b'IndustryNewsbe directed at relating geophysics to mineralogy and its alterations, from field results with drill hole logging to theoretical studies.As noted above, the focus of the profession has changed over time, and there are now far fewer geophysicists whose responsibility is the processing and analysis of exploration data. The irony is that the industry arguably has a far better range of high-quality technology than ever before, but fewer people than ever are tasked with developing the means to best use this technology.Figure 4:Industry employers of minerals geophysicists. Approximately 1000 geophysicists were counted.Historically, senior members of large Source: Witherly 2016. mining houses would take on leadership roles, advancing such issues in collective level (i.e. 3D modelling of allshallower (Figure 5 in Witherly and Allardcommunity forums to help develop pre-data types) do these technologies appear2010), with the majority of drill holes lesscompetitive capabilities. However, with to have had any impact on countering thethan 100 m. When deeper explorationmajor changes in companies support for decline in discovery of either the numberdepths are pursued not only are theexploration during the same period as or quality of many deposit types. For thegeophysical surveys and analysis morethe wave of technology was developed discoveries that have been made, it isexpensive, but the drill testing is moreand delivered, most remaining hard to determine whether traditionalcostly as well. geophysical staff have been relegated to technologies should get the credit, orinternally focused, tactical roles.if newer technologies have made theComment 2: Despite lots of new difference. geophysical systems and improved technology being available in the past 20Fiscal supportThis raises questions that have significantyears, discovery rates are not climbing. implications for the industry goingI think this underlines that we can nowSchodde (2020) shows that geophysics forward. Unfortunately, there does notmeasure and detect far more thingshas struggled over the last two decades appear to be any forum that engages thethan we can understand geologically.to maintain what might be considered developers of new technology, the endWhile the information is not recorded,a sustainable level of funding from users and their clients where such issuesIm guessing that, as an industry, we arethe exploration industry (Figure 6). can be addressed. Two anonymous seniordrilling far more false positive anomaliesThis has implications from the issue geoscientists have offered commentsthese days, partly because we canof professional readiness, to the about this; one remark is delightfullynow detect them, and partly becausedevelopment of new technology, brief, the other a more sombre remarkwe can make them look so good withand the industrys ability to employ that, on its own, could inspire a workshop3D inversions and glossy isosurfaces.newly graduated professionals or even a conference built aroundSo, the efforts going forward need tocoming out of universities. In Canada examining the issues raised.Comment 1: We can see deep but things are fuzzyThe wish to be able to explore deeper in exploration is aligned with the idiom be careful what you wish for. And like many things, once you have it, you own it and it requires you to be able to use the capability effectively if credibility is to be maintained. The last piece of my colleagues line, but things are fuzzy, means there is considerable risk associated with trying to define and then test targets when exploring at greater and greater depths.The reverse can be demonstrated that in the era when one technology, airborne EM, contributed significantly to the discovery of many deposits in Canada (Witherly 2000); drill depths were muchFigure 5:Drilling depths over time in the Abitibi (Canada). Source: Witherly and Allard 2010.13 PREVIEW AUGUST 2020'