Zn, Li, Sn, U, Mn,
and Diamond Deposits of Namibia and South
Africa – Africa Region.
JULY 28-30 14th International Ni Symposium – Northern
Michigan University Conference Center.
Marquette, Michigan, USA. See p. 31.
AUGUST 16–22 Regional Event: Metallogeny of the
Southern Urals - North Eurasia Region.
AUGUST 23–29 Regional Event: Lappland's Au and
Ni-Cu-PGE Systems in Finland – Europe
Region.
AUG 31 - SEPT 5 Regional Event: Gold Metallogeny of the
Guiana Shield – South America Region.
SEPTEMBER 4–11 Regional Event: The Southern
Kyushu (Japan) Low- and High-Sulfidation
Epithermal Systems – Asia Region.
SEPTEMBER 15–18 SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of
Discovery – Whistler, BC, Canada. See p.
41-46.
Date Other Events Year 2020
APRIL 28–30 Discoveries 2020 Mining Conference - Jalisco,
Mexico. www.discoveriesconference.com
JUNE 7–12 Quartz2020 - International Symposium on
Quartz - Støperiet (Old Foundry) Tønsberg,
Norway. www.nhm.uio.no/english/
research/events/conferences/quartz2020

ORE DEPOSI
SOUTH AMER
TS OF
ICA:
TION
NEW FROM SEG
A COMPILA
(1906-2018
)
Ore Deposits of South America: A Compilation (1906-2019)
SEG Compilation 14 collects nearly 500 papers, updating and expanding the
2012 Ore Deposits of the Andes (Comp. 6). This archive brings together articles
published over more than a hundred years in various SEG series, including
Economic Geology, SEG Guidebooks, Special Publications, Reviews in
omic
ciety of Econ Economic Geology, and the SEG Newsletter.
© 2019 So Inc.
Geologists,
lations Volu
me 14 Price: US$85 (list) / US$68 (member).
SEG Compi

Available on flash drive from the SEG bookstore: www.segweb.org/COM

 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 5
  FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SEG Council Actions
Santiago, Chile — October 6, 2019
The SEG Council held a regularly
scheduled meeting at the Sheraton
Santiago Hotel and Convention Center
in Santiago, Chile. The meeting was
attended by the following members
of Council: D.J. Kirwin (Chair), C.D.
Anglin, S.L.L. Barker, C.M. Chamber-
lain, J.S. Cline, J.B. Gemmell, B.G.
Hoal, P. Mercier-Langevin, M. Reich,
A.J.B. Thompson, A. Wilson, and M.
Yudovskaya. A. Cronk (SEG Executive
Assistant) was present as a guest. The
following members of Council were
unable to attend: R.M. Baumgartner,
K. Hattori, H.J. Noyes, S.J. Piercey, J.
Wilkinson, and Z. Yang (proxy pro-
vided). Noting that the quorum of
nine Council members had been
exceeded, President Kirwin called the
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
After a round of self-introductions,
the following actions were taken at the
meeting:
n Approved a motion from Chamber-
lain to accept the minutes of the
meeting held on March 2, 2019.
n Approved a motion from Cline to
accept the verbal report of President
Kirwin that included the slate of
new officers for 2020 and to ratify
the following actions by the Execu-
tive Committee in the period March
2, 2019–October 5, 2019:
—Approved Fellowship List no.
19-01 on March 11, 2019, thereby
admitting the following 20 can-
didates to SEG Fellowship: Aaron
Baensch, Douglas B. Coleman,
Julio Echegaray, Juliana E. Fer-
reira, Damien Gaboury, Mathieu
Guay, Michael G. Houlé, Christo-
pher J.M. Lawley, Susan Lomas,
Lucie Mathieu, Stephanie A.
Mrozek, William Andres Naranjo
Sierra, Alexander W. Neufeld,
Rafael Rodrigues de Assis,
Pierre-Simon Ross, Joel W. Rotert,
Quinn E. Smith, Bruno Turcotte,
John J. Walsh, and Edith Newton
Wilson.
—Approved on March 12, 2019,
the draft Executive Committee
Minutes for the March 1, 2019,
meeting held at the Radisson
Admiral Harbourfront Hotel in
Toronto, Canada.
—Approved Fellowship List no.
19-02 on June 10, 2019, thereby
admitting the following 9 candi-
dates to SEG Fellowship: Samuel
D. Anderson, Nils F. Jansson,
Barry D. Devlin, Darryl D. Lind-
say, Axel Müller, Daniel J. Noone,
Andrew L. Stewart, Roger G. Tay-
lor, and Norbert Zajzon.
—Approved Fellowship List no.
19-03 on September 9, 2019,
thereby admitting the following
14 candidates to SEG Fellowship:
Laurent Ailleres, Khashgerel Bat-
Erdene, Luiz Carlos Bertolino,
Cari L. Deyell, Jim E. Essman,
Teera Kamvong, Joanna L. Lipske,
Julian F. Menuge, Michael B.
Nemitz, Rachel M. Rapprecht,
David John R. Reading, Lisseth
Roncal Julcamoro, David W. Sin-
clair, and Margaret E. Venable.
—Recommended the Honorary
Fellowship nomination on Sep-
tember 23, 2019, of Francisco
(“Pancho”) Camus for approval
by the Council at its next
meeting.
And the following actions taken
by the Council in the period March 3,
2019–October 6, 2019:
—Approved on March 22, 2019, the
draft Council Minutes for the
March 2, 2019, meeting held at
the Radisson Admiral Harbour-
front Hotel in Toronto, Canada.
—Approved on June 10, 2019, the
Nominating Committee’s slate
of candidates to take office in
the period 2020–2022: Moira T.
Smith, 2020 President-Elect; César
E. Aguirre, Vanessa Lickfold, and
Craig J. McEwan, 2020–2022,
Councilors.
—Approved on August 29, 2019, the
establishment of three new student
chapters: Kyushu University, Uni-
versidad Nacional de Cajamarca,
and University of Alaska, Anchor-
age. Also approved was the restruc-
turing of University of College
Cork, to NUI National University
of Ireland (Joint Chapter).
n Removed incomplete/outstanding
reports (Founda-
tion Nominating
Committee,
Distinguished
Lecturer Com- Brian G. Hoal
mittee, and
SEG Executive Director
Committee
and Editor
on Commit-
tees) from the
consent agenda
as well as reports (Publications,
Regional Affairs and Lecturers, and
Awards) requiring further discussion.
n Passed a motion from Cline to
approve two nominees for the Foun-
dation Board of Trustees, namely
Julie Rowland and Pilar Lecumberri
Sanchez. It was noted that a third
Fellow nominee would be needed to
complete the slate prior to January
1, 2020.
n Passed a motion from Gemmell to
approve Barker’s report on Publi-
cations, noting availability of early
publication for authors submitting
to Economic Geology, participation
in GeoScienceWorld’s community
open access journal Lithosphere as
a response to the European “Plan
S”, and progress on expanding
and rebranding the SEG Newsletter
to accommodate more industry/
applied content and hosting on
the GeoScienceWorld platform to
provide access to institutional sub-
scribers in addition to SEG members.
SEG now needs to provide nominees
for the positions of Section Editor
and Associate Editors in Lithosphere.
There was discussion on the pipe-
line of new publications including
topics that would appeal to industry
sponsors.
n Passed a motion from Reich to
approve Mercier-Langevin’s report
on Regional Affairs and Traveling
Lecturer nominations noting the
following approvals specifically:
—Douglas B. Coleman (Mexico
Mining Center, Hermosillo) as
the 2020–2022 Regional VP for
Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean.
—Zhaoshan Chang (Colorado
School of Mines) as the 2020
 6 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
SEG Council Actions (continued)
International Exchange Lecturer.
—Massimo Chiaradia (University
of Geneva) as the 2020 Thayer
Lindsley Lecturer.
—Zhiming Yang (Chinese Academy
of Geological Sciences) as the
2020 Regional Vice President
Lecturer.
Council further endorsed greater
publicity for the Regional workshops
and field trips planned for the Society’s
100th anniversary in 2020. A save-the-
date message to the membership would
be distributed in this regard.
n In the absence of a report from the
Distinguished Lecturer Commit-
tee, passed a motion from Anglin
to inform the committee that one
nomination had been submitted
and determine if there had been any
other nominations received by the
committee so that Council could
select a candidate.
n Passed a motion from Wilson to
approve the following nominees
recommended by the Awards
Committee:
—Richard H. Sibson (University
of Otago, New Zealand) for the
Penrose Medal.
—Kathy J. Ehrig (BHP, Australia) for
the Silver Medal.
—A. James Macdonald (C2Skye, New
Zealand) for the Marsden Award.
It was further agreed that these
awards should be labeled winners for
2020 (instead of 2019) as part of an
ongoing process to align the award
year with the year of presentation of
the awards. Other awards that would
be similarly affected included the Lind-
gren Award, Honorary Fellowships, and
possibly the Skinner Award.
n In the absence of a report from
the Committee on Committees, it
was agreed to circulate the report,
once received, for consideration by
Council.
n Passed a motion from Gemmell to
accept the remaining reports sub-
mitted to Council as part of a con-
sent agenda. This action included
approval of the following items of
note:
—Report of the Executive Director
for the year through August 31,
2019.
—Report of the Treasurer on finan-
cials through July 31, 2019, and
the proposed budget for 2020.
—Report of the Investment Com-
mittee through June 30, 2019,
and the 2020 slate of committee
members continuing from 2019.
—Report of the Lindgren Award
Committee recommending
Mathias Burisch (Bergakademie
Freiberg, Germany) as the Lind-
gren Award winner.
—Report of the Honorary Fellowship
Committee recommending Fran-
cisco Camus (Camus Geologos
Asociados, Santiago, Chile) as an
Honorary Fellow.
—Report of the Student Affairs Com-
mittee noting that the student
chapters listed had already been
approved by Council.
—Report of the Program Committee
listing events involving SEG from
January 2019 to December 2020.
—Report of the Education and Train-
ing Committee listing courses
and field trips for the period
2019–2020.
n Passed a motion from Thompson to
accept updates on SEG conferences
provided by Hoal:
—SEG 2019 already underway
with 850 registrants expected to
increase to 900. Impact from the
late cancellation of a workshop
had been mitigated with two new
workshops (one pre- and one
post-conference) on the same
topic and in English and Spanish,
respectively.
—SEG 2020 planning well advanced
under the leadership of Gerry
Carlson with details available at
www.seg2020.org—six sessions, 9
field trips, and 8 workshops. The
conference would be promoted at
the end of the SEG 2019 program.
—SEG 2021 would be a joint
conference with the Geolog-
ical Society of London in the
autumn of 2021, probably in
downtown London. Bob Foster
would be Chair of the Organizing
Committee.
—SEG 2022 would be in Colorado and
three different meeting planners
were currently under evaluation.
—Discussion of conference plan-
ning process and agreement that
continuity with a meeting plan-
ner would help in this regard.
Important that lessons from each
conference are carried forward.
n Passed a motion from Cline to accept
the progress report from the Diver-
sity and Inclusion Committee, also
recognizing that more time would
be needed for planning to ensure
a broader SEG tent. The challenge
of inclusion would require an
improved environment and part of
this is a better process to accommo-
date those wanting to volunteer. A
volunteer biography would be useful
in this regard and also an expla-
nation of volunteer opportunities.
Britt Bluemel, also on the committee
and the Canada Foundation board,
would be available to attend the
Council meeting at PDAC to provide
the next update.
n Passed a motion from Gemmell to
accept updates on the SEG’s long-
range strategic plan, noting progress
as follows:
—Modernization of the SEG logo to
both reflect the Society’s evolu-
tion and allow for a logo more
compatible with increasing elec-
tronic versus print applications.
—In the area of professional devel-
opment, increased social media
activity, sponsored podcasts,
webinars, and the impending
launch of an online community.
—Under the research goal, online
first publication of the journal
had been accomplished, the
SEG Newsletter was in the pro-
cess of being moved to the GSW
platform, where more indus-
try-friendly and broader content
would be accommodated, and
participation by the SEG in a
new, pure open access journal,
Lithosphere, as part of a GSW
initiative.
—Within the area of membership,
the key initiatives related to the
diversity and inclusion commit-
tee but also input from both the
Students and Early Career Profes-
sionals committees.
—Under organizational sustain-
ability, the focus had been on a
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 7

special Fundraising Task Force to

establish a New Century Fund
with corporate participation and
Society of Economic Geologists Awards 2020*
flow-through to the different pro-
grams run by SEG, Foundation,
R.A.F. Penrose Gold Medal for 2020
and Canada Foundation. Richard H. Sibson (University of Otago, New Zealand)

Council discussed several different Silver Medal for 2020

new logo concepts for SEG and agreed
on the creation of three concepts to
be voted on by the membership. It
was recommended that this process be
completed by the end of November to
ensure availability of a new logo for
a number of applications in the 100th
anniversary year.
n Kirwin thanked all members of
Council whose terms would end
on December 31, 2019, namely
Bruce Gemmell (Past President),
‘Lyn Anglin (Foundation President),
Regina Baumgartner (Councilor),
Keiko Hattori (Councilor), and
Anne Thompson (Councilor). Steve
Piercey had agreed to serve an addi-
tional year as VP for Student Affairs.
n Agreed to schedule the next meeting
of the Council at 8 a.m. on Saturday,
February 29, 2020, at the Radisson
Admiral Harbourfront in Toronto,
Canada.
n Meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m. 1
Kathy J. Ehrig (BHP, Australia)
Ralph W. Marsden Award for 2020
Barton J. Suchomel (Newcrest Mining, United States)
Waldemar Lindgren Award for 2020
Mathias Burisch (Tu Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany)
Distinguished Lecturer for 2020
Benoît Dubé (Geological Survey of Canada, Canada)
International Exchange Lecturer for 2020**
Zhaoshan Chang (Colorado School of Mines, United States)
Thayer Lindsley Lecturer for 2020**
Massimo Chiaradia (University of Geneva, Switzerland)
Regional Vice President Lecturer for 2020**
Zhiming Yang (Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, China)
Honorary Fellow
Fransisco Camus (Santiago, Chile)
*Beginning in 2020, SEG will shift the date for awards to the year in which
these are presented rather than the year in which awardees are nominated.
This affects the Penrose Gold Medal, Silver Medal, Lindgren Award, and
Skinner Award. Lectureships already satisfy this condition.
**Lecturer requests are now being accepted.

Announcing SEG Discovery Don’t Miss an Issue!

To celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Society and respond to the
Since 1905
increasing demand for more industry-focused technical articles with Science and
Discovery

Econogmyic
Advancing

modern digital content such as 3D models and videos, the SEG Publica-
Geolo
OF
BULLETIN
Y
THE SOCIET
MIC
OF ECONO
GEOLOGISTS

tions Board is pleased to announce that beginning in early 2020, the suc-
R6
114 / NUMBE
VOLUME

2019
OCTOBER
SEPTEMBER–
(38%/,&
6/29$.5

cessor to the SEG Newsletter, SEG Discovery, will be hosted electronically

29(&0,1(
1,æ1ë+5$%
Level 5
20˚ PL

CZ Level 4
rhyolitic and
c rocks UA
Andesitic,
basaltic metavolcani
49°

Level 3
SK
to Quaternary

on GeoScienceWorld (which currently hosts Economic Geology), while

Neogene sediments
back-arc AT HU RO
basement
Crystalline
of Zemplinicum
External Western
ns Level 2
Carpathia

Internal Western Nižný

Level 1
5400000

ns Hrabovec
Carpathia

continuing to publish in the traditional print format.

N
5400000

Košice East Slovak Level 0

Basin

20 km
600000
Viniĉky

A 500000

With this new format and additional content, the Publications Board
recognizes the need to update the publication’s name to reflect those
B

8( angling, China
,17+,6,66Neoarchean BIFs, Gongchlolite Mine, Slovak Republi
c
• c Clinopti Cu and
y
y in Porphyr
Cu-Co-Au
Deposit • Nižný Hraboveon Quartz Solubilit

innovations. As long-time members will recall, the quarterly SEG News-

hean-Hosted Fluids CO
• Effect of s2
Castle Mesoarc ic-Hydrothermal
• Carlow of Magmat Mo Deposit Deposit, China
Deposit, Quebec tai Fe
• Metal Content n Malartic Au Data • Shikebu
• Archean
Canadia l Using ASTER Deposits
y Cu Potentia ype Au
• USA Porphyr ation of Carlin-T
• Nanosca
le Investig Deposit, Tanzania
Ni-Cu Sulfide
• Ntaka Hill

letter was founded in 1990 as a much-needed solution for the expanding

“Society Pages” that appeared in the back of Economic Geology. A stand-
alone publication was the result—Society activities and short descriptive
articles on ore deposits could readily be accommodated in the SEG News-
letter. SEG has evolved over the years, and the time has come, once again,
to revamp this member benefit. If you haven’t done so, please
The SEG Publications Board is eager to share these changes with pay your dues to receive the
you in 2020. We look forward to providing more peer-reviewed, indus- current issues of SEG Discovery
try-focused articles while continuing to share member activities with and Economic Geology.
the SEG community.
www.segweb.org/renew
 8 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
PRESIDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE
Happy 100th Birthday, SEG!
The “birth” of the Society of Economic
Geologists on December 28, 1920,
followed the formation of both the
Association of Mining and Metallur-
gical Engineers (AIME; 1881) and the
Geological Society of America (1888).
Many of the first members of SEG
already belonged to these older societ-
ies. However, the expansion of mining
in North America, concurrently with a
rapid growth in geologic examination
and study of ore deposits in the United
States, drove 60 individuals in 1920 to
form an organization more specifically
focused on these activities. SEG, in fact,
followed in the footsteps of our journal,
Economic Geology, which had already
begun to respond to the need 15 years
earlier.
The names of those early SEG mem-
bers read like a “Who’s Who” list of
famous North American geologists,
including Waldemar Lindgren, who has
lent his name to one of the sessions
now in planning for the SEG 2020
birthday celebration and conference.
Other founding members include R.A.F.
Penrose, L.C. Graton, F.L. Ransome, and
A. Knopf. Economic Geology contains
early papers by all these individuals.
Within this Society of amazing geolo-
gists, Waldemar Lindgren was, over time,
recognized by his colleagues as truly dis-
tinguished. This recognition culminated
with the publication of Ore Deposits of
the Western States, The Lindgren Volume,
in 1933, by the American Institute of
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.
Lindgren was born and raised in
Sweden, and in 1883 he headed for
North America, where he soon joined
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS;
Graton, 1933). At this time, theories of
ore deposition were generally attributed
to an ore fluid of circulating and mostly
downward moving meteoric water. In
1901 Lindgren published a paper enti-
tled “Metasomatic processes in fissure
veins,” in which he cautiously suggested
alternative processes that involved
upwelling fluids. This paper was soon
followed by a second paper, “The char-
acter and genesis of certain contact-de-
posits” (Lindgren, 1901b), and a third
paper describing the geology of western
North American gold deposits (Lind-
gren, 1903). The developing hypothe-
ses in these papers were expanded in his
1907 paper, “The relation of ore-deposi-
tion to physical conditions,” published
in the second volume of Economic
Geology, in which he related ore deposit
formation to pressure-temperature con-
ditions, forming the basis for his highly
regarded ore classification. You can still
access and read this paper if you have a
subscription to our journal.
How did Lindgren develop this
comprehensive theory? By applying
his rigorous geologic background and
education in intensive field work over
many years and at many localities. In
all, Graton (1933) credits Lindgren with
“over 175 independent titles, besides
many discussions and reviews and more
than 1065 abstracts, the total running to
many thousands of pages.” In addition,
Graton attributes some of Lindgren’s
insightful ore deposit interpretations to
his use of a petrographic microscope that
provided an additional scale of obser-
vation at a time most other geologists
relied only on field-scale observations.
A key observation that contributed to
Lindgren’s theory, based on field evi-
dence at a number of ore systems, is that
a “majority of fissure veins [had a] close
genetic connection with bodies of intru-
sive rocks” (Graton, 1933).
In 1908, Lindgren began giving
lectures on ore deposits at the Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology (MIT; Gra-
ton, 1933). These well-received lectures
eventually led to publication of the first
edition of Mineral Deposits, in which he
described various ore deposits and his
classification of them, in 1913. In 1912
Lindgren accepted a position as head of
the department of geology at MIT. In
this position, he broadened his geologic
investigations beyond the United States
and conducted studies in Australia,
Mexico, and Chile (Graton, 1933), in
addition to his continued exploration in
the western United States.
This brief backward look at a key
founding member of our Society sug-
gests the cause for us to celebrate. We
have a storied history that continues
to evolve today. In the beginning, the
founding members were all male and
resided in a single country. Today, 100
years later, ~76% of our members hail
To review the various SEGF funds, go to www.segweb.org/funds.
from 95 coun-
tries outside of
the United States,
~34% of our stu-
dent members are
females, and we
have a large and Jean Cline
engaged student SEG President 2020
component that
comprises a signif-
icant part of our
membership—and Economic Geology is
regularly described as the leading publi-
cation in the field of economic geology.
During the coming year, leading up
to our 100th birthday celebration, we
have opportunities to participate in
one or more field trips organized by the
Society’s eight regional vice presidents
in areas of the world they represent.
Additional field trips, along with work-
shops, technical sessions, and posters,
will be associated with the fall confer-
ence and the “official” celebration. I
urge you to investigate the rich oppor-
tunities offered this year and I hope you
will join us for SEG 2020 in Whistler,
B.C., Canada. 1
REFERENCES
Finch, J.W., Bateman, A.M., Butler, B.S., Loughlin,
G.F., McLaughlin, D.H., and Singewald, Jr., J.T.,
eds., 1933, Ore deposits of the Western states
(Lindgren Volume): New York, American Institute
of Mining Engineers, 797 p.
Cameron, E.N., and Boyum, B.H., 1995, A new
society is founded 1919–1924: The Society of
Economic Geologists: Seventy-five years of Prog-
ress, 1920–1995, p. 1–10.
Graton, L.C., 1933, Life and scientific work of
Waldemar Lindgren: American Institute of Min-
ing and Metallurgical Engineers, Ore Deposits of
the Western States, p. xiii–xxii.
Lindgren, W., 1901a, Metasomatic processes in
fissure veins: Transactions of American Institute
of Mining Engineers, v. 30, p. 578–692.
——1901b, The character and genesis of certain
contact-deposits: Transactions of American Insti-
tute of Mining Engineers, v. 31, p. 226–244.
——1903, The geological features of the gold
production of North America: Transactions of
American Institute of Mining Engineers, Vol. 33,
p. 790–846.
——1907, The relation of ore-deposition to physical
conditions: Economic Geology, v. 2, p. 105–127.
Stokes, H.N., 1907, Experiments on the action of
various solutions on pyrite and marcasite: Eco-
nomic Geology, v. 2, p. 14–23.
Zies, E.G., and Merwin, H.E., 1916, Some reactions
involved in secondary copper sulphide enrich-
ment: Economic Geology, v. 11, p. 407–503.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 9
F O U N D AT I O N P R E S I D E N T I A L P E R S P E C T I V E
Moving Forward in 2020…
Happy New Year! The Society of Eco-
nomic Geologists is celebrating 100
years of advancing science and discov-
ery through collaboration with educa-
tional institutions, made possible by
member and industry financial support.
It is my honor and privilege to serve as
President of the SEG Foundation during
this millennial year. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank 2019 SEGF
President Carolyn Anglin for her service
to the Foundation and insightful com-
mentary, SEG Executive Director Brian
Hoal and the Nominating Committee
for offering me this truly prestigious
opportunity, and the membership at
large for your continued support of and
involvement in the Society.
The focus of my tenure as SEGF Pres-
ident will be to promote an increase in
cultural diversity amongst the at-large
membership and to encourage and
retain female membership in the Soci-
ety. The United States, Canada, Austra-
lia, and England account for 61.1% of
membership in the Society and while
the female membership stands at 34%
in the student population, this num-
ber drops significantly, to 12% in the
40-year-old and above categories.
To improve diverse membership, I
encourage front-line, in-the-field mem-
bers to advocate for SEG membership
to qualified candidates while executing
exploration programs across the globe.
The SEG strongly urges female students
to maintain your membership in the
Society as your careers progress.
Educational support awarded in 2019
The mission of the SEG Foundation is to
“fund education, research, publications,
student support, public outreach and
other geoscientific programs endorsed
by the Society of Economic Geologists,
Inc., or other programs considered for
funding by the Trustees of the Corpo-
ration with the approval of the SEG
Executive Council” (SEG website).
As 2019 SEGF Vice President, I
participated in evaluating a portion of
the applications for funding. I was very
impressed with the range of subjects to
be investigated. One application stood
out for the potential near-term impact
on carbon emissions in mining. The
author proposed a study on carbon
sequestration in ultramafic mine waste
as a way of offsetting the operations
carbon emissions (with additional
benefits). A very intriguing and timely
investigation indeed!
The Executive Director’s Interim
Report for 2019 indicates that “the
SEG Foundation (SEGF) and the SEG
Canada Foundation (SEGCF) together
awarded US$375,439 in research grants
and fellowships to a total of 78 students
in 14 countries…Out of 120 student
research grant applications received,
SEGF and SEGCF awarded 51 grants for
a total US$173,600 ($54,200 of this was
disbursed from SEGCF). Research Grant
awardees attend 40 different universi-
ties in 14 countries…In the Graduate
Student Fellowship program, a total of
US$170,000 was awarded to 21 stu-
dents and CDN$40,000 to six students
entering graduate school in 2019, or
who were currently enrolled as first-year
graduate students…Graduate Student
Fellowship recipients attend 24 different
universities in 8 countries…”
The SEGF relies on corporate dona-
tions and membership giving to sustain
the funds available for research grants,
graduate student fellowship programs,
and student field trips. Corporate
donations to the SEGF are committed
in the third and fourth quarters of the
year when budgets are formulated and
approved. As membership dues are paid,
I would encourage members to commit
to a yearly charitable donation to the
SEG as a means of supporting the stu-
dents engaged in scientific research that
benefits industry and society through
the discovery and understanding of ore
deposits. As ‘Lyn Anglin professed in her
October 2019 Presidential Perspective
comments, “volunteerism is critical to
the success of the SEGF.” Should you not
have the time to commit to volunteer-
ing, please consider making a yearly cash
donation beyond the yearly dues in lieu
of volunteering. Please check with your
employer to see if they have a matching
donation program in place that could
leverage your charitable giving.
Reflections on the Santiago conference
The SEG 2019 conference to highlight
South American metallogeny “Sierra
to Craton” was held in Santiago,
Chile, in early October 2019. Session
topics included Polymetallic Deposits
and Metallogeny, New Discoveries in
South America, Copper Deposits and
Metallogeny, and
Gold Deposits
and Metallogeny.
The presentation
sessions were com-
plemented with
student poster ses-
sions, student speed
William Wulftange
talk presentations, SEG Foundation
and a core shack for President 2020
hands-on explana-
tion of numerous
project exploration efforts. Industry ser-
vice companies and explorers lined the
hallways to demonstrate their products
and discuss the latest exploration and
development news.
The presentation sessions were very
informative, and the presentation topics
helped to advance the understanding of
many deposit types, especially porphyry
copper and gold. The Copper Session II
talk on the Los Helados and Josemaría
copper-gold-silver deposits located in
the Los Potros district in Argentina out-
lined an emerging mineral district with
impressive indicated resource numbers
for copper, gold and silver that rival
deposits in Chile. The New Discover-
ies session presentation on the Aurora
mine in Guyana provided an updated
geologic and mineral model that is
vastly improved from the pre-mining
days. The presentation on the Cerro
Bufalo project located in northern
Chile demonstrates that new ideas and
updated conceptual models can lead to
new discoveries, even in a region that
has seen intense exploration activities
over the past 40 years.
Overall, the conference highlighted
exploration successes, the youthful
enthusiasm of the attendees, and the
evolution of geologic understanding.
Bottom line, this yearly conference
is essential for the exploration and
academic geologist to attend. I would
like to thank conference organizers,
and especially José “Pepe” Perelló, who
served as Conference and Technical Pro-
gram chair, for an excellent conference.
Please let me remind those interested
that applications for 2020 Graduate Stu-
dent Fellowships are to be received with
supporting documentation by February
1, 2020, and applications for Student
Research Grants along with advisor
appraisals must be received by February
15, 2020. Best of luck to all applicants! 1
 10 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
SEG General Fund
$500
Christensen, Odin, USA
Foster, Robert,
United Kingdom
Wulftange, William, USA
$100–$200
Brosius, Eric, USA
Goryachev, Nikolay, Russia
Greybeck, James, USA
Henry, Christopher, USA
Hudak, George, USA
Kotlyar, Boris, USA
Large, Duncan, Germany
Lowell, J. David, USA
Manske, Scott, USA
Mezaki, Kent, Japan
Ramos Lorenzo, Pedro, Peru
Rodriguez Pevida, Luis, Spain
Smith, Patrick, USA
Thorman, Charles, USA
Zajac, I., Canada
Up to $99
Ardila Macias, Ricardo, Chile
Barron, Pelayo, Finland
Bruna Novillo, Julio,
Argentina
Chomiak, Beverly, USA
De Carvalho, Delfim,
Portugal
Della Libera, Michele, Canada
Gendall, Ian, Canada
Hanneman, Harold, USA
More, Syver, USA
Portacio, Jose, USA
Porter, John, USA
Reidel, Stephen, USA
Shimizu, Toru, Japan
Silva, Pedro, Chile
SEG Foundation
General Fund
$500
Christensen, Odin, USA
Foster, Robert, United
Kingdom
Kesler, Stephen, USA
$300
Birak, Donald, USA
Williams, Neil, Australia
$100–$200
Begg, Graham, Australia
*Donation in memory of Jeremy Richards
Contributions 8/1/2019–10/31/2019
Thank you for your generous contributions to the Society and the SEG Foundation.
Contributions received after October 31 will appear in the next issue.
Eggers, Alan, Australia
Goryachev, Nikolay, Russia
Henry, Christopher, USA
Janecky, David, USA
Lackey, Larry, USA
Laidlaw, Robert, USA
Large, Duncan, Germany
Loring, Richard, USA
Mathewson, David, USA
McIntosh, Stephen, Australia
McLemore, Virginia, USA
Parry, John, USA
Powers, Sandra, USA
Seedorff, Eric, USA
Smith, Patrick, USA
Steininger, Roger, USA
Thorman, Charles, USA
Up to $99
Albinson, Tawn, Mexico
Bahia-Guimaraes, Paulo,
Brazil
Dilles, John, USA
Gillerman, Virginia, USA
Gostevskikh, Alex, Canada
Hein, James, USA
Logsdon, Mark, USA
More, Syver, USA
Mota-e-Silva, Jonas, Peru
Moye, Robert, Spain
Petersen, Sven, Germany
Threlkeld, William, USA
Wu, Yafei, China
Discovery Fund
$1000*
Capstone's Exploration Team,
Canada
$300
Otsubo, Toru, Japan
$100-$200
Clifford, John, Ireland
Driesner, Thomas,
Switzerland
Goryachev, Nikolay, Russia
Gorzynski, George, Canada
Hasson, Sean, Bulgaria
Hathaway, Leo, Canada
Hatton, Owen, Chile
Henry, Christopher, USA
Idziszek, Chet, Canada
Jennings, Keenan, Chile
Mathewson, David, USA
McEwan, Craig, Peru
McLemore, Virginia, USA
Singh, Bob, Canada
Smith, Patrick, USA
Wilson, Edith, USA
Up to $99
Barron, Pelayo, Finland
Bavinton, Owen, United
Kingdom
Bettles, Keith, USA
Brown, Philip, USA
Brugger, Joel, Australia
Butcher, Nicholas, United
Kingdom
Cortes, Marcelo, Australia
Dumoulin, Kevin, Canada
Gesualdo, Anthony, USA
Gostevskikh, Alex, Canada
Groves, David, Australia
Guay, Mathieu, Canada
Klimentyeva, Dina,
Switzerland
Laux, Daniel, USA
Leal, Sara, Portugal
Marsh, Scott, United
Kingdom
Maynard, Stephen, USA
McCutcheon, Timothy, USA
Mota-e-Silva, Jonas, Peru
Motta, João, Brazil
Panther, Craig, New Zealand
Peltonen, Dean, USA
Reading, David,
United Kingdom
Reidel, Stephen, USA
Sease, Gail, USA
Silva, Pedro, Chile
Souza Santos, Julio, Brazil
Yates, Eugene, USA
Zieg, Gerald, USA
Hugo T. Dummett
Fund
$200
Cocker, Mark, USA
Mathewson, David, USA
Noone, Daniel, Canada
$100
Brimhall, George, USA
Diallo, Madani, France
Jones, Murray, Canada
Osborne, Justin, Australia
Petersen, Mark, Canada
Seedorff, Eric, USA
Thomas, Rodney, Canada
Up to $99
Bahia-Guimaraes, Paulo, Brazil
Beckley, Richard, Australia
Billingsley, Gary, Canada
Bolton, Barrie, Australia
Leonard, Kevin, USA
Logsdon, Mark, USA
McLean, Neil, Australia
More, Syver, USA
Olmore, Stephen, USA
Stewart, Elmer, Canada
Alberto Terrones L.
Fund
$100
Henry, Christopher, USA
Horner, Johannes, Austria
Leveille, Richard, USA
Mora-Loera, Joel, Mexico
Seedorff, Eric, USA
Smith, Douglas, USA
Up to $99
Bahia-Guimaraes, Paulo,
Brazil
Garay, Enrique, Peru
Gonzalez Burneo, David,
Ecuador
Levin P.E., Mark, USA
Martinez, Manuel, Chile
Mota-e-Silva, Jonas, Peru
Pereira, Elton, Brazil
Reidel, Stephen, USA
Salgado Munoz, Valente
Octavio, USA
Sykora, Stephanie, Australia
Timothy Nutt Fund
$500
Thomson, Brian, Brazil
$100–$150
Foster, Robert, United
Kingdom
Hunt, John Paul, South Africa
Reidel, Stephen, USA
Schafer, Robert, USA
Speers, Roger, Australia
Up to $99
Anderson, Heath, Australia
Bloom, Lynda, Canada
Carter, Kent, Canada
Dirks, Paul, Australia
Jones, Philip, Australia
Oberthuer, Thomas,
Germany
Olson, Steven, USA
Hickok-Radford
Fund
$100–$200
Brown, Rick, Brazil
Graham, Garth, USA
Miller, Lance, USA
Puchner, Christopher, USA
Smith, Patrick, USA
Turner, Thomas, USA
Up to $99
Beckley, Richard, Australia
Crafford, Thomas, USA
Freeman, Curtis, USA
Steeves, Nathan, Canada
Szumigala, David, USA
West, Andy, USA
Eric P. Nelson Fund
$100
Ailleres, Laurent, Australia
Hamm, Jack, USA
Horner, Johannes, Austria
Petersen, Mark, Canada
Pincus, William, USA
Up to $99
Campbell, Michael, USA
Cappa, James, USA
Coppard, James, United
Kingdom
Dallwig, Richard, Germany
Garay, Enrique, Peru
Gesualdo, Anthony, USA
Halga, Sorin, Romania
Hanneman, Harold, USA
Marsh, Scott, United
Kingdom
Raabe, Kenneth, USA
Thorman, Charles, USA
Graduate Student
Fellowship Fund
$1,000
Seavoy, Ronald, USA
$100
Cline, Jean, USA
Dare, Sarah, Canada
Mathewson, David, USA
McCutcheon, Timothy, USA
McLemore, Virginia, USA
Petersen, Mark, Canada
Seedorff, Eric, USA
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 11
Contributions 8/1/2019–10/31/2019 (continued)
Up to $99
Baksheev, Ivan, Russia
Bavinton, Owen, United
Kingdom
Gesualdo, Anthony, USA
Lapoint, Ronald, USA
Polozov, Alexander, Russia
Sease, Gail, USA
Student Field Trip
Fund
$5,000
Putnam, Borden, USA
$1,000
Kirwin, Douglas, Thailand
Seavoy, Ronald, USA
$500
Parratt, Ronald, USA
$250
Backer, Harold, USA
Breit, Frederick, USA
$100–$200
Brozdowski, Robert, Canada
Burstow, William, USA
Clark, Jesse, Australia
Clifford, John, Ireland
Doucet, Dominique, Canada
Doyle, Martin, United Kingdom
Gordon Research
Conferences
frontiers of science
Announcing the 2020 Gordon
Research Conference on:
Geochemistry of
Mineral Deposits
Geochemical Frontiers,
Critical Processes and Value Creation
Foster, Robert, Coppard, James, $500 Perreault, Serge, Canada
United Kingdom United Kingdom Davidson, Alex, Canada Petersen, Mark, Canada
Goryachev, Nikolay, Russia Daroch, Giancarlo, Chile Heffernan, Scott, Canada Shearer, Johan, Canada
Gorzynski, George, Dour, Maxime, Canada Linnen, Robert, Canada Stockford, Howard, Canada
Canada Dumoulin, Kevin, Canada McNamara, Galen, Canada Thompson, John, Canada
Kotlyar, Boris, USA Dykeman, Candace, USA Robert, Francois, Canada Tosdal, Richard, USA
Krol, Leendert, USA Fellows, Michael, Australia Tourigny, Ghislain, Cote
Lipson, Rael, USA Gelber, Benjamin, South $250-$300 d'Ivoire
Martin, Neil, Australia Africa Brisbin, Daniel, Canada Watkins, John, Canada
Mathewson, David, USA Gesualdo, Anthony, USA Carlson, Gerald, Canada Zentilli, Marcos, Canada
McEwan, Craig, Peru Joensen, Svend, Sweden
Montreuil, Jean-Francois, Lecumberri Sanchez, Pilar, $100–$200 Up to $99
Canada Canada Beland, Joanie, Canada Della Libera, Michele,
Mora-Loera, Joel, Mexico Levin P.E., Mark, USA Brenan, James, Canada Canada
Morton, Penelope, USA Maynard, Stephen, USA Brown, Alexander, Canada Gelber, Benjamin, South
Nettle, John, Australia Metke, Catherine, Canada Channer, Dominic, Canada Africa
Olson, Reginald, Canada Mogessie, Aberra, Austria Chi, Guoxiang, Canada Gostevskikh, Alex, Canada
Petersen, Erich, USA Moye, Robert, Spain Cote-Mantha, Olivier, Guay, Mathieu, Canada
Petersen, Mark, Canada Polozov, Alexander, Russia Canada Klimentyeva, Dina,
Price, Jonathan, USA Porter, John, USA Dion, Claude, Canada Switzerland
Willis, Dana, USA Richards, Michael, Australia Garven, Grant, USA Lecumberri Sanchez, Pilar,
Wyatt, Christopher, USA Rivera Guillen, Jorge Nelson, Gorzynski, George, Canada Canada
Peru Hannington, Mark, Canada Lefebure, David, Canada
Up to $99 Sidder, Gary, USA Liverton, Timothy, Canada
Haroldson, Erik, USA
Steeves, Nathan, Canada Hattori, Keiko, Canada McCurdy, Martin, Canada
Andersen, Jens, United
Thorman, Charles, USA Hollings, Peter, Canada Neyedley, Kevin, Canada
Kingdom
Wainwright, Alan, Canada Klau, Wolfgang, Germany Osborne, Robert, Canada
Ashley, Paul, Australia
Barron, Pelayo, Finland
Zieg, Gerald, USA Logan, James, Canada Thompson, Peter, Canada
Mercier-Langevin, Patrick, Williams, Steven, Canada
Bavinton, Owen, United
Kingdom Canada Foundation Canada Yergeau, David, Canada
Bettles, Keith, USA Mersereau, Terry, Canada
Bigot, Ludovic, Canada $1,000 Moore, Richard, Canada
Brown, Philip, USA Franklin, James, Canada Olson, Reginald, Canada
Cathles, Lawrence, USA Krcmarov, Rob, Canada Pearson, William, Canada
May 24 - 29, 2020, Castelldefels, Spain
A diverse forum bringing together cutting-edge research into fundamental
geochemical processes contributory to mineralization, and tools for the discovery,
exploitation and stewardship of mineral systems that provide the foundations of
modern society
Chairs: Sarah Gleeson and Dave Braxton
Vice Chair: Isabelle Chambefort
This GRC 2020 will be held in conjunction with the Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits Gordon Research
Seminar (GRS), Please apply separately for GRC and GRS
More details and online application are available at:
https://www.grc.org/geochemistry-of-mineral-deposits-conference/2020/
https://www.grc.org/geochemistry-of-mineral-deposits-grs-conference/2020/
 12 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

R E G I O N A L A F FA I R S

2020: An Exciting Year Ahead for Regional Affairs

It is now well known: 2020 is the year
SEG celebrates its 100th anniversary.
Among the various activities planned
to highlight this landmark are field
trips to selected world-class districts in
each of the SEG regions. Details about
each of these field trips and accompa-
nying workshops are currently being
finalized for formal announcements.
The proposed field trips cover a broad
range of topics and metallogenic
settings with enough diversity to be
of interest to anyone in the mineral
resources business.
The Mexico field trip (March 7–13)
will comprise stops at the Sabinas
and La Colorada mines, and at the La
Brena crater, or optionally, stops in
the Toyaltita and San Dimas districts.
A bit farther to the north, the North
America field trip (April 15–22) will
offer a tour of Cu porphyry deposits of
Arizona (Pima, Santa Rita, Patagonia,
Safford, Globe-Miami, Superior, Tortilla
Mountains, and San Manuel districts).
Then, the Africa field trip (June 16–25)
will take participants to the Otjikoto
Au, Uis Sn, Rossing U, Skorpion and
Gamsberg Zn, Posmasberg Mn, and
Fich diamond mines. The Australasia
field trip (June 11–18) includes stops
at the Olympic Dam and Prominent
Hill mines and the Hillside and Emmie
Bluff prospects. The field trip to North
Eurasia (August 16–22) will take par-
ticipants to the Urals, with stops at
the Bakal and Satka siderite-magnesite
deposits, the Svetlinsk gold deposit and
gem occurrences, the Zapadno-Ozernoe
VMS mine, Kozhaevo Mn deposit, some
pegmatite-carbonatite-hosted deposits,
and the gold deposits of the Nurali This new year
ultramafic massif. The Europe field trip also welcomes a
(August 23–29) will allow participants new group of SEG
to see the Suhanko PGE and the Kevitsa Traveling Lecturers:
and Sakatti Ni-Cu-PGE deposits, as well Massimo Chiara-
as the Kittila Au mine and Au prospects dia (2020 Thayer
of central Lapland, plus the Rom- Lindsley Lecturer), Patrick
pas-Palokas Au-Co deposit. The South Zhaoshan Chang Mercier-Langevin
America field trip (August 31– Septem- (2020 International
Vice President for
ber 5) focuses on the Au deposits of Exchange Lecturer), Regional Affairs
the Guiana Shield (Rosebel, Merian, and Zhiming Yang
and Aurora). Finally, the Asia field trip (2020 Regional
(September 4–11) includes visits to the Vice-President
Hishikari and Kushikino low-sulfida- Lecturer, Asia). Massimo, Zhaoshan,
tion Au deposits and the Iwate, Kasuga, and Zhiming are proposing an amazing
and Akeshi high-sulfidation Au depos- series of talks; make sure to submit a
its, plus stops at the Yamakawa and request early to have one of them to
Fushime geothermal areas, the Ohsumi present in your region.
peninsula, and around the Sakurajima Finally, of prime importance this
volcano. time of the year are the rapidly incom-
Detailed information about each of ing deadlines to apply to the Student
these exciting field trips will soon be Research Grants (February 15, 2020:
made available on the SEG website. see link below) and to the Graduate
Importantly, we hope these field trips Student Fellowship Program (Febru-
will be well attended by students, and ary 1, 2020: see link below). I invite
in that regard, there will be two “free” students from all regions to apply, and
spots per field trip (registration costs I encourage anyone interested in apply-
covered). The application and selection ing to get in touch with their Regional
process for these “free” student spots Vice-President for help and advice,
will soon be circulated to all SEG Stu- and/or to contact an SEG Mentor (see
dent Chapters. link below).
The year 2020 will bring some
n Student Research Grants:
changes to our team, as Martin Valen-
www.segweb.org/srg
cia’s three-year term as Regional VP for
Mexico, Central America, and the Carib- n Graduate Student Fellowship
bean comes to an end. He is replaced Program:
by Douglas Coleman (Mexico Mining www.segweb.org/gsf
Center, Hermosillo). Many thanks to n Mentoring Program:
Martin for all his dedicated work in the www.segweb.org/mentoring 1
past three years, and welcome, Douglas,
to SEG’s Regional Affairs.

Regional Vice President Contact Information:

Africa—Mike Venter: mvphenter@gmail.com

Asia—Kun-Feng Qiu: kunfengqiu@qq.com
Australasia—Julie Rowland: j.rowland@auckland.ac.nz
Europe—Holger Paulick: holger.paulick@geologie.ac.at
Mexico-Central America-Caribbean—Douglas Coleman:
dcoleman@mexicominingcenter.com
North America—Patrick Mercier-Langevin: patrick.mercier-langevin@canada.ca
North Eurasia—Valeriy Maslennikov: maslennikov@mineralogy.ru
South America—Roberto Xavier: xavier@ige.unicamp.br
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 13

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

How Good Are We? – Assessing the Results of Our Survey

Contributed by the Diversity and connection to SEG, and clearly the same experience in SEG or while
Inclusion Committee: appreciate and understand the attending SEG events. Fifty percent of
strengths of the Society. respondents identifying as female and
Britt Bluemel, SEG Canada Foundation
The overall response rate was lower non-binary have had a negative experi-
Irene del Real, Early Career Professionals
than we would have ence or felt alienated
Raphael Hunger, Students
liked, with 131 partic- in SEG (Fig. 2). Many
Rael Lipson, SEG Foundation
ipants; however, we of these experiences
Libby Sharman, Member-at-large
did receive surveys are recent and can’t
Anne Thompson, SEG Council
from members repre- be written off as
senting seven global something that will
A big part of the work of the SEG
regions (Fig. 1). change with time.
Diversity and Inclusion Committee is
This chart also No one should feel
to listen to members—hearing what
demonstrates that uncomfortable at
works and doesn’t work in our com-
50% of those who participated are from a poster or while attending a dinner.
munity is vital. In order to give more
North America, which is generally in Males also report a sense of disenfran-
members a chance to provide input, we
proportion to the total membership chisement, noting that there is a sense
recently conducted a survey. Thank you
statistics, but other regions, such as Aus- of a strong group (“the old boys club”)
to all who responded, sharing valuable
tralasia, were not very well represented. who appear to run the organization,
insights and information. Even though
The responses to the survey made and nominate and receive awards.
we have now closed the survey, this
it clear that everyone does not share Our job now is to determine
committee is always open to your input
as we move forward.
We asked a range of questions from
basic demographics to broad queries
about the inclusion and diversity
initiative within the Society, and what
aspects of SEG are most important to
you. We also asked whether you’ve had
a negative experience within SEG. The
latter question surprised some but is
important in any modern organization
because we rarely share what is not
working well.
What we heard “loud and clear” is that
continuing with a diversity and inclusion
plan, and driving more discussion around
these issues, is important to the member-
ship. A few concerns were raised, which
are understandable—the intent of this FIGURE 1. Percentage of responses received from global regions.
effort is not to take away from what has
been built over the last 100 years, but to
add to it and create a stronger organiza-
tion with lasting impact and benefits for
all Society members.
We have heard several key messages
through the last few weeks of the survey
and by talking to many of you:
Members value SEG, from the

strength of its publications to the
conferences, workshops, field trips,
student chapters, and many other
events.
The majority of you care about cre-

ating an inclusive environment that
welcomes everyone and treats them
equally.
Many respondents demonstrated

FIGURE 2. Responses to the question of whether you have had a negative experience in SEG.
the breadth and depth of their
 14 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

what it is like to feel excluded from SEG

governance or to feel uncomfortable at
an event and incorporate this feedback
into the inclusion and diversity plan
being brought to SEG Council in March
2020. Important to note is that despite
some negative experiences, the overall
feeling was that respondents identify-
ing as female were more likely to feel
positive about the impact of SEG events.
A greater proportion of the males
responding appreciated the publications
as their primary connection to SEG.
Negative factors influencing how
people feel include the cost of events
or inability to participate due to travel
requirements. Many asked for more
FIGURE 3. Responses to the question of whether you have benefited from SEG events.
accessible formats, including webinars
and live streaming.
One of the really constructive take-
aways from this survey was that the
majority of responses indicated that par-
ticipating in field trips, being awarded
grants, and attending and contributing
to meetings are positive experiences
and for many are the reason they have
continued to support SEG for many
years. To find both young people and
seasoned veterans speaking positively
about the impact of mentors, network-
ing, and exposure to new and varied
field environments provides a strong
mandate for SEG to carry into the next
100 years. 1

TO FILL
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 15
F E AT U R E A R T I C L E
Woodcutters 55 Years Later: A New Look at an Old Discovery
Dave Shatwell (SEG F),† Consulting geologist, Lima 33, Peru
Abstract
The Woodcutters Zn-Pb-Ag deposit in
the Rum Jungle district of the Pine Creek
orogen in northern Australia was discov-
ered in 1964 and produced 4.6 Mt of ore
grading 12.3% Zn, 5.6% Pb, and 83 g/t
Ag between 1985 and 1999. Woodcutters,
together with several other polymetallic,
uranium, and phosphate deposits, is
within a Paleoproterozoic sequence of
fluviatile and shallow marine sediments
deposited in a deepening basin between
~2100 and 2025 Ma around the mar-
gins of an Archean granitic and gneissic
dome. These sediments were overlain by
turbidites and volcaniclastic rocks until
the basin was inverted and the sediments
and mineral deposits were deformed and
metamorphosed at 1860 Ma.
Whereas the polymetallic and uranium
bodies at Rum Jungle are considered to be
syngenetic or syndiagenetic, sulfides in the
Woodcutters orebody replace dolomitic
horizons in an otherwise carbonaceous
unit. This suggests that Woodcutters is
similar to Mississippi Valley-type min-
eralization and rules out affinities with
younger sedimentary exhalative-style
deposits elsewhere in the Pine Creek oro-
gen. A model is proposed whereby metals
were eroded from Archean basement rocks
into Paleoproterozoic sandstone aquifers
following the Great Oxidation Event,
which also liberated sulfur by oxidation
of pyrite. Evaporative conditions, as
suggested by the widespread occurrence
of dolomite and magnesite, may have
increased the chloride content of seawater
and enhanced its capacity to transport
metals. Subsequently, deeply circulating
seawater leached metals from the aquifers
and ascended up a deep, basin-penetrat-
ing fault until it intersected carbonaceous
sediments. In this environment, Zn and
Pb sulfides were deposited under reducing
conditions, while sulfur may have been
provided by H2S from organic material.
The Woodcutters and other deposits
at Rum Jungle show how metals for-
merly locked up in Archean cratons were
delivered by erosion under an oxygenated
atmosphere to Paleoproterozoic shore-
lines, where they were further mobilized
and concentrated by a variety of processes.
E-mail, shatwell.dave@gmail.com
†
doi:10.5382/SEGnews.2020-120.fea
Introduction
In 1964, the former Bureau of Mineral
Resources (BMR) was exploring for
uranium and base metals in the Rum
Jungle area south of Darwin, in Aus-
tralia’s Northern Territory, by drilling
shallow auger holes on a 2,400- × 400-ft
(732- × 122-m) grid. A prospector called
Don Ronan, working for the BMR as a
field assistant, noticed that peg 216S,
40E was on top of a gossan outcrop,
so it would be impossible to drill an
auger hole there. The gossan was later
found to assay up to 4.8% Pb—not
surprisingly, since it contained visible
cerussite. Infill geochemistry was recom-
mended (Dodson and Shatwell, 1965)
and completed in the 1965 field season
(Shatwell, 1966). It defined a 7-km
north-south trend of Pb and Zn anoma-
lies, including a well-defined Pb anom-
aly surrounding the gossan outcrop.
This was drilled in 1966, and the third
hole intersected 24 m grading 9.1% Pb,
19.4% Zn, and 242 g/t Ag. Eight more
holes were drilled, some with ore-grade
intersections, some without (Crohn et
al., 1967). The deposit was called the
Woodcutters L5 orebody, and at some
stage the “L5,” which referred to the Pb
anomaly, was dropped. It should have
been called Ronan’s Find.
“Richer than Mount Isa!” screamed
the headline in the NT News, but, after
the initial adrenaline rush, it took 20
years of sporadic investigation, much
of it by Alex Taube (e.g., Taube, 1974,
1984), before Woodcutters went into
production. It was eventually mined
between 1985 and 1999, when 4.6 Mt
grading 12.3% Zn, 5.6% Pb, and 83 g/t
Ag was extracted from open-pit and
underground workings.
At the time of the initial discovery,
a company called Territory Enterprises
Pty. Ltd. was mining small copper and
uranium orebodies under contract to
the Australian government at Rum
Jungle, but when Woodcutters was in
production those mines had long since
closed down, leaving a legacy of acid
mine drainage in the Finniss River. They
were located at the contact between
what were then called the Coomalie
Dolomite and the Golden Dyke For-
mation, now the Coomalie Dolostone
and the Whites Formation. Despite
its name, Rum Jungle is a flat, open,
tropical savannah with little outcrop,
and one of the reasons the BMR drilled
so many auger holes—1,446 holes in
1964—was to map and sample that con-
tact. It was the best place to find other
deposits, or so we thought.
This article summarizes what is
known about Woodcutters, proposes a
model for the mineralization in terms
of the Paleoproterozoic environment in
which it was formed, and compares and
contrasts Woodcutters with younger
stratabound deposit types in northern
Australia and elsewhere. The article is a
retrospective look at a minor base metal
discovery from the vantage point of
insights into geologic processes by two
generations of geologists, many of them
from the Northern Territory Geological
Survey or the BMR or its successor orga-
nizations. However, the conclusions
and any errors are mine.
Rum Jungle Geology
Rum Jungle is located near the western
margin of the Pine Creek orogen, a
45,000-km2 Proterozoic inlier on the
margin of the North Australian cra-
ton (Ahmad, 1998). Paleoproterozoic
sediments and volcanic rocks (Fig. 1)
that host the Woodcutters orebody and
other mineralization were deposited on
Archean granitic and gneissic basement
in a deepening marine rift from ~2100
Ma (Doyle and Lally, 2004). The basin
was inverted, and the sequence was
folded and metamorphosed to lower
greenschist facies in the Nimbuwah
tectonothermal event, which is one of
the constituent events of the Barra-
mundi orogeny, at ~1860 to 1845 Ma.
It was then intruded, predominantly
between ~1850 and ~1820 Ma, by gran-
ites of the Allia Creek Suite and Cullen
Supersuite.
In the Rum Jungle area, the Archean
(2545–2521 Ma, Hollis et al., 2014)
granitic and gneissic basement is
exposed as two adjacent inliers, the
Rum Jungle and Waterhouse domes,
together known as the Rum Jungle
Complex. Hollis et al. (2014) found
that the granitic basement rocks con-
tain zircon grains with low δ18O values
 16 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Woodcutters: A New Look at an Old Discovery (continued)

drowned the carbonate platforms in a

sequence of organic-rich muds (Whites
Formation), shallow marine sediments
(Wildman Siltstone), and, after a hiatus
of approximately 150 m.y., volcaniclas-
tic rocks and turbidites of the South
Alligator and Finniss River groups.
Platform sedimentation and further
deformation followed, culminating
in 5 to 6 km of dextral dislocation of
the entire Rum Jungle sequence by the
regional-scale Giants Reef fault.
The Geolsec Formation, a hematite
quartz breccia that hosts phosphate
mineralization, is regarded by Lally
(2003) as post-Nimbuwah, but earlier
investigators (Pritchard et al., 1967)
thought it was part of the Coomalie
Dolostone, since it is folded with that
formation. It is shown in that strati-
graphic position in Figure 3.

FIGURE 1. Northern part of the Pine Creek orogen, simplified from Ahmad (1998) and Hollis et al.
(2014). GRF = Giants Reef fault.
showing interaction with meteoric
water by 2535 Ma, from which they
infer that the North Australian craton
was emergent and being weathered at
that time or earlier. The Paleoprotero-
zoic sequence at Rum Jungle is shown
on Figures 2 and 3, which are based on
Lally (2003), with a modification noted
in the next paragraph. The oldest for-
mations are redbeds that include minor
banded iron formation (BIF) in the
Beestons Formation and conglomerate
with BIF clasts in the Crater Forma-
tion, alternating with stromatolitic
carbonates of the Celia and Coomalie
dolostones. Continued subsidence
Mineralization
The main deposits and prospects at
Rum Jungle are shown on Figure 2
and summarized in Table 1. The min-
eralization is distributed around the
margins of the Rum Jungle dome,
mostly in the in-faulted Paleoprotero-
zoic wedge known as the Embayment
and stratigraphically in the Whites
Formation at the contact with the

FIGURE 2. Simplified geology (modified from Lally, 2003) and mineral resources of the Rum Jungle district. Larger circles are deposits with resources
or production. Deposit numbers (red) are keyed to Table 1. See Figure 3 for stratigraphic legend and Figure 4 for the cross section A-A’.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 17

TABLE 1. Principal Mineral Deposits in the Rum Jungle District

Deposit Resource/production Reference Production status
Woodcutters (1) 4,600,000 t, 12.3% Zn, 5.6% Pb, 83 g/t Ag (P) McCready et al. (2004) Discovered 1964, mined 1985–1999
Winchester (2) 12,200,000 t, 43.1% MgO (R) Geoscience Australia (2014) Undeveloped resource
Sundance (3) Small, high grade (P) Glengarry Resources Ltd. Small-scale mining 1986–1993
(2008)
Geolsec (4) 1,000,000 t, 12.5% P2O5 (R) McCready et al. (2001) Undeveloped resource
Rum Jungle Creek South (5) 665,000 t 0.43% U3O8 (P) McKay and Miezitis (2001) Discovered 1959, mined 1961–1963
Dysons (6) 157,000 t 0.34% U3O8 (P) McKay and Miezitis (2001) Discovered 1951, mined 1954–1958

Whites (7) 403,000 t 0.27% U3O8, 2.7% Cu + 295,000 t 0.28% McKay and Miezitis (2001) Discovered 1949, mined 1954–1958
Cu, 0.3% Co (P)

Intermediate (8) 732,000 t, 2.2% Cu (P) Crick (1987) Drilled 1963, mined 1964–1965
Browns (9) 39,000,000 t, 0.44% Cu, 3.6% Pb, 0.11% Co, 0.09% McCready et al. (2004) Drilled 1954–1957, trial mining
Ni (Browns) + 31,000,000 t, 1.29% Cu, 1.28% Pb, 1967–1970
0.1% Co, 0.13% Ni (Browns East) (R)
Mount Burton (10) 6,000 t, 0.21% U3O8 1.04% Cu (P) McKay and Miezitis (2001) Mined 1958
Mount Fitch (11) 290,000 t, 0.6% Cu (R) McKay and Miezitis (2001) Prospect
Note: Deposit numbers (in parentheses) are keyed to Figure 2; P = production, R = undeveloped resource or prospect

Coomalie Dolostone. A reconstruction
to pre-Giants Reef fault configuration
would show that U, Cu, Pb, Co, Ni,
and P mineralization is concentrated in
the narrow channel between the two
granitic domes, whereas Zn-Pb-Ag and
magnesite occur on the eastern side of
the Rum Jungle dome. The largest of
these occurrences is the Browns Pb-Cu-
Co-Ni deposit, which McCready et al.
FIGURE 3. Stratigraphic units of the Rum Jungle district, from Lally (2003). Ages are from Hollis
et al. (2014). The Finniss River Group is included for completeness but is not present on Figure 2,
so it has no symbol. Thick/thin wavy lines are major/lesser unconformities.
(2004) regarded as syngenetic or syndi-
agenetic and partly remobilized during
the Nimbuwah deformation. It should
be mentioned, though, that Scrimgeour
(2006) includes the Browns orebody
among others that were deposited at
1863 to 1864 Ma (the age of the South
Alligator Group), which would make a
syngenetic origin in the Whites Forma-
tion impossible.
The close physical association among
the various Embayment deposits,
including phosphate, strongly suggests
some common factor. In contrast, the
spatially separate Woodcutters deposit
has different characteristics, which are
described below.
Woodcutters Deposit
A detailed description of the Woodcut-
ters deposit based on contemporary
mine exposures and drill core is given
by Smolonogov and Marshall (1992).
The orebody is located in the Whites
Formation (Fig. 2) and, unlike the
Embayment deposits, is up to 800 m
stratigraphically above the contact with
the underlying Coomalie Dolostone
(Fig. 4). Ore is localized in dolomitic
horizons up to 100 m thick and inter-
bedded with black shale, suggesting a
gradual transition from the Coomalie
Dolostone to the Whites Formation.
These stratiform ore lenses are best
developed in the faulted hinge zone of
a regional antiform and consist mostly
of banded sphalerite, galena, and pyrite
transitional to Pb-Sb sulfosalts. They are
connected by laminated fault-hosted
galena and sphalerite veins, referred to
as feeders. Additionally, there are zones
of coarse-grained galena and sphalerite
thought to have been remobilized from
stratabound ore during postdepositional
deformation. In places, tourmaline is
also interlayered with sulfides, although
it is regarded by Smolonogov and
Marshall (1992, p. 86) as having been
“deposited by older fluids than those
which formed the orebody.”
 18 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Woodcutters: A New Look at an Old Discovery (continued)

Sulfur isotopes in sulfides varied from

3.9 to 22.6‰ (McCready et al., 2001),
and geothermometry based on coex-
isting sphalerite and galena gave a
temperature of 328°C. Fluid inclusions
in sphalerite and quartz indicate a
homogenization temperature of 221° to
294°C, salinity of 9.5 to >23 wt % NaCl
equiv, and pressure of 700 to 1,000
bars (Ahmad, 1998). The positive sulfur
isotope ratios suggest that sulfur was
reduced by deep thermogenic pro-
cesses, rather than near-surface bacterial
activity.
Smolonogov and Marshall (1992)
conclude that the ore fluid was chan-
neled along steeply dipping faults
(the feeders) and replaced flat-lying
dolomitic beds where the faults inter-
sected them. The ore lenses were then
folded and partially remobilized during
basin inversion. Therefore, the initial
Woodcutters mineralization must have
occurred sometime between ~2025 Ma
(the approximate age of the Wildman
Siltstone, which overlies the White
Formation) and Nimbuwah deformation
at ~1860 Ma.
Paleoenvironmental Constraints
Some of the environmental and other
changes that were occurring in the
Paleoproterozoic are illustrated in
Figure 5. The first oxygen had started
to appear in the atmosphere in the
Great Oxygenation Event (GOE) near
the end of the Archean, when bacteria
began to photosynthesize oxygen. BIFs
first appeared in the geologic record
at 2.6 to 2.4 Ga when soluble Fe2+ was
converted to insoluble Fe3+. They occur
as roof pendants to the Rum Jungle
granites, as thin lenses in the Beestons
Formation, and as conglomerate clasts
in the Crater Formation. Redbeds such
as the Beestons and Crater formations
first appeared after 2.3 Ga (Large et al.,
2017).
Oxidation of pyrite produced a flux
of sulfate to the ocean, and BIFs dis-
appeared after 1.85 Ga, either because
of too much oxygen or possibly too
much sulfate. Sulfate allowed large
marine evaporite deposits to form for
the first time at about 2 Ga. Knauth
(2004) suggests that the amount of salt
now sequestered in evaporites could be
enough for the Paleoproterozoic ocean
to have been substantially more saline
than it is today.
FIGURE 4. Interpreted E-W section A-A’ through the Woodcutters orebody, looking north. Sym-
bols as in Figures 2 and 3; section location on Figure 2. No vertical exaggeration.
Proterozoic carbonate platforms
typically consist of dolomite, thought
to result from dolomitization of original
calcium carbonate or primary evapora-
tion of seawater. Zentmyer at al. (2011)
suggest that the SO 42– concentration in
modern oceans is too high for dolomite
precipitation unless sulfate is removed
by evaporation or bacterial reduction.
They infer that Paleoproterozoic seawa-
ter, with less sulfate and more Mg than
today, was closer to the threshold for
dolomite precipitation, which might
have occurred when sulfate concentra-
tion was further reduced by evaporation
and gypsum precipitation. The Celia and
Coomalie dolostones, which are older
than 2025 Ma, could have been depos-
ited at a time when sulfate concentration
was low enough to promote dolomite
deposition or to cause dolomitization of
earlier calcium carbonates (Fig. 5).
Bone (1985) found that much of the
Celia and Coomalie dolostones consists
of magnesite. She concluded that the
magnesite was deposited in an alkaline,
evaporative lacustrine environment,
where Mg concentration was increased
relative to Ca by the formation of gyp-
sum. She considered that the magnesite
was deposited as a primary sediment
in response to cyclical flooding and
dehydration of the lakes. Subsidence
then drowned the dolomitic carbonate
platforms, on which the organic-rich
muds of up the Whites Formation were
deposited.
Dong et al. (2016) concluded that
giant Paleoproterozoic magnesite depos-
its in China had been deposited by dia-
genesis when Mg-rich seawater infiltrated
a precursor carbonate in a closed lagoon.
They inferred that Paleoproterozoic sea-
water, already Mg rich due to weathering
of mafic and ultramafic rocks, became
further enriched in Mg by evaporation
and precipitation of calcium sulfate.
Mg-rich tourmaline (dravite) is
widely distributed at Rum Jungle
and may provide further support for
evaporative conditions in which boron
was released by diagenesis of evapo-
rites (e.g., Hong et al., 2004). Tourma-
line occurs in units that range from
the Crater Formation to the Whites
Formation (including in the Woodcut-
ters deposit, as noted above) and is in
places associated with rip-up clasts and
slump structures, indicating a synge-
netic or syndiagenetic origin (Bone,
1985).
The phosphate deposits in the Geol-
sec Formation on the southwest margin
of the Rum Jungle dome seem to fit
a model for Paleoproterozoic phos-
phate deposits proposed by Pufahl and
Groat (2016). These authors suggest
that phosphate deposition occurred
when there was enough oxygen in the
atmosphere for chemical weathering
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 19
FIGURE 5. Timeline of Paleoproterozoic environmental changes and selected global deposit types, from Large et al.
(2017). Tectonic and intrusive events are from Hollis et al. (2014). Red shading shows the possible age envelope for the
Woodcutters deposit.
to deliver phosphorous from Archean
continental rocks to the marine
environment, where it was deposited
in shoreline sediments by bacterial
diagenesis.
Mineralization Model
An ore fluid temperature of about 300°C
and a pressure of 700 to 1,000 bars
mean that the Woodcutters ore fluid
must have reached a depth of several
km. The combined thickness of the
Whites Formation and underlying units
in this location is about 2.5 km on the
cross section (Fig. 5), which agrees with
maximum thicknesses provided in the
Australian Stratigraphic Units Database
(but is only 1.1 km, according to Smolo-
nogov and Marshall, 1992), so there
must have been a considerable addi-
tional thickness of overlying sediment
and/or depth of water when the deposit
was emplaced. This could include up
to 2,000 m in the Wildman Siltstone
(~2025 Ma), or more depending on how
much was eroded in the 150 m.y. before
the South Alligator Group was depos-
ited, and could even include units as
young as the Gerowie Tuff (1862 Ma) in
the South Alligator Group (see Fig. 3).
Depth and temperature constraints
rule out a sedimentary exhalative
(SEDEX)-type process for Woodcutters
and suggest similarities with Mississippi
Valley-type (MVT) deposits, which are
formed by replacement of dolomitized
limestone on basin-margin platforms
by coarse sphalerite and galena (Large
et al., 2017). MVT deposits are com-
monly associated with evaporites and
show positive sulfur isotope ratios
indicative of thermogenic sulfate
reduction (Wilkinson, 2013). However,
they generally form from a cooler fluid
(50°–200°C), and Zn-Pb ratios tend to be
higher, averaging 3.4 to 1 compared to
2.2 to 1 for Woodcutters.
Paradis et al. (2014) suggest that MVT
deposits form when metals and sulfate
are transported in the same fluid, and
sulfides are deposited when the fluid
mixes with organic matter or methane.
Alternatively, metals might be trans-
ported in a sulfur-poor fluid that mixes
with a second fluid containing H2S at
the site of deposition. This alternative
process could explain the Woodcutters
metallogenesis at a time of low oceanic
sulfate concentration.
Figure 6 shows a possible model for
the Woodcutters deposit in which near-
shore marine evaporites, as suggested by
Bone (1985) to account for the abundant
magnesite in the area, are generated by
periodic drying out of coastal lagoons on
the shores of an Archean granite island.
Evaporation produces a high-salinity
brine that may also be low in sulfate if
gypsum is deposited. This chloride-rich,
low-sulfate brine is denser than normal
seawater, and quite efficient at scav-
enging metals. It percolates into redbed
sandstone aquifers of the Crater For-
mation and is progressively heated as it
passes laterally to greater depth in the
basin, where it leaches Zn and Pb from
the aquifer sandstone. It ascends con-
vectively up a deep, basin-penetrating
fault through the Coomalie Dolostone
until it intersects organic-rich shales of
the Whites Formation, where sulfides are
precipitated by replacement of dolomitic
lenses. Deposition occurs by mixing of
the ascending fluid with H2S-rich pore
fluid (trapped seawater) or, possibly, by
reduction of sulfate to metal sulfide by
organic matter.
Conclusions
The Woodcutters deposit is thought to
have been emplaced before metamor-
phism and deformation at 1860 Ma,
making it considerably older than major
Zn-Pb SEDEX deposits of the McArthur
and Isa basins, which formed during
continental extension between 1650
and 1580 Ma (Large et al., 2005). Wood-
cutters is also older than the Ranger
uranium orebody in the eastern part
of the Pine Creek orogen, which has a
maximum age of 1723 Ma (Skirrow et
al., 2016), and other uranium deposits
in the Alligator Rivers region.
 20 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
Woodcutters: A New Look at an Old Discovery (continued)
FIGURE 6. Cartoon genetic model of the Woodcutters deposit. Abbreviations: FM = Formation, GP = Group.
Woodcutters was emplaced during
a time of environmental change, when
oxygen was being added to the atmo-
sphere and the resulting oxidation of
pyrite began to supply sulfate to the
oceans. There were emergent continents
and a “modern” hydrological cycle that
permitted weathering and erosion to
occur. Continental rocks were being
oxidized and eroded, supplying phos-
phate, uranium, and base metals to the
near-shore marine environment, where
these elements were incorporated into
sediments by interaction with organic
material or (in the case of Zn and Pb)
transported by hydrothermal fluids.
The deposition of evaporites may
have been a part of the Woodcutters
mineralizing process, by sequestering
sulfate from seawater and increasing
the chloride concentration to generate
a brine that would be highly effective
at transporting base metals as chlorides.
Deposition required another, separate
source of reduced sulfur, provided by
H2S in organic-rich shales.
The relationship between the various
types of mineralization (uranium, base
metals, copper, cobalt, etc.) remains
problematic. Some geologists (e.g.,
Ahmad et al., 2002) have suggested that
(in the Embayment area) reduction of a
single oxidized hydrothermal fluid may
have deposited pitchblende first, fol-
lowed by base metal sulfides as the fluid
moved into the pyrite-stable field. On
the other hand, McCready et al. (2004)
found no genetic link between Pb-Co-Ni
mineralization at the Browns deposit
and the adjacent uranium deposits.
It seems probable that Pb, Co, Ni,
Cu, U, and P were being oxidized and
eroded from the Archean granitic
basement and carried by rivers into a
shallow sea between ~2100 and 2025
Ma. These elements may have been
deposited diagenetically from a rela-
tively cool fluid in organic-rich sedi-
ments in the Embayment area to form
the Browns, Whites, Rum Jungle Creek
South (base metals, uranium), and Geol-
sec (phosphate) orebodies. At some time
between 2025 and 1860 Ma, a hotter
hydrothermal fluid circulated through
aquifers deep in the sequence, leached
Zn, Ag, and Pb from redbed sandstones,
and deposited these metals as the
Woodcutters orebody by replacing dolo-
mitic beds in an otherwise fine-grained,
organic-rich sedimentary package.
Rum Jungle shows how elements
such as Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag, U, P, Mg, and B,
formerly locked up in Archean cratons,
were delivered for the first time by ero-
sion under an oxygenated atmosphere
to the Paleoproterozoic shorelines and
oceans, where some of them were con-
centrated as ore deposits by biological
and chemical processes.
Acknowledgments
Almost everything I have learned about
Rum Jungle and the Pine Creek orogen
is based on the work of geologists who
have worked in the region since the
1960s, some of whose studies are cited
below. I gratefully acknowledge their
contribution, and I also thank Ross Large
and an SEG reviewer for comments that
improved initial drafts of the article.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, M., 1998, Geology and mineral resources
of the Pine Creek inlier and McArthur Basin,
Northern Territory: Australian Geological Survey
Organization (AGSO) Journal of Australian Geol-
ogy and Geophysics, v. 17, p. 1–17.
Ahmad, M., McCready, A., Stumpfl, E.F., Lally, J.,
and Gee, R.F., 2002, Mineral deposit models for
Rum Jungle [abs.]: Northern Territory Geological
Survey, Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar
(AGES), Geological Survey Record 2002/0003,
p. 1–2.
Bone, Y., 1985, Magnesite deposits at Rum Jungle,
N.T., Australia—genesis and association with
uranium and polymetallic sulfides: Ph.D. thesis,
Adelaide, University of Adelaide, 431 p.
Crick, I.H., 1987, Rum Jungle uranium field,
Northern Territory. 1:100,000 map commentary:
Canberra, Australian Government Publishing
Service, 16 p.
Crohn, P.W., Langron, W., and Prichard, P.E., 1967,
The Woodcutters L5 prospect, Rum Jungle area,
Northern Territory: Bureau of Mineral Resources
Australia, Record 1967/154, 10 p. (unpub.).
Dodson, R.G., and Shatwell, D.O., 1965, Geochem-
ical and radiometric survey, Rum Jungle, N.T.,
1964: Bureau of Mineral Resources Australia,
Record 1965/254, 51 p., 31 plates (unpub.).
Dong, A., Zhu, X.-K., Li, S., Kendall, B., Wang, Y.,
and Gao, Z., 2016, Genesis of a giant Paleopro-
terozoic strata-bound magnesite deposit: Con-
straints from Mg isotopes: Precambrian Research,
v. 281, p. 673–683.
Doyle, N.J., and Lally, J.H., 2004, 1:100,000 geo-
logical map series explanatory notes, Noonamah
sheet 5172: Darwin, Northern Territory Geologi-
cal Survey, 28 p.
Geoscience Australia, 2014, Australia’s identified
mineral resources 2013: Canberra, Geoscience Aus-
tralia, http:/dx.doi.org.10.11636/1327-1466.2013.
Glengarry Resources Ltd., 2008, E.L. 24971—Man-
ton River: Partial Surrender Report, Period 14 June
2006 to 13 June 2008, 16 p.
Hollis, J.A., Van Kranendonk, M.J., Cross, A.J., Kirkland,
C.L., Armstrong, R.A., and Allen, C.M., 2014, Low
δ18O zircons in the Neoarchean Rum Jungle Com-
plex, northern Australia: An indicator of emergent
continental crust: Lithosphere, v. 6, p. 17–25.
Hong, X., Peng, Q-M., and Palmer, M.R., 2004, Ori-
gin of tourmaline-rich rocks in a Paleoproterozoic
terrane (NE China): Evidence for evaporite-de-
rived boron: Geology in China, v. 31, p. 240–251.
Knauth, L.P., 2004, Temperature and salinity history
of the Precambrian ocean: Implications for the
course of microbial evolution: Paleogeography,
Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, v. 219, p. 53–69.
Lally, J.H., 2003, Rum Jungle Mineral Field inte-
grated interpretation of geophysics and geology,
edition 1: Darwin, Northern Territory Geological
Survey, 1:100,000 Geological Map Series.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 21
Large, R.R., Bull, S.W., McGoldrick, P.J., Walters, S.,
Derrick, G.M., and Carr, G.R., 2005, Stratiform
and stratabound Zn-Pb-Ag deposits in Proterozoic
sedimentary basins, northern Australia: Economic
Geology 100th Anniversary Volume, p. 931–963.
Large, R.R., Mukherjee, I., Gregory, D.D., Stead-
man, J.A., Maslennikov, V.V., and Meffre, S.,
2017, Ocean and atmospheric proxies derived
from trace elements in marine pyrite: Impli-
cations for ore genesis in sedimentary basins:
Economic Geology, v. 112,
p. 423–450.
McCready, A.J., Stumpfl, E.F., Ahmad, M., and Gee,
D., 2001, Polymetallic mineralization at Rum Jun-
gle, N.T.: The Browns deposit, in Piestrzynski et al.,
eds., Mineral deposits at the beginning of the 21st
century: Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers.
McCready, A.J., Stumpfl, E.F., Lally, J.H., Ahmad,
M., and Gee, R.D., 2004, Polymetallic mineraliza-
tion at the Browns deposit, Rum Jungle mineral
field, Northern Territory, Australia: Economic
Geology, v. 99, p. 257–277.
McKay, A.D., and Miezitis, Y., 2001, Australia’s
uranium resources, geology and development of
deposits: AGSO-Geoscience Australia, Mineral
Resource Report 1, 184 p.
Paradis, S., Hannigan, P., and Dewing, K., 2014,
Mississippi Valley-type lead-zinc deposits (MVT):
Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Depos-
its Division, Special Publication 5, p. 185–203.
Pritchard, P.W., Barrie, J., and Jauncey, W., 1967,
Examination of Rum Jungle phosphates 1962–
1964: Bureau of Mineral Resources Australia,
Record 1966/199, 40 p.
Pufahl, P.K., and Groat, L.A., 2016, Sedimentary and
igneous phosphate deposits: An invited paper:
SEG Student Minerals Colloquium 2020
Tuesday, March 3, 2020 10 am – 6 pm | Cocktail Reception 3 – 6 pm
The SEG 100th Anniversary announcement
and student awards presented during Cocktail
Reception, Metro Toronto Convention Center
(MTCC) South Building, Room 701
www.segweb.org/events
Economic Geology, v. 112, p. 483–516. Territory: Mineralium Deposita, v. 9, p. 175–178.
Scrimgeour, I., 2006, An overview of the North ——1984, The geology of the Woodcutters lead-zinc-
Australian craton: Geoscience Australia, Record silver deposit and its environment, Rum Jungle area,
2016/16, p. 1–2. Northern Territory: Australasian Institute of Mining
Shatwell, D.O., 1966, Geochemical and radiomet- and Metallurgy, Darwin Conference, Darwin,
ric investigations, Rum Jungle East area, 1965 Northern Territory, 1984, Proceedings, p. 347–356.
(Coomalie Gap West and Woodcutters area): Wilkinson, J.J., 2013, Sediment-hosted Zn-Pb
Bureau of Mineral Resources Australia, Record mineralization: Processes and perspectives, in
1966/34 (unpub.). Holland, H.D., and Turekian, K.K., eds., Treatise
Skirrow, R.G., Mercadier, J., Armstrong, R., Kuske, on geochemistry, second edition: Oxford, Elsevier,
T., and Deloule, E., 2016, The Ranger uranium p. 219–239.
deposit, northern Australia: Timing constraints, Zentmyer, R.A., Pufahl, P.K., James, N.P., and Hyatt,
regional and ore-related alteration, and genetic E.E., 2011, Dolomitization of an evaporitic Paleo-
implications for unconformity-related mineraliza- proterozoic ramp: Widespread synsedimentary
tion: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 76, p. 463–503. dolomite in the Denault Formation, Labrador
Smolonogov, S., and Marshall, B., 1992, A genetic trough, Canada: Sedimentary Geology, v. 238,
model for the Woodcutters Pb-Zn-Ag orebod- p. 116–131. 1
ies, Northern Territory, Australia: Ore Geology
Reviews, v. 8, p. 65–88.
Taube, A., 1974, Dolomitization and the genesis
of the Woodcutters lead-zinc prospect, Northern
Dave Shatwell is a field-oriented Australian exploration
geologist and consultant. Early in his career (1964–1966), he
worked for the Bureau of Mineral Resources at Rum Jungle, the
subject of this article. He has since worked on exploration proj-
ects in Australia, Latin America, southeast Asia, central Asia,
and the southwest Pacific, including the giant Ladolam gold
deposit in Papua New Guinea (1983–1984). From 2005 to 2010,
Dave was in charge of exploration in the Cerro Negro district,
Argentina, when most of the deposits that form the basis of the
current 490,000 oz Au/year mining operation were discovered.
PDAC
 22 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining
Andre van As,† Van As Geotechnical Pty Ltd, 208 Huntingdale Road, Pullenvale, Queensland 4069, Australia
Editor’s note: The Geology and Mining series, edited by Dan Wood and Jeffrey Hedenquist, is designed to introduce early-career professionals
and students to a variety of topics in mineral exploration, development, and mining, in order to provide insight into the many ways in which
geoscientists contribute to the mineral industry.
Abstract
The rock mass response to mining is
governed by the rock mass characteristics
and the mining-induced changes that
drive its behavior. To be able to study and
accurately predict the response of the rock
mass to mining, it is imperative that both
the orebody and the enclosing country
rocks are well characterized through the
collection and analysis of large quantities
of good-quality, representative geologic,
structural, geotechnical, and hydrogeo-
logical data. These are the fundamental
constituents of a good geotechnical model
whose reliability improves as the mining
project matures and moves from explora-
tion and study phases, passes the decision
to develop, and proceeds into construction
and then operations. Each phase provides
greater exposure to the rock mass, reduces
uncertainty, and increases reliability in the
geotechnical model and in an under-
standing of the rock mass behavior. The
quest of the geotechnical engineer is to
understand the rock mass behavior and
is no different from that of the geologist
who defines the mineral resource, and it
warrants (at the very least) the same level
of rigor in data collection, analysis, and
reporting. Just as the geologist continues
to improve the orebody model through
grade reconciliation during mining, so
the geotechnical engineer must continu-
ally revisit and calibrate the geotechnical
model during the operational phase of
mining through geotechnical monitoring.
The increasing demand by investors and
stakeholders that the performance of a
mine does not deviate from plan due to
unforeseen geotechnical surprises warrants
a significant shift in the level of geotech-
nical data collection, analyses, and rock
mass monitoring through all stages of
study and operations. This demand war-
rants supporting budgets and assurance
processes that are commensurate with the
complexity and extent of the geotechnical
uncertainties.
†
E-mail, Andre@vanas.com.au
doi:10.5382/Geo-and-Mining-06
Introduction
The primary role of geologists, from
exploration through to operations, is
to discover and delineate the potential
resource to a level of confidence that
the resource can be mined profitably.
This requires that fundamental data
concerning the orebody and surround-
ing country rock is collected (primar-
ily through core logging, downhole
logging, mapping, and testing) and then
analyzed and interpreted to provide
engineers with the best possible infor-
mation on which to base their mine
design. To this end, geologists tend to
focus on collecting data pertaining to
grade due to legally enforceable con-
straints from the various international
codes that control the reporting of a
mineral resource estimate (Carlson,
2019). However, companies spend less
effort in acquiring good-quality geo-
technical data and in so doing only
solve half of the problem—namely, that
a potential orebody exists. To answer
whether it can be profitably extracted
through mining very often depends
on the geotechnical characteristics of
the potential orebody and the country
(waste) rock, which dictates the per-
formance and ultimate success of the
mining method selected.
The fact that most mine calamities
and disasters, relating to either safety
or performance and profitability, are
attributed to “geotechnical issues” is
unfortunate but unsurprising, as these
issues are predominantly due to the
following:
1. Inadequate or poor geotechnical data
collection
2. Failure to use or study all the available
data and incorporate them into a reli-
able geotechnical model, which forms
the framework for all mine design
3. Failure to incorporate sound geotech-
nical principles into the mine design
and/or mine operation, either out of
ignorance or deliberately for eco-
nomic considerations (though these
are rarely admitted)
To emphasize the point on data
quantity, Moorehead et al. (2001) and
Wood and Hedenquist (2019) both
quote the Cadia Hill resource drilling as
an example of where 369 diamond core
holes and 157,000 m of drilling were
used to estimate the 352 Mt resource.
Assuming that the core was sampled
and analyzed for grade on 1.0-m
intervals, this equates to approximately
157,000 data points used to increase
confidence and model the grade
distribution of the orebody alone. It
is highly unlikely that any geotechni-
cal parameter would enjoy the same
level of targeted drilling or rigorous
sampling. Some of the most notable
examples of industry best practice still
only manage to log in detail about a
quarter of the drill holes, in addition
to a general, minimal geotechnical log
of all holes (usually only rock quality
designation [RQD] measurements) after
the initial exploration phase. Given
this vast lack in quantity of geotech-
nical data, one could argue that in
many cases the high-quality estimated
mineral resource should rarely be
classified as a probable or proven ore
reserve, particularly since the most
important modifying factors (Joint Ore
Reserves Committee [JORC] consider-
ation, as described by Carlson, 2019)
that will affect extraction of the ore are
typically the geotechnical character-
istics of the orebody and its enclosing
country rocks. It is this insufficiency of
good-quality geotechnical data, along
with the poor application of sound
geotechnical principles into the mine
design and/or operation, that arguably
brings into question the transparency
and material principles of the JORC
code in Australia and in other codes in
other jurisdictions (Carlson, 2019).
What Is Geotechnical
Engineering?
Essentially the role of a mine geotech-
nical engineer is to understand the
rock mass response to mining through
a good understanding of the strength
of the rock mass and the effect that
mining-induced stresses will have on
it, i.e., cause and effect. Mine geotech-
nical engineers use principles of soil
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 23
and rock mechanics to investigate rock
mass conditions and determine their
relevant physical (mechanical) and
chemical properties in order to predict
and monitor the rock mass response to
mining for the purposes of excavation
design and stability, mining sequence
design, ground support design, dilu-
tion estimates, mine performance as it
pertains to the rock mass response, and
regulatory compliance.
The differentiation between the roles
of a geotechnical engineer and those
of an engineering geologist has been
debated, particularly in the context of
mining, where the generic term “geo-
technical engineer” is prevalent. It has
been argued that the field of geotech-
nical engineering is a specialty of
engineering, whereas the field of engi-
neering geology is a specialty of geology
(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotech-
nical_engineering, accessed August 18,
2019). This debate serves to emphasize
the nature of the role and the fact that
geotechnical engineering is multidis-
ciplinary, given the work involved. In
mining, the role should be considered
as the bridge between science (geology)
and engineering (mining), and therefore
geotechnical engineers must have the
skills and competency to move from
one to the other, as required. Unfor-
tunately, today there is a tendency for
the geotechnical engineer to be less
visible in hands-on data collection and
more focused on spreadsheet analytics;
the result of this is output that usually
suffers from a lack of geologic context,
since an understanding only comes
from hands-on observations of the rocks
to be mined.
Mine geotechnical engineers can be
considered as the link between geolo-
gists and mining engineers, as their role
should be to interpret and translate the
geologic characteristics of rocks into
mechanical behavior, effectively answer-
ing the question of how the orebody and
country rock masses will respond to min-
ing and, thus, how the resource can be
optimally extracted, most profitably and
with the least potential for uncertainty.
The geologist, geotechnical engi-
neer, and mining engineer must work
together as an effective team through-
out the study and operational phases of
mining. No role should be considered
complete or obsolete at any phase of
study, and communication and collabo-
ration is essential if an optimal mining
solution is to be found and successfully
implemented.
Geotechnical Data Collection
When does geotechnical data
collection commence?
One of the most common problems
encountered in mining studies is an
insufficient amount of geotechnical
data collected and used during the
early phases of study, e.g., during the
conceptual or scoping study, extending
through to the feasibility study stage
(which is when most geotechnical data
has historically been collected). This
is largely due to the fact that during
exploration there is a focus on defining
and proving the mineral resource. As a
result, geotechnical engineers are often
constrained in their ability to assess the
rock mass and provide fact-based mine
design parameters at the conceptual
(order of magnitude) study phase of
potential mine development. The geo-
technical engineer is commonly forced
to use benchmarking data acquired
from mines with (hopefully) compar-
atively similar orebodies and country
rocks.
This so-called benchmarking prac-
tice, although common, cannot be
justified as a replacement of data for
the deposit being assessed, given the
technological advances that now facil-
itate the acquisition of a considerable
amount of geotechnical data in every
drill hole, even during the exploration
phase. Downhole geophysical and
optical logging and core scanning are
just a few of the data acquisition tech-
niques that are available (Maybee et al.,
2002). Armed with these data, as well
as an appreciation of the geology of the
potential orebody and its surroundings,
the geotechnical engineer can now pro-
vide more reliable mining parameters,
commensurate with the level of study.
Together with the geologist, the geo-
technical engineer can focus on bridg-
ing the gaps in information by designed
targeted data collection campaigns.
Typical geotechnical data collected
from core logging
Geotechnical core logging is usually
separated into an engineering (interval)
log and detailed structure log. Interval
logging involves the recording of basic
mechanical and structural parameters
that provide a general geotechnical
description of the core over a defined
interval (typically the length of the drill
run, or of variable length corresponding
to a particular geologic subdivision or
geotechnical domain). Thus, the logging
interval will typically be a fixed length
within geotechnical domains.
Typical parameters recorded in the
interval log include hole identifier,
depth from (From), depth to (To), core
diameter, total length of core recovered
(TLR), length of solid core recovered
(SLR), number of open fractures (NOF),
number of open joints (NOJ), number
of pen-joint sets or joint set num-
ber (Jn), number of cemented joints
(NCJ), number of cemented joint sets,
cemented joint infill type, veins, micro-
defect intensity (MDI), microdefect
strength (MDS), lithology, alteration,
weathering and oxidation, and estima-
tion of rock strength from point load
testing.
Parameters calculated from the inter-
val log include the following:
1. RQD is an empirical index that
quantifies the mechanical quality
of the core by measuring the length
of solid core pieces that are greater
than 100 mm and expressing these
measurements as a percentage of the
length of core drilled. Only natu-
ral breaks are considered, and all
artificial breaks in the core (fractures
during drilling or core handling) are
ignored.
2. Total core recovery (TCR) is the total
length of all core recovered/total
length of core drilled, expressed as a
percentage.
3. Solid core recovery (SCR) is the total
length of solid core recovered/total
length of core drilled, expressed as a
percentage. Note that solid core refers
to cylindrical pieces of rock core.
4. Open fracture frequency (all open
discontinuities; OFF) is recorded as
the number of open fractures per
interval.
5. Open joint frequency (natural dis-
continuities; OJF) is recorded as the
number of open joints per interval.
6. Cemented joint frequency (CJF)
is recorded as the total number
of healed or cemented joints per
interval.
7. Vein frequency (VF) is recorded
as the total number of veins per
interval.
The detailed, oriented structure log
is a record of the geometry and shear
strength properties of the intermediate-
and minor-scale structures present in
the core, so as to assess their influence
on the rock mass strength. Typical
parameters recorded in the detailed
structure log include the following:
 24 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining (continued)
1. Depth (of the structure down the
hole)
2. Type of structure
3. Orientation of the structures (dip,
dip direction)
4. Condition of the structures, namely
infill type, aperture/infill thickness,
wall roughness (refers to the small-
scale irregularities on the fracture
surface), wall planarity (refers to its
flatness), and wall strength (alter-
ation; no alteration, weaker than
intact rock strength, stronger than
intact rock strength)
5. Microdefects (refers to any network
of veins or small scale, discontinu-
ous fractures), including infill type,
intensity of defects (minor, moderate,
heavy), and orientation or anisotropy
Note that it is not uncommon for the
definition of defects and microdefects
to be used interchangeably or for them
to be all grouped and logged simply as
microdefects (if they are logged at all).
How much geotechnical data
is enough?
As argued above, a significant amount
of geotechnical data is necessary to
ensure that the confidence in the
geotechnical model is on par with
the mineral resource model. Detailed
geotechnical data collection should
commence right from the exploration
phase, particularly once it appears that
a mineral deposit discovery has been
made. However, it is common during
exploration for geologists to collect
only token geotechnical data that are
easy to measure, such as RQD, if they
collect data at all. This is despite tech-
nological advances in logging, photog-
raphy, and scanning that now allow
for more numerous and better-quality
quantitative data to be collected. The
relatively high cost of drilling eas-
ily justifies the incremental cost of
downhole logging and core scanning to
acquire good-quality data that supple-
ment conventional core logging. How-
ever, using the cost of drilling as the
basis for arguing for geotechnical data
collection should not be necessary. It is
a false economy to scrimp on collect-
ing relevant geotechnical data, even at
the earliest stages of mineral deposit
discovery, given the potential for
catastrophic economic consequences
if a mine is developed in ignorance of
major geotechnical issues that were not
detected because the relevant data were
not collected.
The type and quantity of geotech-
nical data required for effective mine
planning and development depend on
the location, complexity, and extent
(size) of the orebody (and country
rock), as well as on the mining method
likely to be employed. For example, a
shallow coal deposit to be mined by
open pit will require fewer geotechnical
data than a deep, large, and complex
porphyry copper deposit that is likely to
be mined using an underground caving
mining method (Chitombo, 2019).
When planning a program of geo-
technical data collection, it is also essen-
tial to understand that the amount of
data required to characterize a complex
orebody necessitates, by its very nature,
an iterative process. All new informa-
tion helps to fill the gaps through addi-
tional data collection, i.e., increasing
data reliability and decreasing assump-
tions. Thus, it is erroneous to plan and
budget on a finite data collection and
study program before understanding the
complexity of the deposit. A complex
deposit—a potential orebody—requires
a significant amount of data collection
and spatial distribution throughout the
mineral deposit and the life of mining.
The development of a reliable geo-
technical model for mine design is con-
ditional on data availability and project
maturity; thus, the process of develop-
ing a reliable geotechnical model must
be understood in the context of the
phase of mining study (i.e., exploration,
conceptual or order-of-magnitude, pre-
feasibility, feasibility, construction and
development, and finally operations).
It is crucial to adapt the geotechnical
data collection program accordingly,
although it is not possible to charac-
terize all critical rock mass parameters
until excavations have been made to
provide exposures that reveal many of
these parameters (e.g., the structural
persistence and large-scale surface char-
acteristics). Because of this, informed
assumptions are therefore inevitable
during mining study phases, and the
rock mass behavior—its response to
mining—will only be verified during
the operations phase, through the
use of quality geotechnical monitor-
ing systems. Simply put, geotechnical
characterization is an ongoing process
that always includes assumptions; the
number of assumptions and level of
uncertainty decreases as data availability
increases, allowing the reliability of the
rock mass models to improve. These are
the reasons that rock mass characteriza-
tion does not conclude at the comple-
tion of the feasibility study.
Geotechnical data quality
The quality of the collected geotechni-
cal data is critical for development of
a reliable geotechnical model. It is not
uncommon for drilling contractors to
be awarded meterage rate incentives
rather than core quality incentives,
which only serves to drive poor drilling
practices that result in poor core recov-
ery and poor core quality. As a result,
every effort should be taken during and
on completion of resource definition
drilling to preserve the integrity of the
core by adopting stringent drilling and
core handling procedures, to safeguard
against damage induced by drilling as
well as core handling and transport.
All induced damage must be demar-
cated and excluded from the geotech-
nical data collection process; core loss
and low core recoveries should not be
assumed to represent poor rock con-
ditions without first verifying with
downhole logging tools. Inevitably,
poor quality or inaccurate data results
in poor characterization or, even worse,
mischaracterization of the rock mass.
Undoubtedly, this latter situation is
worse than not having data at all.
Geotechnical parameter variability
Due to the inherent variability of a
rock mass, geotechnical data are mostly
statistical in nature. Therefore, numer-
ous measurements are required in order
to adequately quantify a parameter.
Statistical analysis of parameters may
provide signature distributions (i.e., the
statistical mean, average, or median),
which can be described as measures of
the central tendency and of the variabil-
ity (i.e., the range and variance of the
data). It is poor (unacceptable) practice
to only use average geotechnical values,
due to the fact that the geotechnical
data are often characterized by a wide
range in values, and hence the influence
of outliers serves to skew the average,
making it unrepresentative. Thus, every
effort should be made to understand the
impact of variability on the rock mass
and how the geotechnical engineer will
use this in design. A simple example of
variably altered rock (Fig. 1) illustrates
the danger of using average values for
ground support design for a tunnel, as
some areas will be oversupported, and
some will be undersupported.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 25
Fig. 1
Any geotechnical parameter that is
sensitive to drill hole orientation is not
suited to the application of geostatistical
methods, such as Kriging, as they often
suffer from sparse distribution of data
points within and between drill holes.
Hence, the geotechnical engineer must
exercise strong caution when construct-
ing geotechnical (block) models and
must collaborate closely with both the
geologist and geostatistician to ensure
that the data are used correctly.
Data uncertainty
Data uncertainty implies that the acqui-
sition and analysis of the data are unre-
liable. Although this may be the case, it
is more common for geotechnical data
to be poorly measured or incorrectly
analyzed (due to insufficiency of data),
to the extent that the data are unrepre-
sentative. Read (2009) categorizes three
types of uncertainty:
1. Geologic uncertainty, which deals
with the geologic and structural
unpredictability, such as the delin-
eation of lithological contacts and
major faults
2. Parametric uncertainty, which is
related to the unpredictability of geo-
technical parameters used to charac-
terize the rock mass
3. Model uncertainty, which relates to
the unpredictability of the various
analytical methods used in the mine
design, such as kinematic stabil-
ity analyses and numerical stress
modeling
The collection of structural data is
a good example of parametric uncer-
tainty, where poorly collected data
and/or analysis of the data leads to a
misrepresentation of the actual rock
mass fabric. Robertson (1970) argued
that the most significant errors in the
measurement of joint characteris-
tics, for example, are due to the fact
that they are often censured (biased)
because of very limited rock mass
exposure; in addition, data recording
can be too selective, often resulting in
smaller joints being disregarded. Other
common problems usually encoun-
tered when measuring structural
features include human error and bias,
degradation of the rock mass due to
alteration and/or weathering, the scale
of the sample, the scale of the struc-
tures present or those being measured
plus undulations of structures relative
to the scale of their exposure, incorrect
geologic interpretations, etc.
FIGURE 1. Example of the error in using average rock mass rating (RMR) values for designing the
ground support system in a tunnel, modified from Jakubec and Laubscher (2000).
A well-known error, yet one that is
consistently made, is directional bias
during sampling of an anisotropic rock
mass; the dominant orientation of dis-
continuities will affect the values of the
parameters being measured along tra-
verses. For example, the angle between
a drill hole or tunnel exposure relative
to the orientation of the dominant
discontinuity within the rock mass will
obviously have a significant effect on
the number of discontinuities that are
intersected by the drill hole or tunnel.
Thus, parameters such as joint spacing,
fracture frequency, and RQD all suffer
from directional bias and therefore need
to be weighted to limit the error. A com-
monly applied weighting solution used
is the Terzaghi correctional factor (Ter-
zaghi, 1965), which serves to exaggerate
the frequency of discontinuities that
are subparallel to the direction of the
traverse (e.g., drill hole). The directional
bias on RQD can be illustrated with
three possible core orientations (Fig. 2)
and the effect of each of these orienta-
tions on the measured RQD (ranging
from 0 to 100%, simply because of
directional bias of the sampling at drill
core scale).
Ultimately, the more data of high
quality that geotechnical engineers
collect, the more that data uncertainty
will be minimized. As a consequence, it
is good (ideally mandatory) practice for
the geotechnical engineer to estimate
and report the level of confidence in
the geotechnical data (and subsequent
model) used for the various phases of
study. To this end, Read (2009) provided
descriptive guidelines with five target
levels of data confidence, from con-
ceptual studies through to operations
(Table 1).
Geologic data collection
Geologic characterization forms the
foundation for geotechnical character-
ization and modeling, as it describes
the lithological units plus mineraliza-
tion and alteration and maps out their
distribution. It is common for both
lithology and alteration to underpin
the definition of geotechnical domains
(discussed below), which is the first step
toward characterizing their respective
rock masses. It is essential that geolo-
gists and geotechnical engineers work
closely together during data collection
(logging and mapping) and interpreta-
tion, in all study phases (including the
discovery phase of the potential ore-
body), to ensure that the geotechnical
model adequately reflects the geologic
model, which must inform and lead the
geotechnical model.
Unfortunately, it is rare for geotech-
nical engineers to be present during
an exploration program. At the very
least, geotechnical consultation should
be sought by geologists to review and
provide recommendations for specific
data collection. A lot of time, effort, and
money can be wasted by not collecting
 26 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining (continued)

Fig. 2 be well described and their properties

quantified. Guidelines suggested by
Barton (1978) in “Suggested methods
for the quantitative description of
discontinuities in rock masses” are still
applicable. In addition, the logging of
microdefect intensity and infill type is
also important, in order to assess their
influence on intact rock strength. A
microdefect in rock is a rock-weakening
or rock-strengthening fracture or vein
of limited length (centimeters) and
aperture (submillimeter), as described
by Laubscher and Jakubec (2001).
An important consideration when
collecting discontinuity data (e.g., on
shears, bedding) is that this parameter
will vary widely depending on the scale
and the orientation of this parameter
relative to the sampling orientation (as
discussed above). Therefore, the best
practice is to describe and statistically
characterize the assemblage of struc-
tures that constitute the rock mass.
Consequently, all subsequent analyses
that rely on the structural model (e.g.,
fragmentation predictions) should also
be statistical in nature, to appreciate the
influence of natural variability on the
FIGURE 2. An illustration of the directional bias effect on the measurement of rock quality results.
designation (RQD), modified from Jakubec and Laubscher (2000). To model the variability of the rock
mass, statistical representations of the
discontinuities within a rock mass can
important geotechnical data or by col- understood during the early stages of
be numerically modeled, using discrete
lecting it incorrectly, all because special- deposit discovery.
fracture network models. These models
ist advice was not sought at the earliest
Structural data collection can then be used for numerous other
opportunity. It is not uncommon for a
types of analyses, such as synthetic rock
potential orebody to be compromised The identification of structural domains
mass modeling (discussed below).
because inadequate geotechnical data provides another key source of informa-
were collected during the discovery tion to overlay geotechnical domains Rock strength testing
phase of exploration, since insuffi- and the geotechnical model. Major When assessing a potential orebody, it is
cient time is typically available after a discontinuities must be identified and crucial to develop an extensive database
mineral resource has been estimated, logged as independent geotechni- that accurately accumulates the mea-
which leads to a decision being made to cal domains (and by quantifying the sured physical (mechanical) properties
conduct a feasibility study with insuf- quality of the rock mass making up the for all the dominant rock types. In addi-
ficient geotechnical data. In extreme structure, e.g., a major fault zone that tion to ore, this includes all the rock
situations, a large amount of redrilling must be avoided if developing under- types that will constitute waste rock
of a deposit may be required because of ground access for mining). The inter- that will have to be mined to recover
the geotechnical complexity of the rock mediate (block-forming) discontinuities the ore, tested in different directions (to
mass that could have been (but was not) (joints, shears, bedding, etc.) should appreciate strength anisotropy). Along
with the recurring question of how
much drilling is sufficient for rock mass
TABLE 1. Target Levels of Data Confidence (in %) from Conceptual Studies Through to
Operations (Read, 2009) characterization is the question of how
many laboratory tests are required to
Study phase
reliably derive the rock strength prop-
Target levels of Conceptual Prefeasibility Feasibility Design and Operations erties. Gill et al. (2005) argued that it is
data confidence construction
impossible to plan how many samples
Geology >50 50–70 65–85 80–90 >90 should be tested to yield representative
Structural >20 40–50 45–70 60–75 >75 strength data for any given rock type
Hydrogeological >20 30–50 40–65 60–75 >75 and demonstrated that the minimum
Rock mass >30 40–65 60–75 70–80 >80 number of tests will vary on a case-by-
Geotechnical >30 40–60 50–75 65–85 >8 case basis (i.e., the variability of the
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 27
results will dictate the amount of test-
ing). For example, it is not uncommon
when dealing with a large porphyry
copper orebody to conduct over 1,000
tests of uniaxial compressive strength,
several hundred tests of triaxial com-
pressive strength, and tens of thousands
of tests of point load testing for each
geotechnical domain.
As with other orebody parameters,
such as the analytical data of geo-
chemical compositions used to make a
mineral resource estimate, it is always
best to err by overcollecting data.
Arguably, one cannot have too much
data, particularly given the size of the
capital investment that is now required
to develop even a modest-sized mining
operation. As indicated earlier, it is a
false economy to restrict expenditure
on data collection, when the capital
required for mine development that is
being put at risk is increasingly mea-
sured in the billions of dollars.
The standard suite of intact rock
properties that are typically measured
includes the following:
1. Unit weight/density (specific gravity)
2. Uniaxial compressive strength; elastic
deformation moduli (Young’s mod-
ulus and Poisson’s ratio) indirectly
derived from testing
3. Triaxial compressive strength, where
the confining stresses range from 5
to ≤50% of the uniaxial compressive
strength (Hoek and Brown, 2019);
used to define the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion (σci and mi), ten-
sile strength, and, indirectly, shear
strength
4. Tensile strength, indirectly derived
from Brazilian tensile strength testing
5. Hardness, toughness, abrasivity, and
drillability indices
6. Porosity
Standard methods of data collection
include the following:
1. Point load testing of core
2. Laboratory testing (uniaxial compres-
sive strength, triaxial compressive
strength, Brazilian, etc.), mostly
conducted on samples of core, but
ideally also on rock samples collected
from an exposure of some type—adit
or open pit
3. Downhole logging (geophysical and
optical) of drill holes; ideally of all
exploration drill holes
4. Core scanning (geophysical and
optical, using commercially available
technologies that employ short-wave
infrared and X-ray spectra, for exam-
ple), which should be conducted on
all exploration drill core, particularly
after discovery, now that the technol-
ogy is available
All of these rock properties are used
by the geotechnical engineer as inputs
to various constitutive models, which
essentially describe the mechanical
behavior (deformation response) of
the rock under given stress conditions.
These constitutive models provide input
to stress models and other design tools
that assess and predict the rock mass
response to mining.
The point load testing and geo-
physical logging and scanning tools
provide excellent means to rapidly
obtain significant amounts of data from
drill core; however, these results all
require careful calibration to be useful.
Advances in downhole geophysical
logging technology to provide stress,
strength, and elastic properties data
have recently been made (Fig. 3). These
downhole technologies warrant greater
research and application by the mining
industry, since they have the enormous
advantage of yielding continuous down-
hole data that is not affected by poor
drilling practices, including issues with
removing core from the core barrel and
issues during transport of core from the
drill site to the testing facility. Ideally,
geotechnical measurements should
be made on core before it is removed
from the drill rods, but this is usually
impractical, and the core will have to
be moved. Before and after photographs
of the core can provide an indication if,
and how badly, the core has been dam-
aged, from a geotechnical perspective,
by its movement from drill barrel to the
testing facility.
Here it is assumed that all geotech-
nical measurements are made on core.
Attempting to identify geotechnical
properties from drilling chips is essen-
tially meaningless and should not be
attempted. Ideally, the core will be
collected using orientated drilling and
triple-tube technology and be at least
NQ3 (45-mm diam) in size, but prefera-
bly HQ3 (61-mm diam).
Kaiser and Kim (2008), Kaiser et al.
(2015), Kaiser (2016a, b), and Bewick
et al. (2019) have demonstrated that
good triaxial compressive strength
testing is necessary to understand the
strength behavior of the rock under
confinement, as well as the postpeak
(i.e., strength after failure) behavior of
the rock. Such information is becoming
increasingly important as underground
mines are developed deeper (Chitombo,
2019), resulting in higher rock stresses.
Kaiser and Kim (2008) argue that con-
ventional (Hoek-Brown) failure criteria
do not explicitly capture the transition
from tensile to shear failure mode that
is typical of rock masses under high
confining stress (i.e., in many deep
underground mines).
In situ stress measurements
Mining-induced stresses provide the
driving mechanism for rock mass
behavior. Therefore, understanding the
stress regime, both within the potential
orebody and in the enclosing country
(waste) rock, is essential for all mine
geotechnical studies, particularly for
deep underground mining methods.
There are two principal types of
stress measurement method: those
that disturb the in situ rock by induc-
ing strains or crack-opening pressures
and those that are based on observa-
tions of the rock failure around the
drill hole. With advances in current
technology, such as drill hole imaging
and geophysical logging, the latter
has enabled engineers to acquire far
more reliable estimates of the principal
stress directions in the rock mass (and,
to a lesser degree, the magnitudes of
the stresses). These estimates can be
made from drill hole breakout analysis
and extensional fractures (Zoback et
al., 1986; Fig. 4), beginning from an
advanced exploration phase of deposit
investigation. A significant amount of
stress information can be gleaned from
observational methods prior to subse-
quently committing to a more substan-
tial stress measurement program that
uses more direct methods commonly
employed during the feasibility study
and development stages of the mine.
For example, the presence of exten-
sional fractures (also known as tension
gashes) in orientated core enables mea-
surement of at least one stress direction
at the time the fractures were formed.
How this direction relates to the pres-
ent stress directions may have implica-
tions for rock mass behavior. To acquire
reliable data from underground,
experience has shown that at least five
successful tests should be conducted
per site. The reason for this is that even
under ideal conditions, the coefficient
of variation for stress magnitude for
high-quality stress measurements at
depth is on the order of 20% (Martin et
al., 2003).
 28 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Fig. 3 Engineering for Mass Mining (continued)

Geotechnical

Gamma ray Depth (in m) DENB Travel me Amplitude Travel - FWS FWS
Caliper FWS Power MS2 P Wave me FWS

hole breakout drop out = major spikes = major P and S wave

structure structure attenuation = structure

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

(m)

FIGURE 3. Downhole geophysical logs showing density (DENB), both multichannel sonic (MS2) and full-wave sonic (FWS) logs.

Rock Mass Characterization
For mining, the rock mass can be simpli-
fied to mean the mining volume of inter-
est, comprising intact rock (ore or waste)
that has been transected by discontinu-
ities (of some type and of various scales,
from microdefects to veins, joints, and
bedding planes, through to large faults
0.5 m
and shears, etc.). The rock mass strength
is therefore the product of the intact
rock strength combined with the shear
strength of these discontinuities, char-
acterized by their surface infill (if any),
as well as the presence of water.
Rock mass characterization is the
process of describing the various con-
stituents of the rock mass—namely the

geology, structure, rock strength, and

hydrogeological parameters. Subse-
quently, the associated models devel-
oped for each of these components
form the basis for the construction of a
reliable geotechnical model.

Defining geotechnical domains—

the first step in rock mass
characterization
Geotechnical domaining is the process
Stress-induced whereby the entire mining volume of
interest (both ore and waste) is subdi-
vided into zones (domains), which are
composed of similar rock mass proper-
ties; therefore, these domains exhibit
a similar rock mass response when
subjected to similar mining-induced
FIGURE 4. Example of stress-induced drill hole breakout and extension fractures that are stress conditions. Thus, the fundamen-
observed in the acoustic televiewer log; this log provides valuable information on the major tal bases for defining the geotechnical
horizontal stress direction.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 29
domains are identical to the constit-
uents of the rock mass, namely the
following:
1. Geology (typically lithology and the
products of alteration—both hydro-
thermal and weathering, as these
influence the intact rock strength)
2. Structural geology (the type, orien-
tation, and frequency of the various
discontinuities that affect the rock
mass at various scales)
3. Rock mass strength (intact rock
strength, fracture frequency, and
shear strength of discontinuities)
4. Hydrogeology (hydraulic conductiv-
ity and pore pressures)
The function of domaining is to
distill the data that characterize each
domain so that the data can be more
easily communicated and visualized by
engineers. This is particularly applicable
when used in the development of the
geotechnical model (Fig. 5; Guest and
Read, 2009) and subsequently in the
numerical modeling used to predict the
response of the rock mass to mining.
Rock mass classification
Rock mass classification systems are
useful tools that provide a systematic
Unit A
Unit B
Unit C
FIGURE 5. Development of the geotechnical model through modeling of its constituents (modified
from Guest and Read, 2009).
assessment and quantification of the
critical rock mass properties (rock mass
strength) on which to base a conceptual
mine design. “The primary objective of
all classification systems is to quantify
the intrinsic properties of the rock mass
based on past experience. The second
objective is to investigate how external
loading conditions acting on a rock
mass influence its behaviour. An under-
standing of these processes can lead to
the successful prediction of rock mass
behaviour for different conditions”
(Milne et al., 1998, p. 383).
In mining, the most widely used clas-
sification systems include the following:
1. Barton’s (Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute) Q system (Barton et al.,
1974)
2. Bieniawski’s rock mass rating (RMR)
system (Bieniawski, 1973)
3. Laubscher’s modified rock mass rat-
ing (MRMR) (Laubscher and Jakubec,
2001)
4. Hoek’s geological strength index
(GSI) system, 2018 edition (Hoek and
Brown, 2019)
All of these systems are used by the
geotechnical engineer to assist in the
design of stable excavations (either pit
slopes or underground tunnels and
chambers), pillars, stopes, ground sup-
port, etc. The majority of the designs are
considered preliminary, however, until
subsequently validated through more
sophisticated analyses, such as numeri-
cal modeling.
Rock mass strength
The rock mass strength is a combina-
tion of the intact rock strength, which
is largely downgraded by microdefects
and the strength (weakness) of dis-
continuities. Unfortunately, rock mass
strength cannot be measured directly in
the laboratory (due to scale), nor can it
be measured indirectly through in situ
experiments. As a result, the estimation
of rock mass strength, particularly in
jointed rock masses, is estimated from
empirical relationships based on one of
the rock mass classification systems. In
essence, each of the systems can be used
to downgrade the intact rock strength to
an estimated (not measured) rock mass
strength. The most common approach
is that described by Hoek and Brown
(2019), who used laboratory strength
data along with the results of theoret-
ical and model studies to develop an
empirical failure criterion for jointed
rock masses. Hoek (1994) and Hoek et
al. (1995) also proposed using rock mass
classification systems for estimating the
rock mass constants required for this
empirical failure criterion.
It is critical to understand that
rock mass strength is scale dependent.
Therefore, the rock mass strength
parameters for all geotechnical analyses
must be appropriate to the scale being
considered, from large to small scales
(volumes). For example, the rock mass
strength used for a mine-scale model,
used to predict the overall caveability
of a block cave, will be significantly less
than that used to model and predict the
stability of individual tunnels, and lower
again to model and predict the fragmen-
tation (individual block or fragment
size) in a block cave mine. In an attempt
to address the issue of the scale depen-
dency of rock mass strength, Cundall et
al. (2008) developed the synthetic rock
mass approach, whereby representative
rock masses are tested at various scales
to derive their mechanical properties at
each scale (Fig. 6). The scaled properties,
as appropriate, are then used as input
parameters into mine-scale numerical
(stress) models to predict the rock mass
response to mining. Although the syn-
thetic rock mass approach is considered
 30 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Geotechnical Engineering for Mass Mining (continued)

Fig. 6

Structure (rock-mass fabric) model

Major structure model
Intact rock strength parameters Joints/veins/defects
(UCS, UTS, TCS and Hoek- (orientaons, frequency and
Brown failure criterion) condions) In situ stresses

Discrete Fracture Mining-induced

Network (DFN) stresses

Synthec rock mass (SRM) tesng 

Rock-mass properes at various scales

Fragmentaon-scale Tunnel-scale Pillar-scale Mine-scale

numerical model numerical model numerical model numerical model

FIGURE 6. The synthetic rock mass process applied to the modeling of block cave mines (as outlined by Pierce et al., 2009). Abbreviations: TCS =
triaxial compressive strength, UCS = uniaxial compressive strength, UTS = uniaxial tensile strength.

the most advanced form of numerical
modeling so far developed, it is yet to be
widely adopted by the mining industry.
This may be because the process is rela-
tively time consuming and model results
still require a significant effort to validate
through case studies.
Conclusions
As the world’s requirement for com-
modities increases and the so-called
easy-to-find mineral resources (no min-
eral deposit discovery or its conversion
to an orebody is easy) are rapidly being
depleted, the mining industry is being
driven to mine deeper and presently to
accept lower mining grades. These fac-
tors increase the uncertainty of econom-
ically extracting what is perceived to be
ore. This places geotechnical engineer-
ing at the forefront of mine design and
operations, and demands a paradigm
shift in industry thinking as to what are
acceptable quantities of geotechnical
data that are required for mine design.
These changes are also demanding that
every opportunity be taken to acquire
geotechnical data immediately follow-
ing the intersection of potentially ore
grade mineralized rock in an explora-
tion drill hole. Therefore, in order to
avoid repeating the mistakes of the
past, it is imperative that detailed and
high-quality geotechnical data are
acquired right after the early explora-
tion phase, on receiving encouraging
exploration results, using downhole
logging and scanning technologies that
can be automatically processed.
Above all, geotechnical engineers
need to have databases rich in variety
and amount of data that approach those
used by geologists to estimate a min-
eral resource. In essence, geotechnical
engineers require the equivalent of the
various codes (e.g., JORC in Australia;
Carlson, 2019) that mandate for geol-
ogists how a mineral resource is to be
estimated (by measurements) and how
it is to be reported. The opportunity for
achieving this level of data acquisition
is now rapidly developing, as downhole
geophysical logging technology (long
used in the coal industry) is being trans-
ferred from the petroleum exploration
industry to the mineral exploration sec-
tor. In addition, over the past 20 years,
core logging technologies have been
developed that enable geologists and
geotechnical engineers to continuously
record rock mass data in a digital format
and use these data to greatly improve the
understanding of the way the rock mass
will respond during and after mining.
Failure to make optimal use of the
available measurement technologies
and to convince mining company man-
agement to invest the appropriate capi-
tal for geotechnical data acquisition will
likely prove to be increasingly expensive
to mining companies. The amount of
capital put at risk when developing
a major mining operation requires
that mining uncertainty is reduced
by increasing as much as possible the
amount of rock mass relevant data; such
data must be collected during all study
stages, up to completion of a feasibility
study as well as ongoing during the life
of the mine. This requirement mandates
a major revision in the way geotech-
nical data are collected and used, and
must be appreciated by all involved,
from geologist through engineer to the
most senior management involved in
decisions to invest capital.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Dan Wood, Jeff
Hedenquist, Alan Guest, and John
Guven for their guidance and direction
to ensure the content of the paper is
suitably presented for a mostly geologic
audience.
REFERENCES
Barton, N., 1978, Suggested methods for the
quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
masses: International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics, Interna-
tional Society for Rock Mechanics, Abstracts,
v. 15, no. 6, December, p. 319–368.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., 1974, Engineer-
ing classification of rock masses for the design
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 31
of tunnel support: Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, v. 6, no. 4, p. 189–236.
Bewick, R.P., Kaiser, P.K., and Amann, F., 2019,
Strength of massive to moderately jointed hard
rock masses: Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geo-
technical Engineering, v. 11, p. 562–575.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1973, Engineering classification
of jointed rock masses: Transactions of the South
African Institute of Civil Engineers, v. 15, no. 12,
December 1973, p. 335–344.
Carlson, R., 2019, Understanding geologic uncer-
tainty in mining studies: SEG Newsletter, no. 117,
p. 15–23.
Chitombo, G., 2019, Importance of geology in cave
mining: SEG Newsletter, no. 119, p. 1, 12–21.
Cundall, P.A., Pierce, M.E., and Mas Ivars, D., 2008,
Quantifying the size effect of rock mass strength:
First Southern Hemisphere International Rock
Mechanics Symposium (SHIRMS), Australian Cen-
tre for Geomechanics, Perth, September 16–19,
2009, Proceedings, v. 2, p. 3–15.
Gill, D.E., Corthésy, R., and Leite, M.H., 2005,
Determining the minimal number of specimens
for laboratory testing of rock properties: Engineer-
ing Geology, v. 78, p. 29–51. ground mining methods: Engineering fundamen-
Guest, A.R., and Read, J.R.L., 2009, Geotechnical
model, in Read, J., and Stacey, P., eds., Guidelines
for open pit slope design, large open pit study:
Melbourne, Australia, Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Publishing, p. 201–212. ground excavations: International Journal of Rock
Hoek, E., 1994, Strength of rock and rock masses:
International Society for Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering (ISRM), News Journal, v. 2, p.
4–16.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T., 2019, The Hoek and
Brown failure criterion and GSI—2018 edition:
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, v. 11, no. 3, p. 445–463.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F., 1995,
Support of underground excavations in hard rock:
Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, p. 84–97.
Jakubec, J., and Laubscher, D.H., 2000, The MRMR
rock mass rating classification system in mining
practice: Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (AusIMM), MassMin 2000, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, October 29-November 2,
2000, Proceedings, p. 775–781.
Kaiser, P.K., 2016a, Underground rock engineer-
ing to match the rock’s behaviour—a fresh look
at old problems: MTS Lecture, American Rock
Mechanics Association (ARMA), 50th U.S. Rock
Mechanics-Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, 21–23, 2002, Proceedings.
Texas, 2016, Proceedings, p. 1–7. Milne, D., Hadjigeorgiou, J., and Pakalnis, R., 1998,
——2016b, Challenges in rock mass strength deter- Rock mass characterisation for underground hard
mination for design of deep underground excava- rock mines: Tunnelling and Underground Space
tions: International Society for Rock Mechanics Technology, v. 13, no. 4, p. 383–391.
and Rock Engineering (ISRM), Online Lecture, Moorhead, C.F., Dunham, P.B., Eastwood, G.J., and
https://www.isrm.net/gca/?id=1227&ver=1. Leckie, J.F., 2001, Cadia Hill: From discovery to
Kaiser, P.K., and Kim, B., 2008, Rock mechanics a measured resource—a case study: Australasian
advances for underground construction in civil Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM),
engineering and mining: Rock Mechanics Aspects Monograph 23, p. 97–108.
of Underground Construction and Mining 2008, Pierce, M., Young, R.P., Reyes-Montes, J.M., and
Korea Rock Mechanics Symposium, Korea, 2008, Pettit, W.S., 2009, Caving mechanics, sub-project,
Proceedings, p. 3–16. Mass Mining Technology project (2005–2008)
Kaiser, P.K., Amann, F., and Bewick, R.P., 2015, final report: University of Queensland, Australia,
Overcoming challenges of rock mass characteriza- Sustainable Minerals Institute, 19 p.
tion for underground construction in deep mines: Read, J.R.L., 2009, Data uncertainty, in Read, J.,
International Society for Rock Mechanics and and Stacey, P., eds., Guidelines for open pit-slope
Rock Engineering (ISRM), International Congress design: Melbourne, Australia, Commonwealth
on Rock Mechanics, 13th, Advances in Applied Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
and Theoretical Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Can- (CSIRO) Publishing, p. 213–220.
ada, 2015, Proceedings, p. 1–14. Robertson, A. MacG., 1970, The interpretation of
Laubscher, D.H., and Jakubec, J., 2001, The MRMR geological factors for use in slope theory: Sympo-
rock mass classification for jointed rock masses, sium on Planning Open Pit Mines, Johannesburg,
in Hustrulid, W.A., and Bullock, R.L., eds., Under- South Africa, 1970, Proceedings, p. 55–71.
Terzaghi, R.D., 1965, Sources of errors in joint sur-
tals and international case histories: Littleton, veys: Geotechnique, v. 15, p. 287–304.
Colorado, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Wood, D., and Hedenquist, J., 2019, Mineral explo-
Exploration, p. 475–481. ration: Discovering and defining ore deposits: SEG
Martin, C.D., Kaiser, P., and Christiansson, R., Newsletter, no. 116, p. 1, 11–22.
2003, Stress, instability and design of under- Zoback, M.D., Mastin, L., and Barton, C., 1986,
In-situ stress measurements in deep boreholes
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechan- using hydraulic fracturing, wellbore breakouts,
ics, Abstracts, v. 40, p. 1027–1047. and Stonely wave polarization: International
Maybee, W.G., Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Maloney, S.M., Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
and McDowell, G.M., 2002, Televiewer logging of (ISRM), International Symposium, Stockholm,
exploration boreholes for mine design: Interna- August 31-September 3, 1986, Proceedings,
tional Symposium on Logging for Minerals and ISRM-IS-1986-030. 1
Geotechnical Applications, 8th, Toronto, August
Andre van As is an underground mine geotechnical engi-
neer who has spent most of his 29-year career working on
cave mining operations and caving projects. Andre has
worked on or had significant involvement in more than eight
major caving operations and projects, some spanning from
the exploration phase through to operations and closure.
Andre currently runs his own consultancy business focused
on providing technical expertise to the cave mining industry.
 32 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
VIEWS
Views columns are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the SEG.
Cognitive Biases and Fallacies in Decision-Making During Mineral Exploration
Richard A. Leveille (SEG M),† Consulting Geologist, Mesa, Arizona 85207, USA
There are numerous cognitive biases
and fallacies that are relevant to mineral
exploration. Explorationists must be
aware of these so that more rational
decisions can be made, resulting in
exploration programs with a higher
probability of success. Illustration
of their impact on exploration deci-
sion-making can lead to simple strate-
gies to avoid these issues.
Cognitive biases have been recog-
nized in various forms for millennia;
however, their study was formalized
and integrated into models of human
behavior by Israeli researchers Daniel
Kahneman and Amos Tversky, among
others, in the early 1970s (Lewis, 2017).
Cognition refers to our thought pro-
cesses, and cognitive biases are people’s
systematic but often flawed thought
processes relating to judgment and
decision problems. Many cognitive
biases are believed to have an evolu-
tionary basis, giving humans some
selective advantage through rapid
decision-making using mental “short-
cuts” (heuristics) under conditions of
uncertainty (Haselton et al., 2005). For
example, pulling back from a rustling in
the bush, even if it was due to the wind
or a covey of quail rather than a real
threat, may have led to enough people
surviving to reproduce more often than
those who investigated the source of the
sound before reacting that it became
ingrained behavior. The cognitive biases
and fallacies that I believe are relevant
to mineral exploration are reviewed
below, followed by some examples and
suggested remedies.
Cognitive Biases and Fallacies:
Examples from Mineral
Exploration
We are faced daily with masses of
information, which must be processed
and remembered. To reduce the confu-
sion and uncertainty inherent in this,
humans tend to organize this infor-
mation into a simple, linear narrative.
†
E-mail, raleveille@gmail.com
Often this story is deterministic, with
the outcome made to seem inevitable
based on the prior sequence of events
when, in reality, most of life is stochas-
tic, with a huge element of randomness
and a wide range of outcomes possible,
depending on the probability distribu-
tions of the individual input variables.
So, instead of increasing our under-
standing of the information, our story
can actually result in a highly confident
but false explanation—thus, the narra-
tive fallacy (Taleb, 2007).
Patternicity (Shermer, 2008) is related
to the narrative fallacy. It is the ten-
dency to find meaningful patterns in
random noise. Both conspiracy theories
and spurious exploration targets may
result from this bias. Once a narrative is
constructed, or a pattern elucidated, we
humans have an unfortunate tendency
to selectively filter through the data
available to us for those that support
it. This is known as confirmation bias
(Nickerson, 1998; Taleb, 2007).
A good example of the dangers of the
narrative fallacy, patternicity, and con-
firmation bias in mineral exploration,
as well as in other fields of endeavor
(e.g., business education), is the use of
case studies. In mineral exploration,
case studies take the form of discovery
histories, and are used as the basis for,
or in support of, designing exploration
programs. Sillitoe’s excellent series of
publications on the discovery history
of circum-Pacific deposits (e.g., Sillitoe,
2010) is a popular source of discovery
narratives. However, the critical unan-
swered question rarely addressed when
using case studies is, How many explo-
ration programs followed similar strate-
gies and tactics and used similar mixes
of techniques as the successful ones, but
failed? This negative evidence, lying fal-
low in the files of mining companies, is
critical for evaluating the relative merits
of different exploration strategies and
techniques on an objective basis. While
they are proprietary and not available
to the general public, these data could
certainly be compiled in house, partic-
ularly at a major mining company with
a long history, together with the success
stories, to give a much more objective
picture. Often, a review of completely
unbiased data begs the really uncom-
fortable question, Was success or failure
(discovery or no discovery) simply due
to luck (e.g., survivorship bias; Taleb,
2007), not the design or execution of
the program or the brilliance of man-
agement or geologists in the field?
Without taking into account negative
evidence (failures), irrational decisions
can be made based on a flawed sample
or on a current fad or trend in the busi-
ness and result in failure. The best rem-
edy for this is to build an exploration
program from the ground up, based on
the most effective and efficient methods
for detecting the type of deposit sought
in the pertinent geologic, topographical,
and weathering environment. Prior to
execution, a desk exercise to evaluate
a proposed program using case studies
could be useful, but only if based on a
statistically significant unbiased sample
of similar programs, not a handful of
case studies.
The Sunk Cost Fallacy (Kahneman,
2011) causes us to rationalize the con-
tinued pursuit of an endeavor that has
failed to produce positive results, simply
because so much time, effort, and
money have already been invested in
it. The Sunk Cost Fallacy can manifest
itself in a number of ways in mineral
exploration, all potentially fatal. It is
exemplified by statements like “We’ve
been exploring here (in country X or
region Y) for 20 years and haven’t had a
discovery, but we’ve got a good program
and good people and know it better
than anybody else, so we’re just going
to stick with it; surely we’ll find some-
thing.” In general, the chances of an
economic discovery diminish rapidly as
a play ages and the density and depth of
drilling increase. Meanwhile, opportuni-
ties in less mature and/or more prospec-
tive areas are missed. Results that pass
predefined hurdles as part of an overall
stage-gate process should drive go/no-go
decisions for an exploration project or
program, not “sunk costs.”
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 33
Wishful thinking (Mayraz, 2011) related, (2) estimated depth to the top
describes beliefs and decisions based of undiscovered deposits. These have
on the intense desire for an outcome a huge impact on both the probability
regardless of reality, objectivity, or of discovery and economic viability.
probability. I’ve found that, while When all of these are combined with a
explorationists are particularly suscepti- discounted cash flow economic model,
ble to wishful thinking with respect to then a powerful stochastic tool is avail-
geopolitical risk, they are not immune able that can provide a solid basis for
to it regarding the mineral endowment area-selection decisions.
of their favorite region. Statements that Automation bias (Alberdi et al., 2009)
should be clear warning signs of wishful is the propensity for humans to favor
thinking include the following: “This input from automated data-interpreta-
time is different”; “Country X has a tion and decision-making systems and
new government run to ignore contra-
by honest, brilliant, The Sunk Cost Fallacy dictory informa-
Western-educated
(Kahneman, 2011) causes us tion made without
technocrats, who’ve automation, even if
learned the lessons of
to rationalize the continued the latter is correct.
neoliberal econom- pursuit of an endeavor that If unchecked, it can
ics, so disregard X’s has failed to produce posi- be a path to wasting
history of national- tive results, simply because money by drilling
ization, debt default, so much time, effort, and spurious anomalies
bad mining laws, (false positives).
money have already been
and corruption; the Statements such as
geology is great, so invested in it. the following are
let’s open an office clues to this cogni-
and begin a multimillion dollar explora- tive failure: “This computer-generated
tion program!”; “Even though none of inverse-modeled geophysical anom-
the deposits discovered in this geo- aly looks compelling, so even though
logical terrane have the size, grade, or there is little or no supporting evidence
economic returns to be of interest to us, from other data (or direct observation),
we’re going to filter those out early on let’s drill a hole anyway”; “We haven’t
and get to the hidden monster.” In the come up with a decent play in this
first case, a discovery may result, but a area despite decades of concerted effort
long-term viable business is a dubious by good geologists, so why don’t we
and risky proposition. In the second, just feed all of the historical data into
ignoring basic statistics and probabil- a black box and see if it generates a
ity results in either no discovery or a target?”
subeconomic discovery, with explorers Automation bias and patternicity
facing gambler’s ruin. often go hand in hand. Geophysical,
Evaluation of geopolitical risk of geochemical, or geological data are
countries, provinces, etc., for entry and often subject to (or tortured with) mul-
exit, is best done as a coordinated effort tiple levels of computer processing and
between geologists, locals, and inter- modeling until a “pattern” is visible.
national experts. Geologists and locals Whether it is real or simply an artifact
tend to be overly optimistic and inter- of the processing is best evaluated by
national experts more pessimistic. comparing the pattern with the original
Evaluation of geological terranes for data and seeing if it is still resolvable.
favorability for discovery of deposits If not, it should be treated with the
that pass minimum grade-tonnage-eco- appropriate skepticism. Machine-gen-
nomic return thresholds should be based erated anomalies and patterns should
on rational statistical criteria. If a sig- be just one form of input to a multipa-
nificant number of deposits of the type rameter targeting exercise and should
sought are known in the terrane, then be weighted accordingly. Their relative
the chances of success can be quickly importance should be carefully evalu-
assessed using the relevant empirical ated by geologists with “boots-on-the-
probability distributions. If not, then ground” experience on the program or
global statistical parameters for the project.
deposit type can be substituted, assum-
ing the terrane or tract is analogous to
Closing Thoughts
productive ones elsewhere.
Key factors today in many tracts are Cognitive biases and fallacies contrib-
(1) exploration maturity and, closely ute to poor decision-making in mineral
exploration, as in many other fields of
human endeavor. The narrative fallacy,
patternicity, confirmation, and sunk
cost biases are particularly prevalent
and pernicious in our field. In addition,
wishful thinking plays a part in many
decisions, particularly with respect to
geopolitical risk. We are not going to
eliminate cognitive biases from our
thought processes since, as noted above,
they seem to be hardwired into the
human psyche. So, the real question
becomes, How do we recognize them
and then minimize their impact on
the decision-making process in min-
eral exploration? A simple series of
questions can help test for biases and
fallacies in the planning and execution
stages of an exploration program.
Planning
Is the exploration program designed
from the ground up, based on the meth-
ods most likely to detect the type of
deposit sought in the relevant geologic,
topographic, and climatic environ-
ments? If case studies or discovery histo-
ries were used in the design or desktop
evaluation of a program, were con-
clusions drawn from them based on a
representative sample, including failures
as well as successes (avoiding narrative
fallacy and confirmation bias)?
Were statistically valid probabilistic
criteria used for target and area selec-
tion, both in terms of geological pro-
spectivity and economic potential?
Before entry into or exit from a
jurisdiction due to changing geopoliti-
cal risk, was an assessment of the latter
evaluated by local and international
experts (avoiding wishful thinking)?
Execution
Are go/no-go decisions on a project
based on whether results passed hur-
dles, as part of a predefined stage-gate
process (avoiding the sunk cost fallacy
and wishful thinking)?
Is there an overreliance on
machine-generated targets at the
expense (or to the exclusion) of other
inputs? Have patterns or anomalies
generated by computer modeling been
backtested against the original data to
see if they are still apparent (avoiding
patternicity and automation bias)?
Major mineral deposit discoveries
often conform to Taleb’s (2007) defini-
tion of a “Black Swan”—i.e., they have
a massive impact and they are unpre-
dictable, but, in retrospect, we tend to
concoct a narrative that makes them
 34 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
Cognitive Biases and Fallacies in Decision-Making (continued)
seem less random and more predictable.
Using these post hoc narratives and the
cognitive biases and fallacies they are
based on to design a program to find
the next Black Swan deposit can make it
more difficult, not easier, to find!
REFERENCES
Alberdi, E., Strigini, L., Povyakalo, A.A., and Ayton,
P., 2009, Why are people’s decisions sometimes
worse with computer support?, in Buth, B., Rabe,
G., and Seyfarth, T., eds., SAFECOMP 2009, LNCS
5775: Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, p. 18–31.
Haselton, M., Nettle, D., and Andrews, P., 2005, The
evolution of cognitive bias, in Buss, D., ed., The
handbook of evolutionary psychology: Hoboken,
John Wiley and Sons. p. 724–746.
Kahneman, D., 2011, Thinking fast and slow: New
York, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 499 p.
Lewis, M., 2017, The undoing project: A friendship that
changed our minds: New York, W.W. Norton, 368 p.
Mayraz, G., 2011, Wishful thinking: CEP Dis- Sillitoe, R.H., 2010, Exploration and discovery of
cussion Papers, dp1092, Centre for Economic base- and precious-metal deposits in the circum-
Performance, LSE. Pacific Region—a 2010 perspective: Society of
Nickerson, R. S., 1998, Confirmation bias: A ubiq- Resource Geology, Special Issue 22, 139 p.
uitous phenomenon in many guises: Review of Taleb, N.N., 2007, The Black Swan: The impact
General Psychology, v. 2, p. 175–220. of the highly improbable: New York, Random
Shermer, M., 2008, Patternicity: Finding mean- House, 400 p. 1
ingful patterns in meaningless noise: Scientific
American, v. 299.
Richard Leveille grew up following a Kennecott father
around the copper camps of the western U.S. He holds B.S.
and M.S. degrees in geology from the University of Utah and
University of Alaska, respectively. He worked on five con-
tinents for a succession of companies, before retiring from
Freeport as senior V.P. exploration in 2017. He and his wife,
Janice, live in Phoenix, Arizona, and he now pursues hiking,
fishing, and writing, in addition to geological consulting.
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador,
and the Caribbean Region
Topography, Geology, Tectono-stratigraphy,
Mineral Occurrences and Land Status plus
stream sediment geochemistry, geophysics
and radiometric dates, all as vector files in
Mapinfo or ArcGIS format.
WWW.CBMAP.NET
PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 35
ANNOUNCING THE SEG 2020 DISTINGUISHED LECTURER
Benoît Dubé received his B.Sc. Ing. (1982)
and M.Sc. (1985) degrees from Laval Uni-
versity and his Ph.D. degree from Univer-
sité du Québec at Chicoutimi (1990). Since
1989, he has been a research scientist with
the Geological Survey of Canada, where he
has conducted research on various types
of gold deposits in ancient deformed and
metamorphosed terranes, including more
than 25 years in the Abitibi greenstone
Benoît Dubé belt, Superior province, Canada. He is an
(SEG 1994 F) associate professor at Université du Québec
(INRS-ETE) and Laurentian University. He
has senior-authored and co-authored more than 60 refereed
publications in scientific journals. Benoît has been the 1998
ANNOUNCING THE SEG 2020 TRAVELING LECTURERS
SEG 2020 International Exchange Lecturer
Zhaoshan Chang is the Charles Fog-
arty Endowed Chair and Professor in
Economic Geology at Colorado School
of Mines (CSM), Golden, Colorado. He
previously worked at various universi-
ties, including Peking University, China
(1997–2000); Washington State Uni-
versity, USA (2004); the Center for Ore
Deposit and Earth Sciences (CODES),
University of Tasmania (2004–2011);
Zhaoshan Chang and the Economic Geology Research
(SEG 2004 F) Centre (EGRU), James Cook University
(2011–2018). He was the director of EGRU
from 2012 to 2018 before joining CSM.
Zhaoshan has studied a wide spectrum of mineral systems
in 14 countries, including skarn, porphyry, epithermal,
iron oxide copper-gold, W-Sn, and sediment-hosted gold
deposits. He works closely with the mineral industry on
exploration-oriented research projects, looking for far-field
signals, discriminators, and zoning patterns in mineralogy,
textures, spectral features, whole-rock and mineral geochem-
istry, and isotopic compositions that can be directly used
SEG 2020 Thayer Lindsley Visiting Lecturer
Massimo Chiaradia is a senior lecturer at
the Department of Earth Sciences of the
University of Geneva (Switzerland). He
obtained his M.Sc. degree at the University
of Padova (Italy) and a Ph.D. degree in
earth sciences at the University of Fribourg
(Switzerland). His research focuses on the
petrogenesis of arc magmas with implica-
tions for continental crust formation and
the relationship between magma chemis-
try, dynamics of subduction zones, and the
Massimo Chiaradia
(SEG 1998 F) formation of porphyry-type deposits. To
carry out his research, Massimo combines
Geological Association of Canada Robinson Lecturer and a
member of the Editorial Board of Economic Geology (2004–
2008). He received the Jean Descarreaux Award from the Asso-
ciation de l’Exploration Minière du Québec (2006), the SEG
Brian J. Skinner Award (2007), and the Geological Association
SEG NEWS
of Canada Duncan Derry Medal (2011). In 2014, he received,
as co-author, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Barlow Medal.
Talk Title
Gold Deposits of the Archean Abitibi Greenstone Belt,
Canada: Distribution, Metal Content, Styles, Genesis, and
Exploration Implications
in exploration. He also works on ore-forming processes and
ore-controlling factors, magma fertility, regional metallo-
genesis, and laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) methodology (dating, mineral
trace element analysis, isotopic composition analysis). His
research mainly involves field investigation and drill core
logging, petrography, short wavelength infrared spectral
analysis, whole-rock and mineral chemistry, textural imag-
ing using various techniques, geochronology, fluid inclusion
thermometry and composition, various isotope systems
(O-H-S-C; Cu-Zn-Fe; Sr, Hf), and LA-ICP-MS techniques. He
runs an LA-ICP-MS/MS (Agilent 8900) lab at CSM.
Talk titles
1. Skarns: Zoning Patterns and Controlling Factors
2. Lithocaps: Characteristics and Exploration
3. Metal Transportation for High-Sulfidation Epithermal
Deposits: A New Model
4. Mineral Geochemistry and Its Application in
Exploration
field work with various analytical techniques, including
petrography and ore microscopy, mineral and rock geochem-
istry, light and heavy stable isotopes, radiogenic isotopes, and
high-precision radiometric dating.
Talk titles
1. Controls on the Formation of Porphyry Copper and
Gold Deposits
2. Geochemistry and Petrogenesis of Magmas Associated
with Porphyry Deposits
3. Geochronology of Porphyry Deposits
 36 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
SEG 2020 Traveling Lectures (continued)
SEG 2020 Regional Vice President Lecturer
Zhiming Yang is a research professor at the Institute of Geol-
ogy of the Chinese Academy of Geological
Sciences (CAGS). His research interests
mainly focus on porphyry Cu depos-
SEG NEWS
its, particularly those in postcollisional
settings of the Tethyan belt. Zhiming has
been conducting a variety of research
projects on porphyry Cu deposits. He
is now leading several major projects
investigating the deep structure, magma
origin, and ore-forming processes of the
most economically significant porphyry
Zhiming Yang
(SEG 2009 F) Cu deposits in the Tethyan belt. He is a
winner of the China National Fund for
Distinguished Young Scientists. Zhiming is currently deputy
Petrographic Consultants International, Inc.
Paula Hansley, Geologist
720-890-2628
plhansley@gmail.com
545 W. Fir Way
Louisville, CO 80027
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
director of the Energy and Resources Research Centre, Insti-
tute of Geology, CAGS, Councilor (2018–2020) of SEG, and an
adjunct professorial research fellow at the Economic Geology
Research Centre (EGRU), James Cook University, Australia.
He was also a member (Publications Chair) of the Organizing
Committee for SEG 2017 in Beijing, China. 1
Talk Titles
1. Porphyry Cu Deposits in China
2. Postcollisional Porphyry Cu Deposits: Main
Characteristics and Origin
3. Generation of Postcollisional Porphyry Cu Deposits in
Southern Tibet Triggered by Subduction of the Indian
Continental Plate
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Dr. John L. Lufkin
Consulting Geologist &
President, Golden Publishers
Short Courses offered in Ore Microscopy,
Ore Mineralogy, Geologic Illustrations,
& Book Self-Publishing
Mobile: 720-755-4884 Email: lufk3@comcast.net
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 37

South American Metallogeny: Sierra to Craton

October 7–10, 2019 | Santiago, Chile

More than 60 Exhibits Promoting

Conference Highlights Science Advancements, Discoveries,
Technology, & Products

Top Participating Countries

Chile Canada Peru USA Australia

889 Attendees
from 40 Countries 114 Students

74 ORAL PRESENTATIONS 180 Posters

24 SPEED TALKS 46 Exhibitors
17 Core Shack
Exhibitors
SEG provided more than
$100K for student support

THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR 2019 SPONSORS

PATRON SILVER BRONZE

Antofagasta Minerals Barrick Aldebaran

Fortescue Capstone Mining Corp.
SQM
Freeport-McMoRan CoreScan
Newcrest Mining Ltd. Dawn Zhou
COPPER Pan American Silver Ero Copper
Quantum Discoveries First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
AngloAmerican
Imdex
Teck LITHIUM
Newgold
Hudbay Regulus Resources, Inc.
GOLD Lundin Mining SBX
Newmont Seequent
RioTinto Nexa SolGold
SGS
 38 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

SEG 2019 Conference – Santiago, Chile

José “Pepe” Perelló served on the SEG 2019 Organizing Com-
mittee as chair of both the Conference and Technical Sessions.
He opened the conference on the first day with a warm thanks to
those who attended—a record number for this annual meeting.

John Thompson

Simon Meldrum

Students and Early Career Professionals met

with mentors during Round Table discus-
sions ably organized by Alina Gaibor (BHP)
for the first day of events. Shown here are
John Thompson and Simon Meldrum, each
engaging attendees in topics most likely to
impact their careers in geology.

Breaks were an opportunity to

network. On the left, Dick Tos-
dal listens to a student; to the
right, José “Pepo” Arce (left)
catches up with friends.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 39

SEG 2019 Conference – Santiago, Chile

John Black’s talk at the

Industry Outlook Dinner
faced serious compe-
tition from the view
provided by Restaurante
Vista Santiago.

Kevin Heather

Doug Kirwin

Prior to dinner at the Vista, SEG Executive

Director Brian Hoal enjoyed a one-on-one visit
with Lindgren awardee Yongjun Lu.

Lluís Fontboté

Jean Cline

At the Round Table to close SEG 2019,

Kevin Heather chaired a spirited panel
composed of Doug Kirwin, Jean Cline,
and Lluís Fontboté.

Craig Hart and Britt Bluemel of the SEG Canada Foundation turned the
attention of the audience toward next year, inviting everyone to the SEG 2020
centenary celebration in Whistler, BC. Abstract submission is now open!
 40 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

SEG 2019 Awards Ceremony – October 8, 2019

Sheraton Santiago Hotel and Convention Center, Santiago, Chile

SEG Silver Medal recipient for 2018, Andreas

Anthony (“Willy”) Williams-Jones received the 2018 R.A.F. Penrose Gold Medal Audétat, was unable to attend the conference.
from SEG President Doug Kirwin in recognition of a lifetime of outstanding work in Adam Simon, his citationist, accepted the award for
the earth sciences. Willy, in turn, thanked the many people who have shared their Andreas from President Kirwin.
research and made an impact on his life and work.

The Ralph W. Marsden Award for outstanding service to the

Society was presented to Stuart Simmons. In listing Stuart’s various
volunteer activities, SEG Publications Board Chairman Shaun Barker
read off the many committees on which he has served, adding as an
aside that Stuart had received the SEG Silver Medal in 2014.

David Braxton received the

Brian J. Skinner Award for 2018
as the lead author of the out-
standing paper published in
Economic Geology during the
year. With co-authors David R.
Cooke, Allan M. Ignacio, and
Patrick J. Waters, he produced
“Geology of the Boyongan
and Bayugo Porphyry Cu-Au
Deposits: An Emerging
Yongjun Lu, the SEG Waldemar Lindgren awardee for 2018, Porphyry District in Northeast
was cited for early career achievements in the science. Because Mindanao, Philippines.”
citationist Cam McCuaig was unable to attend, Dave Cooke read
the speech, which noted that in addition to being an outstanding
researcher, Yongjun “is also is a truly fantastic person.”

Francisco Camus has

been selected as an
Honorary Fellow.
Only 1% of SEG
fellows are elected
to receive this honor,
which is awarded
for extraordinary
service to the
Society or the
science.

John Proffett was named the SEG Yasushi Watanabe was the SEG Interna-
Distinguished Lecturer for 2019. tional Exchange Lecturer for 2019.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 41

SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of Discovery ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

September 15–18, 2020 • seg2020.org
Conference Chairs: 
The Society of Economic Geologists is 100 years old! We invite you to come and
celebrate this Centenary in Whistler, BC, Canada, in September by attending our
Gerry Carlson, Craig Hart 
conference, SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of Discovery. The meeting will SEG Executive Director: 
showcase the new developments in mineral deposit science and technology, to
usher us into the next century framed by the scientific achievements in economic Brian Hoal 
geology and the mineral discoveries of the past 100 years. The conference will bring
Technical Program:
together geoscientists from industry, academia, and government to learn, reflect,
and inspire. Tim Baker, Murray Allan 
Three plenary themes are planned to capture Game-Changing events of the
Field Trips: 
past 100 years, mapping out the evolution of ideas on ore genesis from Lindgren’s
fundamental principles to today’s Bram van Straaten, Mike Tucker 
mineral system science, and providing
a 2020 Vision of where our science and
Workshops: 
technology are heading in the next Kirstie Simpson, Sam Weatherly,
century. Gold, Basins Through Time, Paola Chadwick 
and Ore Deposit Structure are the focus
of additional themes and Diversity of Poster Sessions and
Ore Deposits will capture the breadth of Speed Talks: 
our science, commodities, and discovery Ally Brown, Betsy Friedlander,
endeavors. Lucy Hollis
The packed program includes
speed talks and posters to maximize Early Career Professionals
presentation opportunities for all our and Students: 
members. Lunchtime debates will Mireille Pelletier, Fabien Rabayrol,
Not your usual breakfast meeting: bring together leaders in our field to Halley Keevil, Matt Manor 
SEG2020 committee members discuss hot topics in ore deposit models,
brainstorming their vision for the pathways to discovery, and the future of Debates/Roundtables:
conference… science and discovery. John Thompson, Libby Sharman 
The conference will be bookended by
world-class field trips in North America, Marketing/Social Media: 
including the Golden Triangle of British Columbia, the Abitibi greenstone belt, and Anne Thompson, Deanne Rider 
excursions to the Yerington Batholith, Southeast Alaska, Central Yukon, Southern
BC, and the Belt-Purcell Basin. Workshops will highlight deposit types (orogenic Fundraising/Marketing:
gold and VMS), alteration and spectral characteristics, and data analytics using AI Nikki Morrison 
and machine learning.
Kicking off the conference program, a comprehensive student and early career Conference Organizer: 
professionals (ECP) day is planned that includes workshops, round-table discussions, Ian Holliday, Brittany Minskip
and mentorship opportunities. The ECP-student organizing team say they are
thrilled to have the opportunity to organize events tailored to their demographic
and reflecting current needs.
Last, but not least, will be the SEG’s 100th Anniversary Birthday Party—a once-
in-a-century event not to be missed! So, on behalf of the organizing committee, we
invite you to Whistler and SEG 2020 Vision: Celebrating a Century of Discovery!

Tim Baker, Murray Allan, Mireille Pelletier, Gerry Carlson, and Craig Hart
The SEG 2020 Organizing Committee Executive
 42 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Whistler, BC, Canada • September 15–18, 2020

Please help us celebrate SEG’s 100th anniversary as we showcase the mineral discoveries and scientific
accomplishments of the past while looking at new science, technology, and ideas that will forge the future.

Welcome to SEG 2020 Vision! Themes for SEG 2020

What better way to celebrate SEG’s
Centennial Year than by joining
your colleagues in the sightseeing, Game Changers: The First Hundred Years
sporting, and dining paradise that is
Whistler. We are preparing an unparal- Lindgren’s Legacy: Ore Deposits in Depth
leled technical program that will relive
Gold 2020: Golden Past, Precious Future
our Society’s past achievements while
setting the stage for our next century Basins Through Time: Linking Process
of achievement.
and Ore Systems
Gerry Carlson
Ore Deposit Structure: Processes,
Chairman
Conference Organizing Committee Patterns, and Innovations
2020 Vision: The Next Hundred Years
Diversity in Ore Deposits

Registration Opens April 1, 2020 Tectonomagmatism and Porphyry-Epithermal

Metallogeny (Tribute to Jeremy P. Richards)

SPONSORS
Our sincere thanks to all our SEG 2020 Sponsors. Each sponsor provides vital support to the next generation of
Economic Geologists and ensures that we can invite presenters who are the leaders in our field.

PATRON GOLD SILVER BRONZE

Become a Sponsor — Visit the SEG 2020 Conference website for complete details.
www.seg2020.org
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 43
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
Abstracts are invited for the SEG 2020
Conference, to be held September
15–18, 2020. Oral presentations and
posters related to the general topic will
be considered, based on content and
quality. In addition, some abstracts will
be selected by the reviewers for speed
talks with accompanying posters. The
abstract submission site will be open
January 15 to March 31, 2020.
Abstracts of up to 500 words, with
one graphic (no references or tables)
are solicited. Further instructions are
available at the link below. Contribu-
tors are limited to submission of two
abstracts as the presenting author,
although the submitter may be listed
as a co-author on another presenter’s
abstract. Abstracts will be published
online in the SEG 2020 Conference
Proceedings.
Abstracts are reviewed by the Tech-
nical Committee, with decisions based
on relevance and content. Notice of pre-
liminary acceptance will be sent in early
June, and SEG students are considered
for financial assistance to help cover
travel and accommodations.
Final acceptance and publication
require that the presenter register for
the conference. SEG student members
must register by the early deadline of
August 15, 2020, to receive funding.
Abstract submission deadline:
March 31, 2020
seg2020.org/submit-an-abstract.html
Registration information for the conference, workshops, and
field trips will follow later on the SEG 2020 website.
Refer to www.seg2020.org for the latest information.
WORKSHOPS
All workshops will be held at the Whistler Conference Centre,
unless otherwise specified.
PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
WS01: How to Thrive in the Mining Industry? Survival Toolbox for
Students and Early Career Professionals (ECP)
DATE September 14, 2020
PRESENTERS Fabien Rabayrol, Andy Randell, Janice Fingler, Holly Burton
This workshop aims to provide students and ECP with a set of non-technical skills and
tools to navigate their careers and manage projects. Three professional speakers will
share their advice and experience through hands-on exercises and games.
WS02: Gold in Metamorphic Belts: Orogenic Gold and Other
Gold Deposit Styles
DATE September 14–15, 2020
PRESENTERS Dave Rhys,
Benoît Dubé,
Richard Goldfarb,
Stephen Cox
This course will review the style, structure,
and setting of gold deposits in metamorphic
belts and their relationships to other deposit
styles and types. Both Phanerozoic and
Precambrian settings will be covered, with a
case overview of the Abitibi greenstone belt.
Course complements the post-conference
Abitibi greenstone belt field trip.
WS03: What Lies Beneath; Finding Copper Resources for the mid-
21st Century
DATE September 15, 2020
PRESENTERS Brendan Howe, Pim van Geffen, Ken Witherley, Dennis Woods
This workshop provides an integrated review of geochemical and geophysical exploration
methods for copper resources through cover. Techniques will be linked to physical
properties and geology. Workshop participants will be split into teams and provided with a
deposit data set to develop a set of prospectivity and targeting criteria using geophysical
and geochemical techniques.
WS04: Data Integration and Machine Learning Across the Mining
Value Chain–A Practical Introduction
DATE September 14-15, 2020
PRESENTERS Shawn Hood, Jessica Stromberg
This workshop will introduce geologists to data
analytics and machine learning as applied
towards exploration and mining geology.
Concepts will be introduced at a high level, and
combined with practical applications or case
studies. Practical exercises will use the free/open-
source Biolabs Orange machine learning software
and the CSIRO-developed Data Mosaic tool for
multivariate drill hole data.
 44 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
WORKSHOPS
All workshops will be held at the Whistler Conference Centre,
unless otherwise specified.
PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS (continued)
WS05: Discovery Through Mineralogy;
Fundamental Aspects of Alteration Mapping
and Spectroscopy
DATE September 14–15, 2020
PRESENTERS Anne Thompson, Sasha Pontual, John Thompson
Description: Understanding alteration mineralogy is a
fundamental part of mineral exploration and target identifying.
This course will develop skills for field and project geologists
including critical field observation techniques, the use of
field portable spectrometers as an effective tool, and data
interpretation. Course includes hands-on work with rocks and
spectral data.
WS06: Cultural Awareness Workshop
DATE September 15, 2020
PRESENTER Association for Mineral Exploration
This workshop explores the cultural heritage of the Squamish and
Lil’wat First Nations. Participants will gain an overview of the past
and present way of life of the Squamish and Lil’wat peoples and
the history of the Sea to Sky corridor. Included is a presentation
from First Nation Leaders, who will discuss their history with
mining and exploration in their Territories.
POST-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
WS07: Greenstone Belt Architecture and Metal
Endowment of the Superior Craton
DATE September 19, 2020
PRESENTERS Ross Sherlock, Harold Gibson,
Bruno Lafrance, Phil Thurston
The workshop will review the variable mineral endowment
of Archean granite-greenstone terranes of the Superior
craton focusing on the 3-D structural architecture of these
terranes derived from surface geology, reflection seismic, and
magnetotelluric studies. The integration of field and laboratory
geological, geochemical and geophysical studies will provide
new Insights into the granite-greenstone terranes.
WS08: Spectral Exploration
DATE September 19, 2020
PRESENTERS Richard Bedell, Benoit Rivard,
Ray Koklay, Paul Linton
Spectral remote sensing continues to develop, offering increased
spatial and spectral resolution. We now have drill core scanning
and spectral petrology at the thin section level. Satellite- to drill
core-scale equipment will be presented. A significant part of
the course will be exploration and mining case studies using
spectroscopy for many deposit types.
WS09: Ancient and Modern Volcanic-Hosted
Massive Sulfide (VHMS) Deposits
DATE September 19, 2020
PRESENTERS Bruce Gemmell
This workshop will include an overview of the geology, genesis,
and exploration for VHMS deposits. Both ancient and modern
examples will be examined. Topics to be covered include general
features, classification schemes, tectonic setting, mineralogy and
textures, metal zoning, and ore equivalent horizons.
WS10: Bystander Intervention Strategies to
Contribute to Safe, Inclusive and Respectful
Workplaces in Camps, Offices, Mines and
Mining Impacted Communities
DATE September 19, 2020
PRESENTERS Susan Lomas,
Me Too Mining Association,
Julia Gartley
Workers within the mining and mineral exploration industries
are often exposed to workplace safety hazards that can include
inappropriate workplace behaviors such as intimidation,
discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, and
sexual assault. This course offers Bystander Intervention training
as well as guidance for assessing incidents and reporting.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 45

Registration information for the conference, workshops, and field trips will be available on the
SEG 2020 website as it is finalized. Refer to www.seg2020.org for the latest information.
FIELD TRIPS
The number of places is limited. Preference will be given to Conference registrants.
Learn more at www.seg2020.org.

PRE-CONFERENCE FIELD TRIPS

FT01: Intrusion Related Mineral Systems of FT04: Geology and Ore Deposits of Northwest
Central Yukon B.C.'s Golden Triangle
DATE September 10–14, 2020 (Five days plus travel) DATE September 10–14, 2020
LEADERS Patrick Sack, Maurice Colpron, Scott Casselman, LEADER Charlie Greig
Nikolett Kovacs, Melissa Friend
The trip begins with visits
This trip provides an overview to rich porphyry Au-Cu
of the varied magmatic- porphyries at the Red
hydrothermal deposits in Chris mine and Saddle
central Yukon, focusing on North discoveries, then
the geology and tectonic proceeds south to the
setting of reduced intrusion- Brucejack mine and KSM
related deposits hosted within Iron Cap property, and
strata of the Selwyn basin ends in Stewart, at Silbak
and variably metamorphosed Premier-Big Missouri.
and remobilized porphyry
copper-gold systems related to
oxidized volcanic arc intrusions
in the intermontane terranes.

FT05: Britannia Mine and Sea to Sky

DATE September 15, 2020
FT02: Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide and Orogenic LEADERS Michael J. Tucker, Sarah Jackson-Brown

Gold Deposits in Southeast Alaska The historic Britannia mine, located 50 km north of Vancouver, is
also home to the award-winning Britannia Mine Museum. This
DATE September 10–14, 2020
VMS-style deposit, discovered in 1888, was once the largest
LEADERS Nathan Steeves, Constantine Metals,
copper producer in the British Empire. Participants will explore
Bruce Gemmell, Sue Karl
the remains of the former town site and venture into the Jane
This trip visits the most significant mineral deposits in southeast Basin open pit.
Alaska, including underground mine tours of Greens Creek and
Palmer. A regional tectonic framework is provided by transects
of the interior intermontane terranes around Whitehorse, Yukon,
and the insular terranes along the northern Chatham Strait region
of SE Alaska.

FT03: Orogenic Belt-Purcell Basin, Sullivan Core

Shack and Trail Smelter
DATE September 10–14, 2020
LEADERS Brian Mahoney,
Neil Fernandes,
Paul Ransome

This trip will examine the geology
and Pb-Zn stratiform mineralization
of the northern Belt basin together
with the world-class Ag-Pb-Zn vein
deposits of the Coeur d’Alene district.
Historic aspects of exploration
and production, as well as new
exploration approaches within the
northern Belt basin, are included.
FT06: Southern BC Porphyry Deposits
DATE September 19–24, 2020
LEADERS Peter Holbek, Farhad Bouzari
This field trip focuses on alkalic and calc-alkalic porphyry
deposits of southern BC hosted by mid-Mesozoic arc volcanics
within the Quesnel terrane. Deposit and site visits will emphasize
outcrop and drill core examination, as well as pit tours and an
underground visit of a block cave operation.
 46 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

FIELD TRIPS
The number of places is limited. Preference will be given to Conference registrants.
Learn more at www.seg2020.org.

POST-CONFERENCE FIELD TRIPS

FT07: Gold Deposits of the Abitibi Greenstone Belt

DATE September 21–25, 2020
LEADERS Ross Sherlock, Dave Rhys, Benoît Dubé

Commencing in Val d’Or, Quebec, the trip visits a diversity of

deposits between the Larder Lake-Cadillac Break and Porcupine-
Destor fault systems. Underground open pit operations and
core facilities that represent the style of orogenic gold and VMS
mineralization are examined are examined, as well as outcrops
that illustrate the regional setting and structural history of the
deposits in the region.

FT08: Porphyry Copper Systems, Weathering, and

the Genesis of Supergene Enrichment
DATE September 20–24, 2020
LEADERS William Chávez, Jr., Erich U. Petersen

This Arizona-New Mexico field-based course emphasizes the

geochemistry and mineralogy of porphyry systems that have
undergone copper grade enhancement via weathering-derived
metals mobility and consequent supergene enrichment. Tectonic
processes that produce block faulting and regional to local
exhumation of the porphyry environment will also be reviewed
and observed in each district.

FT09: Porphyry Cu-Mo, Skarn, and IOCG Systems

of the Yerington Batholith
DATE September 19–22, 2020
LEADERS John Dilles, Dick Tosdal

In Yerington, Nevada, porphyry Cu, skarn, Fe oxide-Cu deposits

have been tilted 80° so that a complete 3-D picture of a zoned
magmatic-hydrothermal system is exposed. Excursions
will examine the emplacement history of the intrusions and
hydrothermal alteration. Emphasis is on natural exposures and
geologic maps, together with mine and drill core samples.

SEG 2020: Key Dates

January 15–March 31, 2020: Abstract submission site open
April 1, 2020: Registration Opens
August 15, 2020: Early Bird Registration ends
August 16, 2020: Regular Registration begins

Whistler, B.C. For the latest updates, visit seg2020.org.

 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 47

THE DYSLEXIC MENTOR====================================================

The Case for Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning in
Minerals Exploration: An Oasis in the Desert or Another Mirage?
Jon Woodhead (SEG M), † JAW Consulting, and Ken Witherly (SEG M), Condor Consulting, Inc.

Opinions expressed in this column are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the SEG.
The exploration industry faces a num-
ber of serious challenges, but a short-
age of skilled promoters or a tenacious
service industry is not among them.
Indeed, despite occasional accusations
of a sector lacking in innovation, the
exploration business has been quick
to adopt new technologies. Most have
arrived with little fanfare, almost unno-
ticed, yet have collectively proceeded
to fundamentally change the way we
operate. Many of today’s decision-mak-
ers entered the business prior to the
development of GPS navigation and
satellite (or cellular) communications,
prior to the routine availability of
remotely sensed data, and before the
transition from paper maps to geo-
graphical information systems (GIS).
Subsequent innovations of the digital
age have provided entirely new sources
of data and the capabilities to interpret
and query this information through
powerful 3D visualization and analysis
software. Yet despite such advances
and a relatively recent period of record
exploration expenditures, discovery
rates have seemingly declined over the
past decade (Schodde, 2019), most nota-
bly with respect to the “tier 1” deposits,
which remain the foundation to the
world’s metal supply.
Explanations for the decline in dis-
covery rates during a period in which
advances in technology have led to
marked productivity improvements in
so many other areas of human endeavor
are the subject of much debate. An argu-
ment could be made that new technol-
ogies have impacted the efficiency of
exploration but done little to impact its
effectiveness. Internally in the explora-
tion community, especially among its
more senior members, a strong argu-
ment is made that the abandonment of
“tried and true” exploration methods
in favor of newer technologies is itself
largely to blame. Much has been written
by a generation of successful explorers
who lament the widespread loss of field
†
E-mail, jon@jawconsult.com
SEG NEWS
skills and the reduction of “boots on every aspect of the exploration process.
the ground” that have accompanied the Articles and presentations that reference
digital age. Others have noted the huge the seemingly enormous capabilities
increase in administrative and legal con- of ML (or other AI) have exploded in
straints placed on exploration personnel number over the past few years. Several
at all levels, and, hence, the reduction junior explorers and service companies
in time available to analyze and inter- have emerged recently that claim ML,
pret an ever-increasing mountain of or a related discipline, as their core
data that our new tools can deliver. competency, with advantages com-
Underlying all of this is a critical deple- monly expressed in terms of improved
tion of near-surface resources and an data extraction, better data integration,
inevitable maturing of the conventional or quicker and cheaper data analysis.
search spaces. Whichever is considered Alongside related terms such as big data,
the dominant factor, an unavoidable data science, predictive analytics, artifi-
conclusion remains: advances in explo- cial neural networks, and deep learning
ration technology have largely failed (to name a few), ML has rapidly become
to produce the promised and desired the new buzzword in exploration,
outcomes. largely in accordance with its uptake
in other business sectors and its rapid
growth in academia (Fig. 1).
Machine Learning—A New Hope The benefits that AI/ML could
Machine learning, hereafter referred to potentially bring to improving the
as ML, is one of the newer technologies exploration process are undoubtedly
(in the broad field of artificial intelli- significant. At the most basic level,
gence or AI) that are touted as having machine reading, the process that
the potential to produce a step-change allows rapid extraction and organization
in discovery rates. Proponents argue of text information, will certainly save
that a key constraint on discovery countless hours of research—albeit only
success is the brain’s inability to cope after the relevant source documents
with the multidimensional nature and have been effectively collated and orga-
sheer amount of data now available for nized. An equally pragmatic application
FIGURE 1. The growth of annually published papers by topic (1996–2017) shows that artificial
intelligence (AI) continues to outpace all other topics, including those within the computer science
(CS) discipline as a whole. Fifty-six percent of the AI papers fell into the machine learning category,
with neural networks being the next most popular topic (Shoham et al., 2018).
 48 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
An Oasis in the Desert or Another Mirage? (continued)
currently in development is the auto-
mated and accurate logging of drill core,
either via down-hole tools or directly
on core, the success of which is likely to
have a major impact on resource mod-
eling and evaluation studies. Similarly,
SEG NEWS
assisted image classification applied
to multiple layers of geophysical and
geochemical data (i.e., via the produc-
tion of low-dimensional views from
high-dimensional data) has the poten-
tial to reduce interpretation times and
improve overall targeting outcomes.
Each of these holds the promise that the
geoscientist of the future will spend less
time manipulating data and more time
assessing the meaning thereof.
However, it is the application of AI/
ML in exploration targeting, particularly
in the greenfield setting, that we wish
to address in this article, and specifically
our concerns that the current enthu-
siasm surrounding its capabilities may
be somewhat premature. At worst, an
overreliance on such methods has the
potential to further curtail the role of
interpretation and analysis within the
exploration process and ultimately fur-
ther hinder our progress toward under-
standing the relationships between
ore deposits and the various data sets
employed to find them.
The Challenge of Exploration
Data
For all the promise of AI/ML in explora-
tion targeting, its successful application
faces substantial challenges presented
by the very nature of geoscience data.
In short, such data are not as easily
and clearly defined as objects in most
commercial applications, with the result
that the prediction of an ore deposit is a
world away from identifying, for exam-
ple, the likelihood of an individual’s
creditworthiness or their online viewing
preferences.
In contrast to well-defined popula-
tions where data points exist in discrete
spaces or are independent and iden-
tically distributed, exploration data
commonly exist at multiple resolutions
and with varying degrees of noise,
incompleteness, and uncertainties, and
are therefore inherently poorly suited
to the direct application of AI/ML. In a
more philosophical sense, AI/ML is best
at finding answers in large amounts of
data in which the component parts are
generally well understood, while the
exploration problem is more commonly
characterized by few data that are rela-
tively poorly understood (Fig. 2).
Further, most data used in targeting
studies are multivariate, possess amor-
phous boundaries, and follow nonlinear
or chaotic relationships. As an example,
geophysical data are generally charac-
terized by wave phenomena with the
result that features of interest will exist
at multiple scales within a continuous
spatiotemporal field. This multidimen-
sional and heterogeneous nature poses
specific challenges that result in vastly
increased computational complexity,
especially in 3D space, a problem which
is only alleviated by subsetting the data
to relatively homogeneous groups of
observations or to regions with similar
features. Perhaps more significantly,
exploration data are characterized by
uncommon but critical events, with the
latter being represented only in exceed-
ingly rare cases by an ore deposit. Such
characteristics ensure that the input
data are uneven and clustered, possess
an unbalanced number of positives and
negatives, and generally lack a sufficient
number of training areas upon which
ML methods are commonly based. The
interested reader is directed to papers by
Karpatne et al. (2017) and Desharnais et
al. (2017) for informative reviews of the
issues posed by geoscience data.
Lastly, the modern exploration chal-
lenge is arguably one that increasingly
Routine
things
Big Data
FIGURE 2. Relationship between common information that we understand the best (big data)
and unusual but important data that we understand the least (small data). The exploration prob-
lem generally inhabits the realm of unusual but important things, where AI/ML is least effective
(Marcus, 2016).
involves covered settings with sparse
data or progressively greater depths in
complex brownfields settings. In both
cases, the search has progressed from
simple anomaly detection to defining
a mineral system footprint within a
“common earth model” (McGaughey,
2007). To do this, we are increasingly
reliant on geophysical data and other
indirect measurements that, in turn, are
based upon extrapolation and expert
interpretation. As a result, a successful
application of ML may hinge less upon
the raw data and more upon the quality
and accuracy of derivative and inter-
preted products.
The Role of the Interpreter
At a fundamental level, the explora-
tion process is almost entirely based on
interpreted products, e.g., a geologic
map extrapolated from sparse outcrop
localities, an orebody model based on
drill hole data, a geochemical halo
identified from a grid of samples, or
a geophysical response derived via a
complex set of acquisition and process-
ing steps. In each case, the outcome will
depend to a large extent on the experi-
ence and expertise of the individual(s)
responsible. While this concept is gen-
erally well appreciated by geologists in
the production of a geologic map or 3D
model, and perhaps in the context of
geochemical data analysis, it may be less
Unusual
but
important
things
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 49
obvious in terms of the processing and
interpretation of the geophysical data
commonly employed in the exploration
process.
Geophysical data reduction, rather
than a standardized process with con-
sistent outcomes, generally requires tri-
al-and-error methodologies and a series
of expert assumptions. Such input is
critical to how the data can be used and
the scale to which the outcomes may
apply. More important, however, are the
succeeding stages of subjective inter-
pretation that allow for linkages to be
made to geology. This remains largely a
manual process, undertaken in conjunc-
tion with external and complementary
sources of information, that ultimately
allows the interpreter to find a solution
consistent with all the available data.
Although an interpretive workflow of
this nature would seem a necessary
requirement for optimal outcomes,
such time-intensive efforts have become
increasingly less common.
The industry’s efficiency at collect-
ing data seems to far outpace its ability
to interpret and integrate it. Both
government and company archives
contain vast amounts of survey data,
both geophysical and geochemical, that
remain largely unexamined or inter-
preted in only the most rudimentary
fashion while similar data sets are often
reacquired in newer exploration initia-
tives, presumably with the assumption
that the older surveys have somehow
become “stale.” If detailed interpreta-
tions of such surveys are undertaken,
the task is commonly handed to exter-
nal consultants, who frequently operate
in isolation from the remainder of the
exploration team.
An informal survey carried out at
a recent major mining conference
determined that roughly two-thirds
of exploration companies lacked the
capability of visualizing geophysical
data, presumably meaning they had no
in-house interpretive expertise to tie
geophysics back to geology (Abraham,
2018). Similar issues may extend to
other specialist geoscience fields (e.g.,
structural geology), specifically to those
individuals tasked with interpreting
data and acting as a bridge between
the various exploration disciplines. The
widespread absence of such individuals
is evident in a cursory review of the
management teams in most publicly
listed exploration companies. The
absence of geophysicists or specialist
interpreters within the AI/ML focused
subset is particularly worrisome given
the heavy reliance of such organizations
on regional data sets and an increasing
requirement for subsurface discoveries
in mature terranes.
Conclusion
A common perception in the explo-
ration industry is that AI/ML still has
a long way to go before significant
outcomes are felt. Concerns expressed
by the geoscience community generally
focus on the fundamental limitations
of such tools with respect to sparse and
poorly connected data (i.e., small data
vs. big data) or the difficulties intro-
duced by complex 3D data sets that are
increasingly necessary for the detection
of hidden orebodies (e.g., Cowan, 2018).
In contrast, we view the increasing use
of AI/ML in minerals exploration as
having enormous potential to improve
exploration workflows and overall
discovery efficiencies. However, the
expectation that a better tool alone will
make the difference has to be put aside.
A change in performance will only
occur when the industry becomes less
reliant on the “hard side” of technology
to drive the discovery process and no
Donald J. Birak – Geologist
Experience
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
longer acts as if the data are an accept-
able proxy for knowledge. A reliance on
AI/ML under such conditions, rather
than strengthening our understanding
of the data, places the emphasis once
again on simple anomaly detection,
and, as in the past, such approaches are
SEG NEWS
likely to result in diminishing returns
and a failure to meet expectations. 1
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., 2018, Mineral exploration trends:
Are we undervaluing foundation geoscience for
artificial intelligence and machine learning?:
LinkedIn, published June 18, 2018, www.linkedin.
com/pulse/mineral-exploration-trends-we-under-
valuing-foundation-andy-abraham.
Cowan, J., 2018, How geologists can outwit arti-
ficial intelligence: LinkedIn, published March
25, 2018, www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-geolo-
gists-can-outwit-artificial-intelligence-jun-cowan.
Desharnais, G., Paiement, J.P., Hatfield, D., and
Poupart, N., 2017, Mining BIG data: The future
of exploration targeting using machine learning:
Exploration 17, Sixth Decennial International
Conference on Mineral Exploration, Toronto,
Canada, 2017, Proceedings, p. 319–323.
Karpatne, A., Ebert-Uphoff, I., Ravela, S., Ali Babaie,
H., and Kumar, V., 2017, Machine learning for the
geosciences, challenges and opportunities: Cor-
nell University website, arXiv, submitted Novem-
ber 13, 2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04708.
Marcus, G., 2016, Why toddlers are smarter than
computers: TEDxCERN (TED Talk), published
November 22, 2016, www.youtube.com/
watch?v=IBoJcDlqmo0&feature=youtu.be.
McGaughey, J., 2007, Geological models, rock prop-
erties, and the 3D inversion of geophysical data:
Exploration 07, Fifth Decennial International
Conference on Mineral Exploration, Toronto,
Canada, 2007, Proceedings, p. 473–483.
Shodde, R., 2019, Role of technology and inno-
vation for identifying and growing economic
resources: AMIRA International, 12th Biennial
Exploration Managers Conference, Hunter Valley,
Australia, March 26–29, 2019, Proceedings, www.
minexconsulting.com/publications.html.
Shoham, Y., Perrault, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Clark, J.,
Manyika, J., Niebles, J.C., Lyons, T., Etchemendy,
J., Grosz, B., and Bauer, Z., The AI index 2018
annual report: Stanford, CA, AI Index Steering
Committee, Human-Centered AI Initiative,
Stanford University, cdn.aiindex.org/2018/AI%20
Index%202018%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
www.birakconsulting.com
: djbirak1@outlook.com
Mobile: +1.208.699.4015
Integrity Reliability Innovation
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 50 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
The (Diverse and Inclusive!) Roots of SEG
SEG was formed in 1920 over the
course of just that one year, from an
SEG NEWS
idea discussed over lunch by 16 men
at a Geological Society of America
meeting, to the full establishment of
a Council, and an initial membership
of 60 (61, with interim Secretary D.H.
Hewett) invitees with a constitution
and bylaws. Right from the start, the
membership was international, includ-
ing both immigrants to America and
members from other countries. The his-
tory of the first 75 years of SEG is well
documented in a volume published
1997 (and still available!).
We have from the beginning
reached out to a broad group of sci-
entists and explorers, recognizing the
impact of multiple disciplines on the
very nature of our work. Our interna-
tional connections were established
early and remain central to the Society.
Over the 100 years we have been “a
place” for many to gather and share
the excitement and the importance of
economic geology.
Reading through old correspon-
dence, one can see the same admin-
istration issues that arise today, as
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
MDRU Director
The Mineral Deposit Research Unit’s
Board of Directors, and the Depart-
ment of Earth, Ocean and Atmo-
spheric Sciences at The University
of British Columbia announce the
commencement of a search for the
position of MDRU Director.
For more information: mdru.ubc.ca/careers/
Contributed by Anne Thompson
we adapt and build the organization.
Correspondence over the years is
filled with recurring themes: check-
ing on award details, trying to figure
out which country someone was in,
Geologists Miss T. Stadnichenko and
Mrs. E. B. Knopf at the 1933 meeting of
SEG in Princeton, NJ.
Geometallurgy
MDRU seeks a Research Associate or
Post-Doctoral Fellow, to lead or
contribute to our developing
“rocks-first” BRIMM-supported
research program on contextual
materials characterization and
enhancing orebody knowledge,
particularly in gold or porphyry
copper systems.
or complaining about a lack of com-
mittee members. As the last century
passed, the Society has gone through
distinct periods, including the Second
World War, two subsequent periods of
expansion, but also periods of retrac-
tion. Through it all, a sense of shared
purpose and passion for our applied
science has built networks and connec-
tions around the world.
Many famous names are in the
records of SEG, and these individ-
uals were instrumental in the work
and development of the Society. As
we embark on the centenary, we will
celebrate not only them, but also the
not-so-famous. For example, Tasia Stad-
nichenko, born in Crimea, was a mem-
ber by 1944, but also had attended a
1933 SEG meeting in Princeton, N.J.,
along with three other women, includ-
ing two holding Ph.D. degrees. There
is more to learn about our history! This
year marks an important milestone and
we look forward to all the events, field
trips, and the flagship conference, SEG
2020 Vision, which will bring us all
together both to celebrate and look to
our future. 1
BRIMM
BRADSHAW RESEARCH INITIATIVE FOR MINERALS & MINING
Carbon Mineralization
The Bradshaw Research Initiative
for Minerals and Mining (BRIMM)
and MDRU seek one or more
Research Associates or Post-
Doctoral Fellows with expertise in
geology and experimental
geochemistry to contribute to the
development of carbon capture,
utilization and storage in ultramafic
mine tailings.
brimm.ubc.ca/careers/
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 51

SEG STUDENT CHAPTER NEWS

SEG FOUNDATION ROUND II 2019 STUDENT CHAPTER FUNDING FROM

THE STEWART R. WALLACE FUND
Congratulations to the 40 Student Chapters listed below, which were awarded funding support in Round II 2019 from the
Stewart R. Wallace Fund! As the number of chapters continues to grow, the application process becomes increasingly competi-
tive and demands that applications be critiqued more closely for content and budget by the Student Affairs Committee.

2019 Student Chapter Grant Recipients

Chapter Name, Country Amount Awarded Chapter Name, Country Amount Awarded

Association des Etudiants Toulousains en
  Géoressources, France...................................................... $1,250.00
China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China................... $1,000.00
Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, China.................... $500.00
Colorado School of Mines, USA............................................ $1,750.00
Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese
   Academy of Sciences, China.............................................. $1,500.00
Laurentian University, Canada............................................... $1,750.00
Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic............................. $1,250.00
McGill University, Canada...................................................... $2,000.00
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada................... $2,400.00
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece...... $1,000.00
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, USA............ $500.00
St. Mary's University, Canada............................................... $1,500.00
Sun Yat-sen University, China................................................ $1,000.00
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland ............................................. $1,250.00
TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany .................................. $1,250.00
Universidad Central del Ecuador
   (UCE-FIGEMPA), Ecuador ............................................... $1,250.00
STUDENT NEWS
Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina ............................. $1,250.00
Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil......................................... $1,000.00
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil................................... $1,250.00
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil....................... $1,250.00
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil............................. $800.00
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.................... $1,500.00
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada........................ $1,250.00
University of Alaska Anchorage, USA .................................. $1,500.00
University of Bristol, United Kingdom................................... $1,250.00
University of British Columbia, Canada................................. $1,250.00
University of Leeds, United Kingdom ................................... $1,500.00
University of Leicester, United Kingdom .............................. $1,250.00
University of Nevada, Reno, USA.......................................... $1,500.00
University of Toronto, Canada............................................... $1,500.00
University of Western Ontario, Canada ................................ $1,750.00
University Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), USA............................ $1,250.00
Total Round II 2019....................................................... $42,200.00

ROUND I 2020 STUDENT CHAPTER FUNDING PROPOSAL

Submission Deadline is April 30, 2020!
SEG Stewart R. Wallace Fund Student Chapter Support Available
Student chapter funding support is available from the SEG Stewart R. Wallace Fund. Wallace, who served as the SEG President in
1992, is well known in the exploration community, especially for his role in the discovery of molybdenum at what became the
Climax and Henderson mines. Active student chapters may submit requests for funding of field-based educational activities.
The application can be found at www.segweb.org/pdf/students/Student-Chapter-Funding-Guidelines-Application.pdf
Please note that in order for a chapter funding application to be accepted, the SEG Student Chapter will need to meet the
following requirements:
 must be active.
 must have submitted an Annual Report by the September 30, 2019, deadline.
 must have submitted an updated Student Chapter Membership Information Form with the Annual Report.
Failure to meet the above, as well as other eligibility requirements outlined in the Student Chapter Guidelines, may
compromise the eligibility of your funding application!
Applications that are organized and detailed may be successful in receiving up to US$1,500.00 (possibly more, for exceptional
applications). The 2020 budget is comparable to 2019. Given the increased numbers of Chapters there will be greater
competition for funds. The criteria used by the Student Affairs Committee (“SAC”) in assessing the applications are clearly stated
on the Student Chapter Funding Form. For clarity, the criteria will include the technical quality of the application; the technical
justification for, leadership of, and deliverables expected from the field trip. Evidence of good planning and a realistic budget
are expected. Details of efforts to source other funds are also important, as is a clear explanation as to why the SEG funds are
needed, and what they will be used for. The SAC will also take particular note of applications that involve cooperation between
Chapters and which include a spread of student, academic, and industry participants.
Prompt and complete applications are appreciated by Student Programs.
Visit www.segweb.org/StudentChapterGuidelines for more details.
Contact students@segweb.org with any questions and to report chapter revisions and updates.
 52 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

THE SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS FOUNDATION, INC.

Student Research Grants Available For 2020
The SEG Foundation (SEGF) and the SEG Canada Foundation Hugo T. Dummett Fund supports applied economic geology
(SEGCF) will provide Student Research Grants for the year research, including the development of new explora-
2020. Individual grants are for one year and typically range tion technology and techniques, and the dissemination
from US$1,000 to US$5,000. These grants support gradu- of related results through publications, lectures, short
ate student research projects leading to master’s or doctoral courses, workshops, and conferences.
degrees, as well as exceptional BS Honors or “BS Titulo” proj-
Alberto Terrones L. Fund annually supports students from
ects. Students in mineral resource study programs throughout
Mexico, Peru, and other Latin American countries to pur-
the world are eligible and encouraged to apply. Instructions
sue graduate studies leading to an M.S. or Ph.D. degree at
on how to apply for student research grants are given below.
universities in the U.S. or Canada. The grants given under
Strong preference will be given to those applicants who
STUDENT NEWS

this program may be used to defray tuition costs and

are SEG Student Members. To become an SEG Student
Member, visit www.segweb.org/join.
Grants are awarded from the following funds:
Hugh E. McKinstry Fund supports “study, research, and
teaching of the science of economic geology or for related
projects,” with preference given to field and related labo-
ratory research by graduate students. Geologists on study
leave from their employment are also eligible to apply.
Hickok-Radford Fund supports field-based research proj-
ects and directly related laboratory studies as applied to
metallic mineral deposits, with preference given to projects
located in Alaska, northern Canada, and other regions
north of latitude 60 north, or projects at very high eleva-
tions elsewhere and extreme southern latitudes.
Eric P. Nelson Fund supports graduate students who con-
duct field work in any location that includes structural
geology as applied to ore deposits and metallogeny. The
funds may be used to support thesis research, to defray
tuition costs and university fees, or for any other bona
fide expense directly related to pursuing an M.Sc. or Ph.D.
degree in applied economic geology.
Newmont Corporation Student Grants support research
projects worldwide related to the geology, mineralization,
and metallogeny of gold deposits. Emphasis is placed on
research with a strong field component, with funding
available for directly related laboratory work.
university fees, to support thesis research, or for any other
bona fide expense directly related to pursuing a graduate
study program in applied economic geology or geolog-
ical engineering while enrolled as a graduate student at
an M.S.- or Ph.D.-granting university. Alternatively, the
fund may provide financial support for Latin American
students to attend SEG educational events such as short
courses, workshops, field trips, and conferences.
Timothy Nutt Fund provides financial support for geol-
ogy students and young economic geologists located in
Zimbabwe or in southern Africa with ties to Zimbabwe.
The fund may be used to support SEG student chapter
activities, travel to meetings, field trips, and for research
or study grants, technical lectures, or any other activities
approved by the SEG Regional Vice President for Africa.
Canada Foundation (SEGCF) supports graduate student
thesis research, leading to master’s or doctoral degrees in
economic geology. The funds are typically directed toward
field expenses or analytical work related to the thesis
project. Priority is given to Canadian students or students
studying at Canadian universities or with Canadian thesis
topics; the program also supports international students
and projects. 1

General Information and a

2020 Research Grant application form may be downloaded from
www.segweb.org/srg

Applications and advisor appraisals must be received by February 15, 2020.

Student Research Grant Awards will be announced by April 30, 2020.
Completed applications should be sent to the following address:
E-mail: students@segweb.org

Student Research Grants Committee c/o Assistant for Student Affairs

Society of Economic Geologists Foundation, 7811 Shaffer Parkway, Littleton, CO 80127-3732 USA
Phone: +1.720.981.7882/Fax: +1.720.981.7874
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 53

THE SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS FOUNDATION, INC.

Graduate Student Fellowships Available For 2020

Next year will mark the fourteenth year that, under its Graduate Student Fellowship Program, the Society of
Economic Geologists Foundation, Inc. (SEGF), has awarded one-year fellowships of up to US$15,000 each to
students who intend to pursue a course of study in economic geology leading to a professional master’s, master of
science (M.Sc.), and/or Ph.D. degree. Since 2007, over US$1.8 million has been awarded to 263 graduate students.
In 2011 the Society of Economic Geologists Canada Foundation (SEGCF) began supporting the Graduate Student
Fellowship Program and has awarded CAN$280,000 to 49 graduate students.

SEG student members from throughout the world who are in or will begin their first year of graduate school in

STUDENT NEWS
the 2019 calendar year are encouraged to apply.

Awards are competitive and based on merit and qualifications of the applicant. Those awarded a 2020 Graduate
Student Fellowship will not be eligible to receive a 2020 Student Research Grant.

Applications, together with the supporting requirements,

must be received no later than February 1, 2020.

The 2020 GSF application and details can be found at

www.segweb.org/gsf

Fellowships awarded under this program will be announced in March 2020.

Students awarded funds from the GSF program will be required to submit expense reports.

The SEGF Graduate Student Fellowship Program and Student Research Grants
were supported in 2019 by major grants from the following organizations.

AngloAmerican, Barrick Gold Corporation, Coeur Mining,

Newmont Corporation, Pan American Silver,
and SEG Canada Foundation.
 54 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

SEG Foundation Student Field Trip No. 19

Ore Deposits of the South African Craton

August 16–26, 2020
This will be no. 19 in the continuing series of SEG Foundation (SEGF)-sponsored student field trips (SFTs). The nine-
day itinerary will be led by a team comprising Judith Kinnaird, past president of SEG, and associate Glen Nwaila, both
of University of Witwatersrand, and will include visits to the Kusasalethu (Elandsrand) gold mine, Vametco vanadium
mine on the Bushveld western limb, the new Platreef mine being developed on the northern limb, and surface geology
STUDENT NEWS

exposures of the classical sequences of the Witwatersrand and Bushveld basins. A visit to a diamond mine will also be
included. The geology and mineralization of these deposits will be studied, and for orebodies in the same district we will
focus upon their similarities and differences, particularly with respect to mining methods, grade control, ground control
(geotechnical studies), and metallurgical processes. Ore reserves, deposit models, and exploration methods will also
be emphasized. Evening presentations will delve into the characteristics of the various deposit types and discuss their
origins and genetic models.

Active SEG Student Members who have not previously participated in an SEG Foundation SFT, and who are enrolled at
an accredited university, are eligible to apply.

Further information will posted at www.segweb.org/sft as it becomes available.

— CALL FOR MENTORS —

Student Field Trip No. 19 seeks up to four experienced professional geologists to participate as mentors. Mentors
are expected to share their academic and professional curricula and their industry experiences and perspectives
with students and discuss career tracks and opportunities in the field of economic geology. Mentors pay a
donation of US$1,750 to support the SFT program, which covers eight days of field accommodations and
in-country travel during the trip, breakfasts and lunches, and the closing dinner. Travel to and from the field trip
is the responsibility of the mentor. We thank you for your support of the SEGF SFT Program.

Interested professional mentors should email a current resume and a letter of introduction to Borden R. Putnam,
Chair, SEGF Student Field Trip Program: bputnam@mionecapital.com

General inquiries should be directed to Vicky Sternicki, Student Programs: students@segweb.org

Application Deadline: April 15, 2020

Resource Geosciences Inc.

Resource Geosciences de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
Turnkey Exploration Services Throughout the Americas
Project Management; Technical, Logistical and Administrative Services PAUL W. KUHN
NI 43-101 Technical Reports (for long term clients) President
Mexico Mine Development and Permitting Consulting
paulk@avrupaminerals.com
Dr. Matthew D. Gray, C.P.G. #10688 – President www.avrupaminerals.com

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Rio Rico, Arizona Direct: +351-253274070 Portugal mobile: +351-925972240
resourcegeosciences.com email: mail@resourcegeosciences.com Fax: +351-253615041 U.S. mobile: +1-509-990-6786
PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 55

SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS

Michael J. Fitzgerald Student Mapping Course
Copper Flat Mine, New Mexico
Course Leaders: William X. Chávez, Jr., Ralph A. González, Erich U. Petersen, Adrian Landstedt

The inaugural Michael J. Fitzgerald

Student Mapping Course was offered
November 4 to 9, 2019, at the Copper
Flat porphyry-breccia Cu-Mo-Au mine
(THEMAC Resources), New Mexico.
Sixteen participants, comprising stu-

STUDENT NEWS
dents and young professionals repre-
senting 11 countries, were selected from
41 applicants in a competitive applica-
tion process. Copper Flat mine staff Jeff
Smith and Clay Hein supported this
field course through their energetic and
dedicated efforts to prepare our field
mapping areas and ensure safe mapping
conditions throughout the course.
Participants mapped rock types,
lithologic contacts, and vein structures
at detailed mine map scales (1:240 and
1:480) and conducted a ground magne-
tometer survey along a mine bench in Participants of the Michael J. Fitzgerald Student Mapping Course included (back row, left to
order to locate a buried basaltic andesite right) Luis Paredes, Vicente Garcia, Joy Carter, Charles Hoffman, Vasilli Svistunov, Vanessa Elongo,
dike. Students were grouped into teams Susanna Metso, Constantine Rossberg, Ian Kallio, Nicholas Brodeur, Adrian Landstedt, (bottom
for each exercise, allowing students and row, left to right) Renate Smoke, Ricardo Molano, Bill Chávez, Koray Tasbicen, Gemma Lawson,
and Jordan Pearson. Not pictured: Brandi Lawler.
young professionals having different
backgrounds to collaborate and share geology. We also very much thank Vicky Student Mapping Course will be offered
field mapping techniques. Map areas Sternicki of the SEG office in Littleton in autumn of 2020; information con-
offered variable exposures of mine wall- for her tireless efforts as she ensured the cerning this next offering will be sent
rock and host-rock units, so participants organizational success of this course—we to SEG Student Chapter advisors and
were challenged to classify rock units, appreciate your dedication and enthu- presidents and will be advertised in
assess ore-mineral veinlet structural set- siasm for helping to make these SEG the SEG Newsletter; please consult these
tings, and determine lithologic contacts. courses fruitful! sources for updates on the upcoming
To complement our field mapping, dis- The next Michael J. Fitzgerald MJF Student Mapping course.
cussion sessions presented students with
the salient characteristics of porphyry
systems, with emphasis on the miner-
alogy and geochemistry of large hydro-
thermal systems, ground magnetometer
surveys, and supergene processes.
This course was supported by the
estate of Michael and Marisa Fitzger-
ald—Michael, a University of Minnesota
graduate, was a long-time supporter of
students and field geology programs,
and the Fitzgerald estate continues to
enhance student and young professional
potential through generous support of
this SEG field course. Course leaders
thank sincerely Jeff and Clay for their
enormous support of this field course,
and special thanks goes to Marisa
Fitzgerald for her endorsement of our
instructional efforts and her continued
interest in enriching student experiences
as preparation for careers in economic There is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, according to course participants.
 56 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Akita University Student Chapter (SEG-AUSC)

Students from the Graduate School of
International Resource Sciences, Akita
University, Japan, participated in a
three-day field excursion August 5 to
7, 2019, in the Miyagi, Yamagata, and
Fukushima prefectures of southern
Tohoku, Japan. The main objective of
the field excursion was to explore and
get practical experience on the geol-
ogy and mineral resources of southern
Tohoku.
The first stop was the Hiraizumi
temple, the interior of which is lavishly
STUDENT NEWS

decorated with gold that originated

from orogenic gold deposits in north-
eastern Japan. On the same day we
visited the Hosokura mine park to nav-
igate through the underground mine
(now closed), which used to be one of
the largest epithermal to mesothermal
polymetallic (Pb-Zn-Ag-Cd) vein-type Akita University field trip participants at the top of Adatara volcano, with the Numanotaira (the
deposits in Japan. The next stop was the sulfur river) crater in the background.
Itaya zeolite deposit, which has recently
been used to correct the soil system of and witness active H2S fumarolic hot crater. On the last day we visited Ishi-
the Fukushima nuclear plant, following springs, different rock types (some kawa pegmatite deposits from which
the 2011 nuclear accident. A full day of which were mineralized with fine- feldspar and mica were mined mainly
was allocated for the Adatara volcano, grained pyrite), residual silica (potential for ceramic and clay making.
where we had an opportunity to observe fluid conduit), and the Numanotaira

University of Michigan SEG Student Chapter Field Trip

The University of Michigan (USA) SEG
Student Chapter organized a field trip
to tour the geology in the Marquette,
Michigan, area from November 7 to 9,
2019. On November 8 the group visited
the Eagle Cu-Ni mine, a subsidiary of
Lundin, for an underground mining
tour to see the mineralization styles
and extraction techniques up close. We
Geared up with cutting-edge safety equipment, students explored the underground facilities at
the Eagle mine.
spoke with several Eagle mine geolo-
gists in various roles, including explo-
ration, ore control, and core loggers,
and learned about the progression of
a mine from the exploration stage to
resource assessment, production, and
mine closure. After leaving the mine
site, we met with geologists from a local
environmental consulting firm that
monitors the hydrology of the wetlands
and rivers around the mine site. We
learned about the permitting process
for an underground mine operation
(like Eagle) and how it contrasts with
regulatory protocols for an open-pit
mine. The day ended with an informal
meeting with local geologists, including
our Student Chapter’s industry sponsor,
Robert Mahin, the exploration manager
at Eagle.
The next morning, we embarked on a
geologic tour of the Marquette area and
visited outcrops of 2.7 Ga pillow basalts,
the Black Rocks ultramafic intrusion on
Presque Isle, and the exposure of 1.8 Ga
banded iron formation of Jasper Knob.
The trip was a great opportunity to
make connections between the regional
geology, an economic magmatic sulfide
deposit in operation, and the environ-
mental monitoring that quantifies the
impacts of an underground mine in
a remote yet populated area. We are
planning a future trip to explore the
incredible native copper deposits of the
Keweenaw Peninsula and to visit the Sea-
man Mineral Museum at Michigan Tech.
Jackie Wrage (SEG SM),
Chapter President
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 57
China University of Geosciences SEG Student Chapter
Field Trip: Miaoya Syenite and
Carbonatite Intrusion-Related
Nb-REE Deposit
Members of the China University of
Geosciences (CUG) SEG Student Chap-
ter recently visited the Miaoya carbon-
atite-related Nb-rare earth element (REE)
deposit and discussed the rare metal
enrichment mechanism in carbonatite
and the future of REEs worldwide.
The the Miaoya complex is known
as the largest intrusion and hosts the
largest Nb-REE deposit in the South
Qinling belt, Central China. In the past
three decades, demand for REEs has
increased dramatically because of their
wide use in high-technology applica-
tions. Carbonatite and alkaline intrusive
complexes, as well as their weathering
products, have been the primary source
of niobium and REEs. Therefore, the
CUG SEG Student Chapter chose the
Miaoya deposit as a good district to help
members to understand the rare metals
Université du Québec à Montréal Student Chapter
Ireland Field Trip
The Université du Québec à Montréal
Student Chapter conducted a field trip
in Ireland April 29 to May 8, 2019. Eight
students from the chapter and two pro-
fessionals participated. The purpose of
this trip was to study different mineral-
ization styles in Ireland and to compare
them with the rocks of similar age on
the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
We started our field trip in Dublin.
We were welcomed by Ellen Mullarkey,
president of the Trinity College Student
Chapter, and Professor Sean McClen-
aghan. Mr. McClenaghan gave a small
presentation on the geologic and mining
Participants of the Ireland field trip at the underground crusher in the Kilroot mine.
CUG Student Chapter field trip participants at the Huanyuan Tunnel.
enrichment mechanism in carbonatite.
This field trip helped undergraduate
and junior graduate students form a pre-
liminary knowledge of REE deposits and
inspired them to learn more. As for the
postgraduates, it made them further un-
history of Ireland. The next day, we had
the chance to visit one of the biggest
lead-zinc and silver mines in Europe,
the Tara mine, owned by Boliden AB.
The chief exploration geologist, Robert
Blakeman, gave us a tour of the mill,
the tailing, and the core shack. This visit
provided the participants a nice over-
view of Irish-type MVT deposits.
In Northern Ireland, we visited
the Dalradian Gold Mont Curraginalt
project, an undeformed orogenic gold
deposit, and were received by the chief
geologist, Orla Mckenna. The next day,
we visited the Kilroot salt mine near
Belfast conducted by the chief geologist,
STUDENT NEWS
derstand the contribution of magmatic
and hydrothermal processes to the REE
metals enrichment.
Jian-Hui Su and Huan Tao (SEG SM)
Jason Hopps. In the afternoon, we visit-
ed the UNESCO Geological Park of the
Giant Causeway. Our trip in Northern
Ireland finished with a geological tour
of the Sperring Mountains, provided by
Mark Cooper, chief geologist of the Geo-
logical Survey of Northern Ireland.
On the way to Galway, we stopped at
the Marble Arch Caves, a karstic system
of caves. We also visited a closed coal
mine in the small town of Arigna. In
the Galway area, we visited the Galway
granite and host rocks, and then we
went to the Cliff of Moher Park, where
we observed the stratigraphy on 200-m
cliffs.
On the final day of our trip, we visited
the Copper Coast UNESCO Global
Geopark. Robbie Galvin, the geologist
overseeing the park, gave us informa-
tion about the mining history of this
important district.
The participants of this trip are
very grateful to everyone in Ireland
who made this trip possible. We also
acknowledge the two professionals
who traveled with us, Yan Ducharme
(SOQUEM) and Francis Guay (Eastmain
Resources), as well as the support of
the PDAC foundation, the Association
Québécoise des Sciences de la Terre
(AQUEST), and the Stewart Wallace
Fund Committee.
Jonathan Marleau (SEG SM)
 58 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
EXPLORATION REVIEWS
Notice: Views expressed in the Exploration Reviews do not necessarily reflect those of the Society of Economic
Geologists, Inc., and columnists are solely responsible for ascertaining that information in this section is correct.
To read additional Exploration Reviews for individual countries, please log in at www.segweb.org/discovery.
ALASKA
Regional Correspondent:
Curtis J. Freeman (SEG M)
Avalon Development Corp.
P.O. Box 80268
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Phone: 907-457-5159, Fax: 907-455-8069
E-mail: avalon@avalonalaska.com
Website: www.avalonalaska.com
An abnormally long fall allowed the
Alaska mining industry to extend
seasonal work well into late November,
allowing more field work, particularly
exploration work, to be completed
around the state. Based on information
that I have compiled to date, 2019 explo-
ration expenditures are expected to be
EXPLORATION REVIEWS
in the $150 million range, comfortably
ahead of the $140 million exploration
spending tracked for 2018. That is good
news for Alaskan miners and explorers,
but it comes in the face of headwinds on
the worldwide stage. S&P Global Market
Intelligence reports that newly released
2019 global exploration budget data
reveal that the industry recovery, which
began in late 2016, faltered in 2019. The
report indicates that global nonferrous
exploration budgets were down by 3%
year over year to $9.8 billion in 2019,
versus $10.1 billion in 2018. Merger
and acquisition activities significantly
decreased global exploration spending in
2019, as exploration budgets by the com-
bined entities were much lower than the
collective allocated premerger amounts
by the individual mining companies.
And although the decline in major
company exploration spending has been
contributory to low discovery rates,
the near absence of funding for junior
explorers also has had a negative effect
on exploration success. Oddly enough,
a recent industry-wide risk assessment
published by EY Global Mining and Met-
als indicates that replacing resources and
reserves is way down the list of perceived
risks in our industry. EY recently pub-
lished its annual “risk radar” for mining
and metals, outlining what mining com-
panies perceive as the top 10 risks facing
them in the near future. For 2020 this
assessment indicated that, for the second
straight year, “Social License to Operate”
remains the number one risk facing
mining companies. This was followed by
“Future of the Workforce,” “Digital and
data Optimization,” “Reducing Carbon
Footprint,” and “High Impact Risks”
rounding out the top five. As in recent
years, the risks perceived are trending
away from traditional concerns, such
as cost of operations (no. 10 this year),
political instability (not in top 10 this
year), and growing reserves (no. 8 this
year). Eventually, concerns over things
like operating costs (code for making a
profit) and growing reserves are going to
reenter the arena, but without sustained,
intelligent exploration, where will we get
the metals to supply the ever-growing
world demand? That is not a rhetorical
question.
With that, I have written my last
Alaska update for the SEG. My first was
written in late November 1996, almost
exactly 23 years ago. With my planned
retirement in early 2020, it is time to
move over and bring in some new blood.
Thank you all for the comments, both
kind and unkind, over the years. I very
much enjoyed the opportunity to gas-on
and am looking forward to reading about
Alaska in the SEG Newsletter in the future!
After contributing regularly to the
SEG Newsletter since 1997, Curtis
J. Freeman has decided to pass the
torch. This will be his final column.
Thank you to Curt for more than two
decades of excellent Exploration
Reviews covering Alaska.
AUSTRALASIA
Regional Correspondent:
Russell Meares (SEG 1996 F)
Malachite Resources Limited
Sydney, Australia
E-mail: rmeares@malachite.com.au
Website: www.malachite.com.au
With contributions from:
Roger Thomson (SEG F) – Western Australia
Tony Truelove (SEG M) – Queensland
Andrew McNeill (SEG M) – Tasmania
Tony Christie (SEG M) – New Zealand
Rob Duncan (SEG M) – Victoria
NT Geological Survey – Northern Territory
Brigitte Crowe – New South Wales
Although the New Zealand rugby
union team (the All Blacks) consis-
tently beats our Australian team (the
Wallabies), the time has come to
showcase all the good things happen-
ing on the other side of the Tasman
Sea. New Zealand has always kept
a low profile on the Down Under
exploration scene, so it is pleasing to
report that their only major gold miner
(ASX-listed OceanaGold) continues
to have exploration success to support
their Waihi and Macreas gold mining
operations. These have respectively
produced over 8 and 5 Moz of gold
since mining commenced. Recent drill
intersections include 25.4 m at 38.7
g/t Au in the East Graben vein at the
WKP prospect (located 20 km north
of Waihi), and 29.0 m at 6.38 g/t Au
at the Golden Point prospect adjoin-
ing the Macreas mining complex. In
recognition of the growing importance
of their mining industry, in November
the New Zealand government released
a 10-year strategic plan, which is
designed to underpin the growth of the
country’s minerals and energy sectors
in line with community expectations.
Areas for action include modernizing
the Crown Minerals Act, ensuring that
there are sufficient resources to meet
local demand, and improving relations
with all stakeholders including improv-
ing treaty partnerships with Maoris.
Recent exploration news from
Australia has been dominated by
the discovery and drill-out of several
potentially tier 1 large gold-copper
systems. In the Paterson orogen of
northern Western Australia, Rio Tinto
has continued expanding the resource
at their Winu discovery where wide
drill intersections of vein-style copper
mineralization below relatively shallow
Permian cover include 184 m at 0.5%
Cu and 0.4 g/t Au from 74 m. In the
same district, the Greatland/Newcrest
joint venture has reported further deep
intercepts at Havieron, including 245
m at 2.0 g/t Au and 0.4% Cu from 450
m. The mineralization occurs below
about 400 m of Permian sedimentary
cover and is coincident with a circular
500-m-diameter magnetic anomaly.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 59

BHP announced the results of another
round of drilling at their Oak Dam
IOCG-style Cu/Au discovery, located in
the Gawler craton 65k m southeast of
their Olympic Dam mining operation in
South Australia. Intersections include a
standout 205 m at 2.04% Cu and 0.43
g/t Au from 1,247 m.
In New South Wales, the search for
Cadia-style porphyry Cu/Au deposits
in the Macquarie arc has continued for
many years, based on Newcrest’s flagship
Cadia operation. which produced 913
Koz of gold at an all-in cost of A$222/oz
in FY19. In the hunt for the next Cadia,
Alkane Resources has been one of the
most active New South Wales mid-tier
explorers and miners and has been
rewarded by the discovery of a large Cu/
Au deposit at their Boda project north of
Molong. The first deep drill hole inter-
sected 502 m at 0.48 g/t Au and 0.20%
Cu from 211 m, which is a similar grade
to the head grade of the Cadia operation.
See the online version for more
reports from Down Under, including
(NSW). In addition, there is a report
about an innovative geochemical sam-
pling program exploring for Jabiluka/
Ranger-style uranium deposits in the
Alligator Rivers region of the Northern
Territory, in which 900 termite mounds
have been sampled, delineating discrete
uranium anomalies.
CHINA
Regional Correspondent:
Scott Song (SEG F)
Imperium Mining
Suite 501-502, ICBC Tower
3 Garden Road, Hong Kong
E-mail: scottxsong@gmail.com
According to the China Mineral
Resource Report 2019 released by the
Ministry of Natural Resource, there
were a total 16,643 of exploration
licenses with a total area of 3,344,700
km2, decreased by about 24.9 and 8.9%,
respectively, from 2017. There were a
total of 49,063 mining licenses with a
total area of 258,100 km2; the number
gradually decreasing, and more and
more mining licenses were consolidated
to large mining operations.
There are total 2,740 natural reserves
and total area of 1,470,300 km2 in
March 31, 2018. There were 3,343 min-
eral licenses within 427 national natural
reserves. Under current strict environ-
mental policies, exploration and mining
activities will inevitably be stopped.
China Geological Survey reported
some gold discoveries in south China.
Six gold mineralized occurrences have
been discovered through the applica-
tion of geology, Au-As-Hg-Sb geochem-
ical survey, and remote sensing in the
Napo district, Guangxi Zhuang Auton-
omous region in southwestern China,
where Carlin-style gold mineralization
dominates. Within this region, gold
mineralization occurs at various uncon-
formities such as Devonian/Cambrian
and Triassic/Devonian, with hard and
permeable carbonates developed below
the contact, and soft less permeable
muddy clastics above. Gold deposits are

exciting exploration news from Canter-
bury Resources’ Briggs Cu/Au discov-
ery in Queensland, and Aurelia’s Kairos
and Federation projects near Cobar
of total mining licenses decreased by
14.56%, but the total mining license
area increased by 0.76%. That indicates
that the small mining operations are
EXPLORATION REVIEWS
distributed with subsidiary faults along
the regional-scale deep faults. Gold
mineralization is hosted within muddy
siltstones and basic igneous rocks.

Introducing GSW’s Lithosphere!

GOLD OPEN ACCESS • EXPANDED SCOPE • COMMUNITY-DRIVEN

As of January 2020, Lithosphere, a valued and established open access journal originally published by
The Geological Society of America, is being published by GeoScienceWorld in alliance with a number of
prestigious nonprofit societies. The open access journal will have an expanded scope covering research in all
areas of earth, planetary, and environmental sciences providing a unique publishing choice for authors in the
geoscience community.

Participating Partners
• American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
• Geological Society of America (GSA)
• Geological Society of London (GSL)
• Mineralogical Society of America (MSA)
• SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology
• Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG)
• Society of Economic Geologists (SEG)

To learn more about the exciting changes toLithosphere and how to submit your
research, visit us at oa.geoscienceworld.org.
 60 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
Exploration Reviews (continued)
Gold’s occurrence and its vicinity are
frequently associated with basic intru-
sions or dikes or basic eruptive rocks
such as basalts and lava.
Another discovery was made close
to brownfields in the Leye-Fengshan-
Lingyun region where many Carlin-
style gold deposits are being mined. The
newly found 15 drilling targets are 5 km
away from an over 1 Moz gold deposit—
the Jinya gold mine. In one of the key
targets, the Linlaoping prospect, an
altered zone extending over 5 km north-
south with a width of 10 to 88 m was
defined, within which 14 gold miner-
alized bodies have been discovered by
trenching, 3.5 to 16 m wide and 50 to
100 m long with a gold grade of about
0.6 g/t. In another target, the Xiangla
prospect, an altered zone of over 300 m
long and 20 to 150 m wide is defined,
within which 14 gold mineralized
bodies are intercepted with a length of
50 to 300 m, a width of 1 to 7.2 m, and
a grade of about 0.55 g/t. Gold miner-
EXPLORATION REVIEWS
alization is hosted within the clastics
above the same unconformities as those
in Napo region.
Another orogenic gold mineraliza-
tion discovery was made in Taochun,
Taojiang County, Hunan Province by
the China Geological Survey through
1:50,000 geology and mineralization
survey and field check of some Au-Sb-As-
Hg-Ag-Sn stream sediment geochemical
anomalies. Four gold mineralized bodies,
which are all constrained by faults, have
been discovered, with surface exposed
length from 1,700 to 3,000 m, width
from 0.4 to 6.65 m, and grade of 0.7 g/t
to 33 g/t, composed of quartz vein, tec-
tonic breccia, and cataclastic slate. Silici-
fication, pyritization, and sericitization
are widely developed. A very preliminary
initial resource estimation was made,
with an uncategorized gold resource of
108,000 oz. More drilling is underway.
NORTHERN
EURASIA
Regional Correspondent:
Alexander Yakubchuk (SEG F)
Orsu Metals Corp, London, UK
E-mail: ayakubchuk@orsumetals.com
Detailed information can be found at
http://gold.prime-tass.ru
Polyus Gold completed exploration
program that started in 2017 at the
Sukhoi Log in Russia. The company
drilled 203,647 m. Polyus is planning to
announce new resources in H1 2020. In
2020, Polyus is planning to add 30,000
m of infill drilling.
Russian Copper Company (RMC)
is planning to increase the processing
rate at its recently acquired Malmyzh
copper-gold project in Khabarovsk
(Russia) from 35 to 56 million tonnes
per annum. This became possible after
discovery of additional mineralization.
This will become Russia’s largest cop-
per-gold operation. The start of produc-
tion is scheduled for 2022. CAPEX is
estimated at $1.8 billion.
Also in Russia, New Mining Com-
pany (NMC) announced its plans to
produce 8 to 10 t gold by 2025. This is
expected to be achieved at the Petukh
gold deposit in Magadan (4 t), the
Morozkinskoe deposit in Yakutia (2–3
t), and the Vilyui area in Sverdlovsk
(2–3 t). All works are financed by the
shareholders involved in the oil-gas
business. During the last three years
NMC spent $31 million on acquiring
gold projects at the public auctions.
CONTIGUOUS
UNITED STATES
Regional Correspondent:
Roger C. Steininger (SEG M)
Consulting Geologist
3401 San Mateo Ave
Reno, NV 89509
Phone: (775) 742-6333
E-mail: audoctor@aol.com
I looked outside the other night and
saw all the stars in a straight line, which
probably explains the current state of the
junior exploration industry. The price
of gold is up, financings are happening,
drill companies are busy, someone has
even predicting $8,000 gold, and the
mood was very positive at the several
meetings that I recently attended. It
must be time to drink all your good wine
before the barbarians show up.
Another date for your calendar, the
next Geological Society of Nevada Sym-
posium “Vision for Discovery” is sched-
uled for May 14 to 25, 2020. Details are
on the GSN website.
The Cortez trend, in central Nevada,
is the gift that keeps on giving, to Bar-
rick at least. A new “discovery” hole
has been announced about 1 km north
of the Fourmile deposit. This hole,
along with the Fourmile and Goldrush
deposits, represent about a 10-km
strike length of gold mineralization.
Published cross sections indicate that
the majority of the mineralization is in
the middle units of the Devonian Wen-
ban Formation, with some mineraliza-
tion in the upper Wenban and overlying
Devonian Horse Canyon Formation.
Fourmile and the new discovery area
are not included in the Nevada Gold
Mines joint venture but can be added
later.
The Madison mine, a past iron ore
producer, near Frederiktown, Missouri, is
in the planning stage of being reopened
as a cobalt mine, notwithstanding that it
is part of a superfund site.
The joint venture between Blue
Moon Zinc and Platina Resources has
started a 10,000-m core program at
the Blue Moon zinc, copper, gold, and
silver VMS deposit in the California
Foothills copper belt, which is west to
the Motherlode gold belt. The deposit
was discovered by Hecla Mining during
World War II.
General Moly seems to have got-
ten the needed permits to commence
development of the Mount Hope
molybdenum deposit, subject to better
molybdenum prices and financing. No
problem!
Gold Standard Ventures has released
a prefeasibility study for the Pinion/
Dark Star deposits and reports a reserve
of 1.2 Moz of gold and 2.7 Moz of silver.
Not included are the nearby Dixie and
Jasperoid Wash deposits and the new
discovery at the LT target.
Several other projects are moving for-
ward. For example, Highland Copper
has just released a PEA for White Pine
North, in Michigan, and is pursuing
mining permits. Equinox Gold has
started production at Castle Moun-
tain in southern California. Prophecy
Development has applied for permits
to develop the Gibelline vanadium
deposit east of Eureka, Nevada.
At the recent Nevada Mineral Explo-
ration Coalition Summit meeting, Rick
Rule made some interesting remarks
about opportunities in Nevada. To sum-
marize, he is convinced that in addition
to the tremendous endowment of gold,
there are likely to be more significant
discoveries in the future. With the
in-place infrastructure, exploration is
relatively cheap. There are abundant
well-trained and available professionals,
and with the recent layoffs there is a
lot of knowledge that has been turned
loose. It is also one of the truly safe
jurisdictions on the planet. 1
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 61

SEG EVENTS | segweb.org/events

SEG at PDAC 2020

Gold: Geology, Geochemistry, Genesis and Exploration

Friday, February 28–Saturday, February 29, 2020 | 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto, Canada
Organizer: Society of Economic Geologists (SEG)

DESCRIPTION
This two-day workshop will focus on the present-day understanding of
the most widespread mineral deposit types that host much of the global
gold resource. Leading experts will provide descriptions of some of the
most important examples of each deposit type, with detailed material on
tectonic and structural controls, geological characteristics, geochemical
and geophysical signatures, geochronological relationships, and
exploration strategies. Presented material will include characterization
of orogenic gold deposits, low and high sulfidation epithermal gold
deposits, gold-rich porphyry deposits, Carlin-type, and intrusion-
related gold systems. The most up-to-date evidence for ore-formation
processes and the development of genetic models for these various
deposit types will be described. The course is aimed at geoscientists
from both industry and academia, as well as students of economic
geology, who desire a comprehensive understanding of modern
concepts on the geology of gold deposits.
PRESENTERS
LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION Richard J. Goldfarb, China University of
Geosciences & Golden Predator Mining Corp.
ADVANCED Previously with the USGS for 35 years, Rich
specializes in the geology and geochemistry of
COURSE FEE orogenic gold and is a global consultant in the

EDUCATION & TRAINING

exploration for gold resources in metamorphic
Includes course material, continental breakfast, and lunch. environments.

REGISTER online at www.segweb.org/events Stuart F. Simmons, Hot Solutions Ltd.

Stuart has >30 years’ experience, much of
ATTENTION SEG MEMBERS it at the Geothermal Institute, University of
Please complete the SEG Member Registration Form to receive Auckland. As a consultant, he serves clients in
the exploration for and development of Au-Ag
the member rate for this course. No discounts are offered on
and geothermal resources.
PDAC 2020 registration.

Early Registration Late Registration

(through February 7, 2020) (through February 21, 2020)

PDAC or SEG Member: CAD899.99 PDAC or SEG Member: CAD1,099.99

Non-member: CAD999.99 Non-member: CAD1,199.99
Student Member: CAD399.99 Student Member: CAD399.99

Please note that SEG/PDAC reserves the right to cancel this event should minimum attendance numbers not be met by February 2, 2020.
 62 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

SEG EVENTS | segweb.org/events

SEG Practical Exploration

Methods Workshop
SEG Headquarters Building
Littleton, Colorado, USA
April 29–May 1, 2020

DESCRIPTION
PRESENTERS
This workshop and field trip has been designed for early-mid career
exploration geologists, advanced under- and postgraduate students,
Benedikt Steiner (Camborne
and exploration managers coordinating multidisciplinary exploration School of Mines, UK and
teams. Two days of classroom lectures are followed by a field day at XPLORE GLOBAL Ltd.)
a mine. The curriculum is based on core exploration methodologies After working in petroleum exploration
and techniques that represent essential career progression skills in in the eastern former Soviet Union,
the mining industry. Practical computer-based case studies with a Benedikt moved on to work in Rio
focus on “best work practices” and real-world datasets will allow par- Tinto Exploration’s uranium & copper exploration
projects in southern Africa. More recently, he carried
ticipants to become familiar with these techniques. Both instructors out projects in France, Rwanda, Sierra Leone,
have extensive worldwide industry and teaching experience. and Myanmar. His work focuses on integrating
geochemical with other geoscientific techniques to aid
Key Program Content exploration targeting.
• Introduction to mineral exploration techniques and programmes
• Geochemical exploration techniques: fundamentals of geochemical
William X. Chávez, Jr.
exploration, survey planning, QA/QC, interpretation and target generation (New Mexico School of Mines)
• Structural control on ore deposits using airborne magnetics: Bill has been a professor of Geological
examples from greenstone belts Engineering and Economic Geology at
• Drilling techniques and the New Mexico School of Mines since
exploration logistics 1985. His research emphasizes the
EDUCATION & TRAINING

alteration-mineralization characteristics of porphyry

• A mine visit: emphasis on and epithermal systems, and the weathering-related
practical applications of mobility of metals in the supergene environment.
geochemistry to exploration Bill has been an instructor for many SEG courses. He
and property evaluation. Core is a recipient of the Thayer Lindsley lecturer, Marsden
logging and activity diagrams. Medal, and International Exchange Lecturer awards
from the SEG.

REGISTRATION Online at www.segweb.org/events

Early Registration Late Registration Fees include:

(through March 15, 2020) (after March 15, 2020)
Hotel (double occupancy) for
Member: US$995 3 nights (arriving 28 April and
Member: US$1,095
Non-member: US$1,195 departing 1 May), breakfast, light
Non-member: US$1,295
evening meal at the hotel and
Student: US$495 Student: US$545 snacks, coffee/tea, lunch for 3 days.
Student Non-member: US$595 Student Non-member: US$645

Please
Pleasenote
notethat
thatSEG
SEGreserves
reservesthe
theright
righttotocancel
cancelthis
thisevent
eventshould
shouldminimum
minimumattendance
attendancenumbers
numbersnotnotbe
bemet
metby
byJanuary 15,2020.
March 15, 2020.
For further information on cancellation policy, event photography, and dietary restrictions, visit www.segweb.org/tc.
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 63

SEG MEMBERSHIP NEWS

CANDIDATES FOR 1 FELLOWSHIP
To All SEG Fellows:
Pursuant to the Society’s Bylaws, names of the following candidates, who have been recommended for Fellowship by the Admissions
Committee, are submitted for your consideration. Each applicant’s name and current position are followed by the names of his or
her SEG sponsors. If you have any comments, favorable or unfavorable, on any candidate, you should send them in writing prior to
March 2, 2019. If no objections are received by that date, these candidates will be presented to Council for approval.

Address Comments To
Chair, SEG Fellowship Admissions Committee
SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS • 7811 Shaffer Parkway • Littleton, CO 80127-3732 • USA

Barry, John P. Irus Consulting Limited, Maynooth, Ireland: Rich-
ard H. Sillitoe, John A. Clifford;
Bertoni, Carlos H. Appian Capital Advisors, Brasilia, Brazil: Cesar
Fonseca Ferreira Filho, Frederick T. Graybeal;
Danne, Torsten Consulting Geologist, Lima, Peru: William X.
Chavez, Jr., George Steele;
Haroldson, Erik L. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Ten-
nessee: Philip Brown, Quentin J. Browne;
Larson, Kyle E. Independent, Boise, Idaho: Craig J. Mach,
Paul J. Dobak;
Maydagan, Laura CONICET–Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia
Blanca, Argentina: Raymond Jannas, Kevin B. Heather;
Melo, Rodrigo P. Universidade Federal de Goiâs, Goiânia, Brazil:
Richard J. Goldfarb, Erin Marsh;
Ortuzar, Javier Anglo American, Quito, Ecuador: David Braxton,
John Vann;
Seat, Zoran Cassini Resources Limited, West Perth, Australia:
Benjamin A. Grguric, Jon Hronsky;
Van Geffen, Pim Vancouver Geochemistry, Vancouver, Canada:
Elizabeth Sharman, Anne J.B. Thompson;
Wafforn, Stephanie Pretium Resources, Vancouver, Canada:
Michael Steinmann, J. Richard Kyle.

To apply for Fellowship, visit www.segweb.org/pdf/applications/Fellowship-Application.pdf.

The Society Welcomes
The Following
NEW 1 FELLOWS:
Chelle-Michou, Cyril, Zurich, Switzerland;
Gregory, Daniel D., Toronto, Canada; Sen-
nitt, Christopher M., Bellbowrie, Austra-
lia; Torró, Lisard, Lima, Peru; Villanueva
Ospina, Luis C., Gramalote, Colombia.
The Society Welcomes
The Following
NEW 1 MEMBERS:
Richard A. Addo, Consolidated Tin
Mines, Cairns, Australia; Ramón Aguirre,
Antofagasta Minerals S.A., Santiago, Chile;
John Arthur, Auxiliore, Dinas Powys,
United Kingdom; Monica Barrero Bouza,
Oviedo, Spain; Matias Barrios, Pan Pacific
Copper Exploration Chile, Santiago,
Chile; Julian Bartlett, Bendigo, Australia;
Daniel Brake, Boliden, Benoit’s Cove,
Canada; Alexandra Brown, Vancou-
Barrick Gold Corporation, Buenos Aires,
Argentina; Alvaro J. Contreras, Serviland
Minergy, Santiago, Chile; Rodrigo Cortez,
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
Recife, Brazil; Kirsty E. Culver, Duketon
Mining Ltd, West Perth, Australia; Zhen
Fang, Salta Capital, Argentina; Lebing Fu,
China University of Geosciences (Wuhan),
Wuhan, China; Xue Gao, Beijing, China;
Jacob C. Garland, York, United Kingdom;
Johan Gouws, Kimberley, South Africa;
Garth Graves, Consultant Geologist,
Bathurst, Canada; James S.D. Griffiths,
Cowbridge, United Kingdom; Jan Gröp-
per, Santiago, Chile; Lisa Hart-Madi-
gan, Natural History Museum, South
Kensington, United Kingdom; Jose M.
Jaramillo, GMAS LAB, Bogota, Colombia;
Shao-Yong Jiang, China University of
Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan, China;
Steven M. Johnson, Milena Resources
LLC, Galena, Illinois; R. Michael Jones,
Platinum Group Metals Ltd PLG-NYSE.A,
Vancouver, Canada; Nicolay Kerkelov,
McEwen Mining, Winnipeg, Canada;
Robert G. Lee, MDRU-UBC, Vancouver,
Argentina; Jan Paluch, Jr., Jagiellonian
University, Nowy Targ, Poland; Andres
Pavez, GEO-3, Lampa, Chile; Michael
Pelch, Texas Christian University, Fort
Worth, Texas; Matthew Penney, Lundin
Mining Corp., Toronto, Canada; Steven
G. Rennick, Independence Group NL,
Doubleview, Australia; Roger Rey, MCC
Mining Corporation, Villarrica, Chile;
Rafael Rodríguez, Jr., Aura Minerals
Inc., Concepción del Oro, Mexico; Ioan
Sanislav, James Cook University, Douglas,
Australia; Gabriel Santana, Aura Minerals,
Saltillo, Mexico; Karim Sawadogo, Acacia
Exploration Burkina Faso (Barrick group),
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Gilberto
Schubert, MTV-Sprott Resources, Santi-
ago, Chile; John G. Scott, Barrick Gold
Corporation, Toronto, Canada; Angelo
Socio, Maylands, Australia; Sam Spinks,
CSIRO Mineral Resources, Kensington,
Australia; Lesley Stokes, Freeport McMo-
Ran, Vancouver, Canada; Marius J. Swart,
Earthlab Technical Division, Bloem-
fontein, South Africa; Akito Takeuchi,
Vancouver, Canada; Michael P. Tamo-
MEMBERSHIP

ver, Canada; Cesar A. Cabrera, Regulus
Resources Peru, Lima, Peru; Miguel Cace-
res, Newcrest Chile SpA, Copiapo, Chile;
Wilber Calapuja, Compania de Minas
Buenaventura S.A.A., Lima, Peru; Manuel
Carvajal Lara, La Serena, Chile; Francisco
Castano, Minera Peregrine Argentina,
Chimbas, Argentina; Andres G. Chifflet,
Canada; Paulo Renato Lima, Aurora
Mining SA, Campinas, Brazil; David
Luzcando, Newcrest Ecuador S.A., Quito,
Ecuador; Alexandra Macho, Rio Tinto
Regional Center, Salt Lake City, Utah;
Miguel Martinez, ALS, San Felipe, Chile;
Carlos E. Miranda, Lima, Peru; Mauricio
Nerach, Mirasol Resources Ltd, Mendoza,
sauskas, Mississauga, Canada; Daniel
Taylor, Newstead, Australia; Matthew S.
Tudor, Dudley, United Kingdom; Marc H.
Udri, Fukuoka-shi, Japan; Emilio Magro
Urbano, UFOP, Ouro Preto, Brazil; Mario
A. Valdez, Sr., MMG Limited, Lujan de
Cuyo, Argentina; John Vance III, TO Pro-
duction, LLC, Norman, Oklahoma; Olga
 64 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
SEG Membership News (continued)
Vasyukova, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada; YinHong Wang, China Univer-
sity of Geosciences, Beijing, China; Shane
R. Whitty, Cerro de Pasco Resources,
Lima, Peru; Stephen Winser, University
of East Anglia (UEA), Bury St. Edmunds,
United Kingdom; Joshua Woosley, Lhoist,
Fort Worth, Texas; Will Wright, Sarasota,
Florida; Yi-Qu Xiong, China University of
Geosciences (Wuhan), Changsha, China;
Ilia Zibrov, Polyus Gold, Moscow, Russia.
The Society Welcomes
The Following
NEW 1 STUDENT MEMBERS:
Adinson Roel Abanto Rodriguez,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima, Peru; Stephanie Abbott,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, Canada; Javier Abreu-Torres,
Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France;
Octavio Acuña Avendaño, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Muhammad
Nur Aflah Ahmad Zul Kamal, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Jheferson
Alcocer Sanchez, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru; James
C.M. Alexander, Western University,
Abercorn, Canada; Nicolás Amado,
National University of Colombia,
Medellín, Colombia; Holly Andrews,
Imperial College London, London, United
Kingdom; Lucy Angel, University of
Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Angel
Aranza, Escuela Superior de Ciencias de la
Tierra, Taxco de Alarcón, Mexico; Ana
Flavia Araujo, Sao Paulo State University
Rio Claro, Rio Claro, Brazil; Yingxiong
Bai, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China; Pedro Baldez Lagoeiro Barroso,
University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil;
Ánghelo A. Baldoceda Dionisio, Universi-
dad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru; Lyse Baratte, UniLasalle, Beauvais,
France; Matthew Baron, University of
Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Juan M.
Benavides, National University of
Colombia, Medellin, Colombia; Peter
Berger, CODES, Battery Point, Australia;
Viktor Bertrandsson Erlandsson,
Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben,
Austria; Bader Bilgin, Middle East
Technical University, Çankaya, Turkey;
Michelle Bonifaz, Universidad Central del
MEMBERSHIP
Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador; Helen Booth-
Wynne, University of Leicester, Leicester,
United Kingdom; Eytan Bos Orent,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona;
Ethan R. Brady-Arnold, Trinity College
Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Armin Buijs,
University of Western Ontario, London,
Canada; Daniel Bustos, Universidad
Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador;
Luana C. Calburean, Leicester, United
Kingdom; Kerri Campbell, Western
University, Bluevale, Canada; Oliver
Campbell, Cardiff University, Cardiff,
United Kingdom; Leandro Duarte
Campos, University of Brasília, Brasília,
Brazil; Maximiliano Cano Bedoya,
National University of Colombia - Medel-
lin, Medellin, Colombia; Luke R. Carlton,
Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South
Africa; Justin Casaus, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Noah K.
Casey, South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology, Kailua, Hawaii; Daniel
Alejandro Castaño Madrigal, National
University of Colombia, Medellin,
Colombia; Fabián A. Cedeño, Universidad
Central Del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador; Gino
D. Chalco Constancia, Universidad
Nacional del Altiplano, Puno, Peru;
Danilo Chamorro, National University of
Colombia, Medellín, Colombia; Sabrina
Chan, Carleton University, Orléans,
Canada; Joseph C. Chappell, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, Colorado;
Wenke Chen, University of Science and
Technology Beijing, Beijing, China; Evan
J. Ciardullo, Western University, Missis-
sauga, Canada; Rose Cobbett, Memorial
University, St. John’s, Canada; Murilo Y.
Costa, Universidade Federal de Ouro
Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil; Nathalia Amaral
Coutinho, Federal University of Goiás,
Goiânia, Brazil; Emily Creaser, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Erika
Lucero Cristóbal Castillo, Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru; Adrian Ctvrtnicek, Imperial College
London, London, United Kingdom; Juan
J. Cuasque, Universidad Central Del
Ecuador, Ecuador; Eva Dalaudiere,
UniLaSalle, Crèvecoeur-le-Grand, France;
Harry M. Davies, University of Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand; Priyal Daya, Saint
Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada;
Jordanna Brenda Ferreira de Souza, UFG,
Goiânia, Brazil; Cody N. Delgado,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado; Maria Delisavva, National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens,
Greece; Yusuf Berker Demirci, Ankara,
Turkey; Steven Dionne, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Giovana Diório,
Universidade Federal do Paraná, São José
dos Pinhais, Brazil; Nicolli O. Duarte, Sao
Paulo State University Rio Claro, Rio
Claro, Brazil; Thibaut Ducat, UQAM,
Montréal, Canada; Winifred Duncan,
Trinity College Dublin, Greystones,
Ireland; Aisling Dunn, University of
Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Joshua
Elkington, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado; Saskia M. Elliott,
University of Portsmouth, Broadstone,
United Kingdom; Connor G. Elzinga,
University of Alberta, Sherwood Park,
Canada; Batbayar Enkhbold, University
of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia; Donald
Enos, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado; Luke J. Evans, Memo-
rial University, St. John’s, Canada; Lara
Maciel Feitosa, Federal University of
Goiás, Goiania, Brazil; Noemi Feliciano,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima, Peru; Melike Filiz, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey;
Joe Fletcher, Imperial College London,
London, United Kingdom; Gaston Flores
Latini, UNLP, La Plata, Argentina; Frank
A. Flores Lopez, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru; Léon
Foucault, UniLaSalle Beauvais, Beauvais,
France; Heike Fourie, Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch, South Africa;
Sergio A. Francisco Grados, Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru; Emily Frankish, University of Leeds,
Leeds, United Kingdom; Nicole Freij,
University of Toronto, North York,
Canada; Schaub Gabriel, UniLaSalle,
Beauvais, France; Amanda Galar, Univer-
sidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata,
Argentina; Jean Pierre Galindo Quispe,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima, Peru; Radostina Georgieva,
Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria; Yana
Georgieva, Sofia University, “St. Kliment
Ohridski,” Sofia, Bulgaria; Rafaela
Georgiou, National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Lars
D. Gibbard, UBC, Vancouver, Canada;
Natalia Gómez Amaya, National Univer-
sity of Colombia, Medellín, Colombia;
Yuji Gonoi, Kyushu University, Nishi-ku,
Japan; Charles W. Gruenberg, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado;
Qiushi Guan, Monash University,
Clayton, Australia; Wenhui Guo, Univer-
sity of Science and Technology Beijing,
Beijing, China; Libertad Guzman
Alvarado, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Medellin, Colombia; Sawyer
Hagen, South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota;
Pierre-Jean Hainque, UniLaSalle Beauvais,
Grenoble, France; Juan Camilo Henao,
National University of Colombia Medellin
Campus, Medellin, Colombia; Dean A.
Hiler, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada; Clare Hodgson, University of
Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Max Hohl,
University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay,
Australia; Meabh C.J. Hughes, Trinity
College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Bietrichs
Y. Humpiri Choque, Univerisdad Nacioal
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 65
del Altiplano, Puno, Peru; Sean Ingersoll,
UNR, Fernley, Nevada; Regan E. Jacobson,
Memorial University, St. John’s, Canada;
Cynthia Jaimez, Univerdad Autonoma de
Guerrero, Taxco el Viejo, Mexico; Alexan-
der Jenkins, University of Bristol, Bristol,
United Kingdom; Bruno G.F. Jesus, Sao
Paulo State University Rio Claro, Rio Claro,
Brazil; Alejandra Jimenez Ortega,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Medellin, Colombia; Emily Johns Buss,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, Canada; Caitlin Jones, Stellen-
bosch University, Bela-Bela, South Africa;
Asfour Kassem, Université Paul Sabatier,
Toulouse, France; Menekse Kazanci,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey; Daniel Keogh, Imperial College
London, London, United Kingdom;
Jeonghwan Kim, University of British
Columbia, Coquitlam, Canada; Aidan
Kitchener, Royal Holloway, Worcester,
United Kingdom; Stephanie A. Koby-
linski, University of Western Ontario,
Niagara on the Lake, Canada; Huseyin
Kocaturk, Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey; Anna Koszyczarek,
University of Leeds, Leeds, United
Kingdom; Kristina Kublik, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Madeleine C.
Laidlaw, Imperial College London,
London, United Kingdom; Pierre Laine,
UniLaSalle, Saint-Just, France; Kerstin
Landry, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax,
Canada; Alexandre Le Boulch, UniLasalle,
Le Pecq, France; Louison Lepaux-Cro-
chet, UniLaSalle, Marennes, France; Kyle
Lewis, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona; Jiaqi Li, USTB, Beijing, China;
Yingzhou Li, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada; Ziyuan Li, Institute of Geology
and Geophysics, Beijing, China; Dimitrios
Lianopoulos, National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
Zully M. Llanque Quispe, Universidad
Nacional del Altiplano, Puno, Peru; Jade
Lockie, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Canada; Yince Ma, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China; Yuri Kenneth K.
Mamani Castro, Universidad Nacional del
Altiplano, Puno, Peru; Jiang H. Mamani
Hosni, Universidad Nacional del Alti-
plano, Puno, Peru; Evan Margerum,
University of St. Andrews, St Andrews,
United Kingdom; Damien Marion,
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi,
Saguenay, Canada; Izabel M. Marques,
UFPR, Curitiba, Brazil; Gabriel Veloso
Martineli, Federal University of Goiás,
Goiânia, Brazil; Karina Martinez Alcala,
University of Western Ontario, London,
Canada; Luciana Massari, University of
São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Skylar N.
Massey, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada; Jodie McNamara,
Royal Holloway, Egham, United Kingdom;
Boyang Meng, University of Science and
Technology Beijing, Peking, China; Paul
Mickelsen, University of Alberta, Edmon-
ton, Canada; William P. Midea, Univer-
sity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Juan
Esteban Montoya Moreno, National
University of Colombia, Medellín,
Colombia; Sophie A. Moore, University of
Bristol, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Victor S.
Moreira, Universidade Federal do Ceará
(UFC), Fortaleza, Brazil; Maxine I.M.
Morkel, University of Namibia, Keetman-
shoop, Namibia; Amalyn K. Muchavisoy
Chindoy, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Medellin, Colombia; Julián
Andres Murcia Robles, Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, Medellin, Colom-
bia; Julius N. Naftal, University of
Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia; Rémi
Naulot, UniLaSalle, La Gacilly, France;
Jennifer Neil, University of St. Andrews,
St. Andrews, United Kingdom; Adam
Nissen, Memorial University of New-
foundland, St. John’s, Canada; Eric
Niyokuri, University of Leeds, Leeds,
United Kingdom; Phoebe K. Nkansa,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada;
Rayssa Magdyelli Nogueira da Silva,
Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC),
Fortaleza, Brazil; Israel Salles Nogueira,
Universidade Federal do Ceará, Horizonte,
Brazil; Amanda Caporali Oliveira, Ouro
Preto, Brazil; Sergio A. Olivera, Universi-
dad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru; Juan Esteban Osorio González,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Medellín, Colombia; Blair Walton Packer,
Brigham Young University-Idaho, Smith-
field, Idaho; Carla Palacios Nunez,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima, Peru; Abraham Palma
Manrique, Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos, Lima, Peru; Amy Laura
Michelle Parkinson, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada;
Sarita Patel, Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India; Jessica
Patterson, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada; Giovanni Edson Pedemonte
Castro, Université de Genève, Geneva,
Switzerland; Iliajah Pidskalny, University
of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada;
Nadine C. Pivetta, Sao Paulo State
University Rio Claro, Rio Claro, Brazil;
Luis Pizano, RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen, Germany; Kei Quinn, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
Canada; Bryony A. Reynolds, University
of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom;
Abigail G. Robinson, University of St.
Andrews, St. Andrews, United Kingdom;
Thainara F. Rodrigues, Universidade
Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil; James
Rollason, University of Exeter, Leigh on
Sea, United Kingdom; Ryan C. Rosenfels,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch,
South Africa; Charles Routleff, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, United Kingdom;
Alison S. Rowan, University of Alaska
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska; Emerik
Royer, UniLasalle, Beauvais, France;
Alexander A. Ruley, Miami University,
Oxford, Ohio; Vanessa Sanchez, Univer-
sité du Québec à Montréal, Repentigny,
Canada; Luke J. Schranz, University of
Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada; Luis Alfonso
Segura Ballesteros, National University of
Colombia, Medellin, Colombia; Pengfei
Shan, Institute of Geology and Geophys-
ics, Beijing, China; Sarah R. Shapley,
University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada;
Harry Sheingold-Bane, Cardiff University,
Cardiff, United Kingdom; Oscar Andrés
Siadén Pareja, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru; Mari-
anna da Cruz Silva, Rural Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Niteroi,
Brazil; Sayda L. Silvestre Chura, Universi-
dad Nacional del Altiplano, Puno, Peru;
Tina Skantzou, NKUA, Athens, Greece;
Gerson Soria, Universidad Central del
Ecuador, Quito, Ecuado; Maya Soukup,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, Canada; Jiajing Sun, University of
Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing,
China; Cesar Tapia, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru; Adriana
Taylor, Queen’s University, Kingston,
Canada; Ino-Ethandje Thomas, Univer-
sity of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia;
Aung Myo Thu, AGH University of
Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland;
Dayron D. Torres Sanchez, Universidad
Nacional del Altiplano-Puno, Peru; Gabriel
Vieira, University of São Paulo, São Paulo,
Brazil; Jan Villarin, University of Toronto,
Mississauga, Canada; Daobo Wang, USTB,
Beijing, China; Zhenyu Wang, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China;
Naomi Welt, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, Canada; Jenna Whitney, Lauren-
tian University, Sudbury, Canada; Jinjian
Wu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China; Qiong Wu, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Xicheng District, China; Xin
Zhang, Chinese Academy of Science,
Beijing, China; Xiaoya Zheng, University
of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing,
China; Shuifan Zhong, University of
Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing,
China; Yunlong Zhu, China University of
Geosciences, Wuhan City, China; Bing
Zou, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. 1
MEMBERSHIP
 66 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020
personal notes & news
John Joseph Gurney (1940–2019)
Contributed by Philip Janney, Rory Moore,
and Steve Richardson
John Joseph Gurney (SEG 2004 F) spent
most of his early life in Liverpool, England,
UK, where he was an avid sportsman,
particularly in football. He moved with his
family to Cape Town, South Africa, and
enrolled at the University of Cape Town
(UCT) in 1959. No doubt influenced by
Louis Ahrens (professor of chemistry and
later geochemistry), who was chairman of
the UCT football and cricket clubs, John
obtained his B.Sc. degree in chemistry
and undertook postgraduate study in the
newly formed department of geochemistry,
under the supervision of Prof. Ahrens, and
completed his Ph.D. study in 1968 on the
geochemistry of eclogite xenoliths.
John spent 1970 in Washington, D.C.,
as a postdoctoral fellow at the Smithsonian
Institution under mineralogist George
Switzer. It was during this time that he first
made the crucial link between the com-
position of peridotitic garnet inclusions
in diamonds and that of Cr-rich subcalcic
garnets occurring in harzburgite xenoliths
and as indicator minerals in some kim-
berlites. This was later formalized into the
“G10” garnet brand based on the low CaO
and high Cr2O3 contents of such garnets,
and their association with diamondiferous
kimberlites was more firmly established.
Soon after returning from the United
States, John was hired as a member of
academic staff in the department of
O B I T U A R I E S
geochemistry at UCT. He was co-conve-
nor of the first International Kimberlite
Conference (IKC) in Cape Town in 1973.
This conference was pivotal in creating the
symbiotic relationship between academia
and the diamond industry, a relationship
that continues today. Shortly after the IKC,
John established the Kimberlite Research
Group at UCT, which has had a prolific
record of peer-reviewed publications. John
authored or co-authored over 300 research
papers and articles in journals and books
over his 50-year academic career in virtually
all aspects of mantle petrology and geo-
chemistry, kimberlites, diamond geology,
and exploration. John established himself
as a world authority on mantle petrology
and diamond formation and earned the
highly prestigious designation of A-rated
researcher from the National Research
Foundation of South Africa, retiring from
academia in 2003. Additionally, John was
a highly sought after and prolific supervi-
sor of postgraduate students, supervising
approximately 20 B.Sc. (Honours), 18 mas-
ter’s, and 16 doctoral students to gradua-
tion at UCT and acting as co-supervisor for
several Ph.D. students at other universities.
Over the span of his career, John
established the world-famous UCT Mantle
Room, now the John J. Gurney Upper Man-
tle Research Collection, the world’s most
extensive collection of southern African
mantle xenoliths and kimberlites. John
generously made the collection available
to researchers from around the world. In
the last few years of his life he used his
collection to create a museum-type exhi-
bition, Messengers from the Mantle. The
exhibit was unveiled at the 2016 Interna-
tional Geological Congress and has been
displayed at several international scientific
meetings and other venues to great acclaim.
Along with being an exceptional scien-
tist, John applied his entrepreneurial skills
to be equally successful in business and
industry. In 1995, John and his son James
founded the Mineral Services Group of
companies, providing specialist consulting
and laboratory services to the diamond
industry. John also led several successful
public company diamond exploration and
marine mining ventures, notably Ben-
guela Concessions and Motapa Diamonds
(merged with Lucara Diamond Corp. in
2009). It was the application of John’s min-
eral chemistry approach that was crucial to
the discovery of diamondiferous kimber-
lites in northwestern Canada, yielding a
major economic benefit to the region and
to Canada’s economy.
John received a number of academic and
research honors through his career: he was a
Life Fellow of UCT and a Fellow of the Royal
Society of South Africa and the Geological
Society of South Africa (GSSA). He received
the Draper Medal from, and was an Alex
du Toit Memorial Lecturer for, the GSSA.
He was awarded the Hugo Dummett Award
from the BC/Yukon Chamber of Mines, and
won the Silver Medal from, and was a Dis-
tingushed Lecturer for, the SEG. In addition
to his impressive professional achievements,
John was an accomplished sportsman and
had a great enthusiasm for life. He had a
remarkable talent for storytelling and a
wonderful sense of humor. Finally, John was
an extraordinary role model and mentor,
not only to young scientists, but also to
his children and grandchildren. The world
is a lesser place without him, but he has
left a vast and enduring legacy, including
students and colleagues who will carry his
vision forward. He will be remembered with
fondness by a great many.
Recently Deceased
SEG Members
Deceased in 2019
Severn P. Brown
John J. Gurney
Keith R. Long
Brian A. Lueck
Ian W. Moody
J. Thomas Nash
Ana M. Neiva
Richard L. Nielsen
Harry M. Parker
Zell E. Peterman
Jeremy P. Richards
Otto V. Rundkuist
Steven D. Scott
Brian J. Skinner
Spencer R. Titley
Peter A.Winterburn
 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 67
D E AT H S
Richard L. Nielsen (SEG 1973 SF), 85,
passed away in Golden, Colorado, on
December 5, 2019, shortly after being
diagnosed with terminal cancer. Dick
was a former President of the Society
(1996), President of the SEG Foundation
(2001–2003), and Marsden Award recipi-
ent (2006). A full obituary will appear in
the April issue. A memorial service for
Dick will be held from 1 to 4 p.m. on
Sunday, January 26, 2020, at Boettcher
Mansion, 900 Colorow Rd. Golden,
Colorado.
Harry M. Parker (SEG SF 1984) died
December 19, 2019. Harry earned B.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees in geology from
Stanford University and an A.M. degree
in geology from Harvard University. He
worked for the Hanna Mining Company
from 1965 to 1975 and Fluor Corpora-
tion from 1975 to 1989. In 1989, Harry
co-founded Mineral Resources Devel-
opment Inc. (MRDI), which is now part
of the John Wood Group plc. Over the
course of his career, Harry authored
numerous technical papers and served as
a member of various professional asso-
ciations, including AIG, AusIMM, GSA,
IAMG, IMMM, SEG, and SME.
Otto V. Rundkuist (SEG 2019) died in
a road accident on January 2, 2020. He
had recently joined the SEG. No addi-
tional information is available.
S E G S TA F F D E PA R T U R E S
As 2019 draws to a close, we recognize two long-time
SEG staff members who have moved on. They will be missed!
Vivian Smallwood, with SEG for more than 20 years as our graphic designer,
retired at the end of 2019. Over the past two decades, Vivian oversaw layout
during the period when the publication offices of Economic Geology moved
from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, to Littleton, Colorado, and
she more than met the challenges associated with adapting this venerable
publication to the electronic world of the 21st century. She was with the Society
through four editors (Brian Skinner, Marco Einaudi, Mark Hannington, and
currently, Larry Meinert), seamlessly performing layout duties with unflappable
professionalism and meticulous attention to detail. Vivian was also responsible
for layout of the SEG Newsletter and the various SEG series, including Special
Publications, Reviews in Economic Geology, and the Graduate Student Field
Trips. In recent years, she took on innumerable other tasks, including over-
sight of Newsletter advertising.
Alison Cronk, who for the last four years had been assistant to Executive Direc-
tor Brian Hoal, accepted a position with another organization. Her last day was
Friday, November 8. Alison ably handled the many duties associated with this
administrative role, and many will remember her from SEG conferences in Tur-
key, China, Colorado, and Chile.
Recruit a New Member!
Do you know anyone in the geosciences who
could benefit from SEG? Send them our way:
segweb.org/join
Community Connections
Access to a broad, active network of professionals in the field of economic geology
Education and Training Courses
Workshops, field trips, and webinars to address training needs at a basic through
advanced level
Scholarly Publishing
Economic Geology, SEG Discovery, Special Publications, Compilations, Reviews,
Guidebooks, and more
Scientific Conferences
Annual conferences in varied international locations to explore the current state of the
science, foster continued learning, & encourage networking with peers in the industry
Student & Early Career Opportunities
Support for student education and research, including funding, mentoring, field
experience, and networking opportunities
 68 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

Special Publication 20—Available for Purchase

Geoscience and Exploration of the Argyle, Bunder,

Diavik, and Murowa Diamond Deposits
Editors: Andy T. Davy, Chris B. Smith, Herwart Helmstaedt, A. Lynton Jaques, and John J. Gurney

The 20 papers in this volume form the most comprehensive survey of the Argyle, Bunder, Diavik, and Murowa
deposits to date. Exclusively focused on primary diamond deposits, the volume delves into their discovery,
evaluation, and geology. With a mix of highly respected authors from industry and academia, SEG’s Special
Publication 20 will be of interest to anyone involved in diamond exploration.
Also included in the inside back cover is a wafer flash drive containing
high-resolution PDFs of each chapter, as well as the digital appendices.

List price: US$120; Member price: US$96

Sponsored by

ARGYLE MINE

Visit the SEG Store: www.segweb.org/store

 No 120 • JANUARY 2020 SEG DISCOVERY 69

SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS

7811 Shaffer Parkway · Littleton, CO 80127-3732 USA · Tel: 1.720.981.7882 · Fax: 1.720.981.7874 · E-mail: seg@segweb.org
January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020 (or until December 31st of the year listed)

OFFICERS COMMITTEES
Jean S. Cline, President Executive Fellowship Admissions Society Traveling
Jean S. Cline, Chair Adam Simon, Chair, 2022 Lecturers
Brian G. Hoal, Executive Director
Shaun L.L. Barker Jose Arce Alleva, 2022 Patrick Mercier-Langevin,
Harold J. Noyes, Treasurer Douglas J. Kirwin Ruth A. Carraher, 2021 Chair, VP Regional Affairs
Moira T. Smith, President-Elect Patrick Mercier-Langevin Claire M. Chamberlain, 2020 Deanne Rider, Lecturer
Douglas J. Kirwin, Past President Stephen J. Piercey Kathryn MacWilliam, 2022 Coordinator
Patrick Mercier-Langevin, Vice Moira T. Smith Yuling Xie, 2020
International
President for Regional Affairs Harold J. Noyes, ex officio
Brian G. Hoal, ex officio Investment Exchange Lecturer
(2018–2020) Christopher E. Herald, Chair Sub-Committee
Stephen J. Piercey, Vice President Audit Donald J. Baker Richard M. Tosdal,
for Student Affairs (2017–2020) Donald J. Baker, Chair Donald J. Birak Coordinator, 2020
SEG Foundation Richard J. Hall Richard J. Hall Francisco I. de Azevedo,
William H. Wulftange, President Barton J. Suchomel Barton J. Suchomel 2021
SEG Publications Board Harold J. Noyes, ex officio Jian-Wei Li, 2022
Awards Committee
Shaun L.L. Barker, Chair Brian G. Hoal, ex officio Irene del Real, 2022
TBD, Chair
Society for Geology Applied Cesar E. Aguirre Lindgren Award Thayer Lindsley
to Mineral Deposits Claire M. Chamberlain Anthony C. Harris, Chair, Visiting Lecturer
David Huston, President Vanessa Lickfold 2021 Sub-Committee
Jan Pašava, Executive Secretary Craig J. McEwan Sarah A. Gleeson, 2022 Kathryn Watts,
COUNCILORS Martin M. Reich Keenan Jennings, 2022 Coordinator, 2020
Jamie J. Wilkinson Holly J. Stein, 2022 Gustav S. Nortje, 2020
Claire M. Chamberlain, 2020 Alan J. Wilson Andrew G. Tomkins, 2020 Sahendra Singh, 2020
Jamie J. Wilkinson, 2020 Zhiming Yang Frances Wall, 2021 Fernando Tornos, 2020
Zhiming Yang, 2020 Marina A. Yudovskaya
Nominating Regional Vice
Martin M. Reich, 2021 Budget Committee Douglas J. Kirwin, President Lecturer
Alan J. Wilson, 2021 Harold J. Noyes, Chair Past President & Chair Sub-Committee
Marina A. Yudovskaya, 2021 Donald J. Birak TBD Patrick Mercier-Langevin,
Richard J. Goldfarb Coordinator,
Cesar E. Aguirre, 2022 Program
Brian G. Hoal, ex officio VP Regional Affairs
Vanessa Lickfold, 2022 STEERING
*Regional Vice President
Craig J. McEwan, 2022 Committee On Committees Douglas J. Kirwin, Chair,
Members
PUBLICATIONS BOARD TBD Past President
Patrick Mercier-Langevin, Student Affairs
Shaun L.L. Barker, Chair, 2020 Distinguished Lecturer VP Regional Affairs Stephen J. Piercey, Chair,
Chusi Li, 2021 Murray W. Hitzman, Chair, Stephen J. Piercey, VP Student Affairs
Patrick Mercier-Langevin, 2020 2021 VP Student Affairs Paula Brunetto, 2022
Pilar Lecumberri Sanchez, 2022 Anthony B. Christie, 2022 Moira Smith, President-Elect David A. Holwell, 2021
Elizabeth R. Sharman, 2021 Raymond R. Jannas, 2021 Brian G. Hoal, ex officio Halley A. Keevil, 2021
Ross L. Sherlock, 2021 Gustavo A. Rodriguez, 2021
Paul A. Nex, 2020
Brian Tattitch, 2022 MEETING COORDINATORS
Brian G. Hoal, ex officio Patrick J. Sack, 2022
Alan J. Wilson, 2020 Gerald G. Carlson, SEG 2020,
Lawrence D. Meinert, Whistler, BC, Canada
Economic Geology Editor Education and Training
Moira T. Smith, Richard J. Goldfarb, GSA
REGIONAL
President-Elect, Chair 2020, Montreal, QC,
VICE PRESIDENTS*
Jean S. Cline, President Canada
Holger Paulick – Europe, 2020 Douglas J. Kirwin,
Robert P. Foster, SEG 2021,
Julie V. Rowland – Australasia, 2020 Past President
London, United Kingdom
Michael N. Venter – Africa, 2020 Shaun L.L. Barker,
Valery V. Maslennikov – North Publications Board Chair TBD, SEG 2022, Denver,
Eurasia, 2021 William X. Chávez, Jr., Colorado, USA
Kunfeng Qiu – Asia, 2021 SEG Field Trip Coordinator
Roberto R. Xavier – South America, TBD, Member-at-Large TBD, SEG 2023
2021 Elizabeth Holley,
Douglas B. Coleman – Mexico, Program Coordinator
Central America, Caribbean, 2022 Brian G. Hoal, ex officio
 70 SEG DISCOVERY No 120 • JANUARY 2020

SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS FOUNDATION

7811 Shaffer Parkway · Littleton, CO 80127-3732 USA · Tel: 1.720.981.7882 · Fax: 1.720.981.7874 · E-mail: seg@segweb.org
January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020 (or until December 31st of the year listed)

SEG FOUNDATION
OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES SEG FOUNDATION COMMITTEES
William H. Wulftange, 2021, Executive Student Research Grants
2020 President, Officer & Trustee William H. Wulftange, President, Chair A. James Macdonald, Chair
Carolyn D. Anglin, Past President Stephen J. Turner, Newmont Grants
Constantino Mpodozis, 2022, Constantino Mpodozis, Vice President Michael W. Agnew
2020 Vice President, Officer & Jason D. Odette, Secretary Maria Boni
Trustee Harry J. Noyes, Treasurer, ex officio David P. Braxton
Brian G. Hoal, SEG Executive Director, ex officio David W. Broughton
Carolyn D. Anglin, 2021, Odin D. Christensen
Fund-Raising
2020 Past President, Officer & Jesse M. Clark
Carolyn D. Anglin, 2021
Trustee John E. Dreier
TBD
Rowena C. Duckworth
Jason D. Odette, 2021
Jason D. Odette, 2021, David M. First
Brian G. Hoal, SEG Executive Director, ex officio
2020 Secretary, Officer & Trustee Alan G. Galley
Graduate Student Fellowship David A. Groves
Rex Brommecker, 2020, Sarah A. S. Dare, Chair David A. Holwell
Trustee Marc Bardoux Julie Hunt
Rael D. Lipson, 2020, Stuart R. McCracken Mary L. Little
Trustee Clay Postlethwaite Kathryn R.G. MacWilliam
Michael Steinmann, 2020, William C. McClelland
Trustee McKinstry Fund Craig J. McEwan
Julie V. Rowland, 2022, A. James Macdonald, Chair John M. Morganti
Trustee Philip Brown Reimar Seltmann
Pilar Lecumberri-Sanchez, 2022, Odin D. Christensen Ross L. Sherlock
Trustee William C. McClelland Yuling Xi
TBD Constantino Mpodozis, Vice
Jean S. Cline, SEG President, Nominating President, ex officio, 2020
ex officio William H. Wulftange, Chair, 2021 Audit Committee Representative
Moira T. Smith, SEG President-Elect, TBD 2020 Barton J. Suchomel
ex officio TBD 2022
Harold J. Noyes, Treasurer, ex officio Budget Committee Representative
Jason Weber, SEGCF President, SEG Foundation Student Donald J. Birak
ex officio Field Trip Program
Brian G. Hoal, SEG Executive Borden R. Putnam, III, Chair Investment Committee Representative
Director, ex officio Joanna L. Lipske Donald J. Birak
Rael D. Lipson
K. Brock Riedell
Ryan D. Taylor
John A. Thoms

SEG CANADA FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEES 2020

Jason Weber, President Fund-Raising Committee Nominating Committee

Hugh A. R. Stewart, Treasurer Gerald G. Carlson, Chair Jason Weber, Chair
Britt Bluemel Ross L. Sherlock
Britt Bluemel Garth D. Kirkham Lawrence S. Winter
Garth D. Kirkham Hugh A. R. Stewart
Ross L. Sherlock Nowojka Wachowiak
Lawrence S. Winter Jason Weber
Jean S. Cline, SEG President, ex officio Lawrence S. Winter
(serving March 2020 – March 2021)
Brian G. Hoal, SEG Executive Director &
Secretary, ex officio
PAID ADVERTISEMENT

PAID ADVERTISEMENT
 SEG
Contact SEG
E-mail: seg@segweb.org · Website: www.segweb.org
EXECUTIVE Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Brian G. Hoal ..................... 209 ....... director@segweb.org
ACCOUNTING Tel. Extension E-mail Address
DISCOVERY
Anna Thoms....................... 203 ....... accounting@segweb.org
7811 SHAFFER PARKWAY
FOUNDATION Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Marketing and Fundraising: LITTLETON, CO 80127-3732 • USA
Nikki Morrison ................... 213 ....... nikkimorrison@segweb.org
IT/WEBSITE Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Jeff Doyle .......................... 206 ....... jeffdoyle@segweb.org
MEMBERSHIP Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Sydney Crawford ............... 212 ....... sydneycrawford@segweb.org
PUBLICATIONS Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Publications Editing:
Alice Bouley ....................... 202 ....... editing@segweb.org
Graphic Design & SEG Discovery Advertisements:
Laura Doll .......................... 207 ....... lauradoll@segweb.org
SEG Discovery Production:
Chris Brandt ...................... 221 ....... publications@segweb.org
Assistant Editor:
Myra Holmes ..................... 208 ....... myraholmes@segweb.org
SEG Discovery Announcements:
Deanne Rider..................... 205 ....... deannerider@segweb.org
Publication Sales:
Frances Kotzé ................... 222 ....... franceskotze@segweb.org
STUDENT PROGRAMS Tel. Extension E-mail Address
Vicky Sternicki .................. 204 ....... studentprograms@segweb.org

The publications of SEG are published for and on behalf of the membership to advance science and discovery in the field of economic geology.
The Society reserves the right to unilaterally reject, omit, or cancel advertising which it deems to be not in the best interest of SEG, the objec-
tives set forth above, or which by its tone, content, or appearance is not in keeping with the essentially scientific, scholarly, and professional
nature of its publications. Conditions, printed or otherwise, which conflict with this policy will not be binding on the publisher.
ver y
and Disco
g Science
Advancin

A D V E RT I S ING IN SE G D ISC OVERY

ETTER
N E W S Lw e b . o r g
g
w w w. s e

JANUARY 2015

Discovery Discovery Discovery Discovery

Advancing Science and Advancing Science and Advancing Science and Advancing Science and

SEG SEG
0
10100
NEWSLETTER NEW S LbNeEr T T E R
Num
UMBER

NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER w w w. s e g w e b . o r g w w w. s e g w e b . o r g
www.segweb .org www.segweb .org
00
NUMBER 97 NUMBER 99 NUMBER 101
er 1 100
bNUMBER
APRIL 2014 See SEG
OCTOBER 2014
p. Confe 201 See Call
SEGAPRIL 2015 S JANUARY 2015
See EG Num
ogies Provide orld” Economics of
the Uranium 20
ian Shield: 20
on and
Deep Exploration Technol
32 p. for P 15:
Western Arabian-NubProvince Hydrothermal Alterati
4 for p. 24 15
–4 rence
0“Real-W
Basin, Northern
5 fo The ap detFootprin ts: Copper Deposits
Discovery ion Around Porphyry John H. Dilles, Oregon State
–3
s of the Athabasca
for
the Pathway to Deep
r d ers ing Gold ails 5
Deposit
det
Always King! AetailsRapidly Emerg Geochemical Dispers
Why Grade Is Not
Technologies CRC; ails
of Adelaide, Deep Exploration Commonwealth Scientifi
c SF), Centre for Street, Rossmoyne, WA
6148, Australia,
Saskatchewan: Corvallis, OR 97331,
University Groves (SEG 1973
David Giles (SEG 1981F), CRC; and James Cleverley, Mapping Pty Ltd., 24 Webb Administrative Building,
† †
and Allan Trench and David Scott Halley, Mineral Sciences,104 CEOAS
†

Richard Hillis, Deep

Exploration Technologies CRC Toronto, Ontario, Canada, (CET), UWA, Curtin,
Western Australia Oceanic and Atmospheric North Potomac, MD 20878,
United States
Deep Exploration Technologies Exploration Corporation, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada University, College of Earth,
Organisation (CSIRO), William Kerr, Exploits Exploration Targeting LLC, 21 Quince Mill Court,
†

and Industrial Research Wallis and Associates,

F), Roger M. Tosdal, PicachoEx
†
by higher Cu Roger Wallis (SEG 1984 United States, and Richard
†
2000, largely driven pounds U3O8 Tadesse et al., 2003),
Red Sea
with more than 100 million
0
er 10100
26 years and, by the exploita- been placed into with extremelyINTRODUCTION
Rift
been reduced to just prices, has resulted from actual discoveries have in resources and some and ancient primary a.) Hydrothermal alteration
assemblages
THE CHALLENGE OF
period of
N u mb
2012, despite a sustained grade reserves the discovery of the Rabbit Lake Egypt ARABIA NUMBER
tion of increasingly lower Since production. high grades (up to 19% to page 11The . . .eastern part of what has become gold mining was Saudi ABSTRACT
Minerals in
DEEP EXPLORATION elevated Cu prices, it
had rebounded costs, with globaluranium deposit by Gulf plans to place EAST SAHARA ADVANCED
at higher production Currently, there are no U3O8)—into production. known as the Arabian-Nubian
Shield carried out from the Arabia al analyses combined Illite-chl ARGILLIC
(USGS, head grades October 1968, more than 80 uranium CRATON Whole-rock lithogeochemic SERICITIC INTERMEDIATE
to just 39 years of production since deposits—some -relic fspar
weighted average Cu t, Pharaonic period in Sudan pyroph-alun
any of the other known (e.g., Johnson and Woldehaimano
(SWIR) spectroscopy Illite-chl-smect PHYLLIC ma t i t

e
mineral explo- to 0.7% having at least with short-wave infrared -relic fspar ±topaz spec. he
The long-term global 2013). Growth in production declining from 1.0% discoveries (defined as Arabia, has Egypt, commencing Eritrea EASTERN method for pros-
2003), particularly Saudi provide a rapid and cost-effective
104°W
by strongly EAST ARGILLIC
ration challenge is framed (SNL Metals Economics
Group, equivalent to Northwest Territories 106°W ANS musc
one drill intersection
m, Table 1) been extensively explored
since the 3000 BC, through to WEST hydrothermal systems.
increasing demand (Northey
et
2013). With regard to gold, O over 1 108°W
WESTERN GONDWANA pecting for porphyry-type
greater than 1% U3 8 discoveries of the Roman period Yemen trace metals to average
60°N Py±Cp±
GONDWANA ANS
al., 2014), reduced reserve
inven- dis-
after the bull run of gold have been located in the Athabasca U O
Rae Subprovince 1970s, with numerous Lithogeochemistry detects via Sl±Ga PROPYLITIC
rocks
Hearne Subprovince of commodities and thereafter, with Ethiopia and allows vectoring
deposits of a variety crustal abundance levels
Predominantly Archean
ly contained 14 depos- pounds 3 8 phengitic
tories (overwhelming coveries in the 1970s, Basin, totaling 2.18 billion
“reworked” by
copper, molyb- 0.5 and lithophile elements chl-fspar

0
Predominantly
silver, approximately musc-chl-

er 10100
Early Paleoproterozoicincluding gold, gradients of chalcophile
Tectonism

no
more were Some have Hudsonian rocks ±calc/epid-hem
within deposits discovered its of 20 Moz or more in all resource categories. tantalum, to 0.6 Moz of high- othermal ore and relic fspar

n
strongly affected by
denum, zinc, tin, tungsten, transported by magmatic-hydr are dispersed and

-m
N u mb
2010), 1980s, with up Beaverlodge
NUMBER
than 20 years ago; Schodde, made worldwide in the
Hudsonian Tectonism
extremely high grades,
Nisto
By contrast, the western grade gold produced

agm
Camp
rates had
the at
Map Area
uranium. circulating fluids that
fi ve in grade and CONGO PAKISTAN external
and decreasing discovery 11 in the 1990s, and to 24.6% U3O8 initial
reserve here defined as (Klemm et al., 2001). Of particular use are
alka-

atic
Arabian-Nubian Shield,
Maurice Bay Cp-Py
trapped in altered rocks.
CRATON
of huge size,
Middle
(Schodde,
ult

Stewart Island Fond-du-Lac

of greenfields deposits 2000s. Decreasing discoveryMcArthur River; some are south of the Red such as Mo, W, Se, Te,
Bi, epid-chl
Lake
Current mining
Fa

fluids
explora- in (Cameco that segment west and lis in sericite and metals Wavelength of white -act-fspar
rates of greenfields depositsat 650 million pounds U3O8
ke

2013). Global mineral that remain

SEG Discovery is a quarterly

La Rocque
less explora- in the oxides
La

Sea (Figure 1), has received legislation stable

As, and Sb, which form
TANZANIAN MADAGSCAR mica SWIR (2200)
ned by the
e

many are at
Lake
coun-
tion productivity, defi
on

Corporation, 2005); and

Saskatchewan

ck

relatively well explored

McClean of of
Athabasca Basin attention due to a combination region has now CRATON soils. SWIR mapping
Bla
cZ

Roughrider
in weathered rocks and 2210 nm Cp±Bn
discoveries easy- m below tion
tries reflect the fact that shallow depths (<250
Alberta

number of world-class
ni

absorption feature
Mesoproterozoic Dawn
relatively Late Paleoproterozoic to sediments Eagle
until recently, sufficient 2205 nm
to

Lake
including that, afforded INDIA 2,200-nm Al-OH
cost per dis- mines the
Tec

with shifts in
clastic
four large JEB Point
factors,
pH gradients useful for
undeformed
and the exploration to-find mineral deposits surface). However, only and mining legislation certainty to attract
Mozambique 2200 nm
rd

over the last Lake, Key Lake, Belt in sericite define paleofluid
J Zone
largely exploration Cover rocks
bi

Collins SODIC-
covery, has declined surface expression have (McArthur River, Cigar a geologic exploration to Egypt, metal-
ow

center of the buoyant

Midwest A
further clarity. From
Bay
vectoring toward the
Cluff Lake CALCIC
Between 230, 192, and ANS greenstone belts
Sn

we are required
20 years (Schodde, 2013).
Midwest
been discovered, and and Eagle Point at 650,
Camp Rabbit
Unconformity Hosted
Total Tamarack
Nubian Shield Sudan, Eritrea, othermal plume. granite plag-act±epid
the average tech- respectively)
Sue
standpoint, the western Older Precambrian crustbearing magmatic-hydr
now faced with the more 155 million pounds U3O8, 1,680 M lbs U3O8
Maybelle
the 1980s and 2000s, 1000 km porphyry
gold oppor- and Ethiopia, with
River Cigar
is a high-impact frontier
POTASSIC dikes
per dis- task Lake,
nically difficult and costly and three mining camps (Cluff
Shea
global exploration cost
Total Raven/
Creek Basement Hosted West Horseshoe
of >45 Moz discovery biot±Kspar

(January, April, July, October)

in real M lbs U O8 Bear
tunity, with discoveries accelerated Shield in
Lake at 64.2, 570 McArthur
beneath 3 LATE INTERMEDIATE
covery increased by 160% of exploring at depth Rabbit Lake, and McClean last two decades. of significant gold sketch map of the Arabian-Nubian
INTRODUCTION
gold equivalent in the FIGURE 1. Regional-scale Belt, after Johnson
Mann Lake ARGILLIC
terms and, in mature
exploration
barren cover rocks. pounds U3O8, margins and Mozambique are
Zon er

41.0, and 49.9 million and out- resources in both oro- terms of adjacent cratonic epithermal Au-Ag ores
e

magmatic smect±Illite±kaol±chl
She in Riv

Historical gold occurrences

Nex-Gen
Australia, by Porphyry and related
Millennium Gryphon
as The exploration communi- developed.
jurisdictions such respectively) have been
Maverick
abound, there genic gold, including and Woldehaimanot (2003). ore deposits outside of fluids & relic feldspar
ar

the world’s most important

Centennial
cropping mineralization
Virg

2011). pounds
as much as 260% (Schodde, ty’s response to the challenge
Phoenix
While 75% of the discovered developed, to be extensive the emerging giant produce most of the
Patterson
N has been and continues iron and aluminum mines,
Lake
copper been to
Legend
Cu > 0.2wt% (±Mo±Au)
In 1975, the world had of deep exploration has Potash and
Key Lake
been of Au
either are being or have
South
Mines
(probably several Sukari deposit in companies such as Allana the largest producers
61 years giant mining of alluvial gold massive sulfide Cu and Mo, and are
reserves equivalent to . . .percentage is skewed by theRiver, Mines at Colluli
Deposits/Prospects
(1) divert explo- to page 23this in Ethiopia (e.g., Egypt, and volcanogenic known for over a cen-
100
also by South Boulder
80
at its launch during
60

globally. It has been

40
distribution
20
Moz gold), particularly
0
this had coiled tubing drilling rig Additionally, giant and Ag porphyry Cu deposit showing contours of
of production; by 2000, FIGURE 1. DET CRC’s ration effort to McArthur . . .that metals in porphyry Cu to page
kilometres

November 2013. (See

p. 24) deposits at Key Lake, (VMS) deposit styles. in Eritrea. Recently, Stra- to page 13tury cross section of a typical
only 35% of the 12 . . . FIGURE 1. a.) Vertical shown are generalized

publication that features a peer-

the DET CRC Annual Conference,
110°W

and Cigar Lake; to date, together with generalized potash deposits have
been discovered and sulfide minerals. Also
ide.edu.au mines and some deposits, tex and Thani Ashanti deposits are zoned, with
a central of hydrothermal alteration
Basin, with locations of
il.com,
†
E-mail, david.giles@adela E-mails: di_groves@hotma of Ethiopia by in SWIR instruments.
the 2,200-nm peak measured
†
FIGURE 1. Athabasca in.edu.au in the Afar Depression
ailbox.ch, allan.trench@curt e-mail, rtosdal@gmail.com S
E-mails: williamkerr@neom geology. Corresponding author: See EG
†
†
roger.wallis@sympatico.ca 20
SEG 2014 CONFERENCE for p. 29 15
y det –4
Building Exploration Capabilit ails 0

reviewed article of topical interest

for the 21st Century Discovery to Recovery Discovery to Recovery
World-Class Ore Deposits: World-Class Ore Deposits:
September 27-30, 2014 Ore Deposits: Discovery to Recovery
SEG 2015 September 27–30, 2015
SEG 2015 September 27–30, 2015
Keystone, Colorado, USA
Register SEG 2015 Conference World-Class Hobart, TAS, Australia Hobart, TAS, Australia
Now!
www.seg2014.org
www.seg2015.org www.seg2015.org www.seg2015.org

to the economic geology com-

27-30 September 2015
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia •

munity. Sections cover worldwide

exploration and mining news, Advertising Information (Circulation: 6,000+ print and electronic)
Paid advertising is solicited to help offset publication and mailing costs.
SEG member and student chapter
activities, and guest columns on Advertising Rates for SEG Discovery
diverse subjects such as geometal- SINGLE (1) ISSUE FOUR (4) ISSUES
lurgy, research, and mentoring. An Inside Inside
online and/or print subscription is B&W Color Front/Back B&W Color Front/Back

included with membership of the Business Card $ 100 $ 160 — $ 350 $ 560 —

Society (www.segweb.org/join). 1/8 page $ 175 $ 270 — $ 580 $ 950 —

1/4 page $ 345 $ 540 — $1,160 $1,890 —
Ads, announcements, and images 1/3 page $ 460 $ 720 — $1,540 $2,520 —
should be submitted as EPS, TIFF or 1/2 page $ 690 $1,080 $1,300 $2,310 $3,780 $4,530
PDF files. All photos should have a Full Page $1,100 $1,800 $2,160 $3,850 $6,300 $7,560
resolution of 300 dpi or higher.
Rates in US Dollars • Inside Front/Back (color only) — check for availability • Prices subject to change

Deadlines for submission of For additional information and submission of

ADVERTISEMENTS advertisements, please contact Laura Doll:
  January — November 30 Tel: +1 (720) 981-7207
  April — February 28 E-mail: lauradoll@segweb.org
  July — May 31
  October — August 31
Visit segweb.org/discovery for further information