print
this page Take The Professional Ethics Challenge for December! Ethics Case No. 2 – Scope of Work Problems- Insufficient Data Anonymous Author Sometimes geologists are assigned a scope of work that seems virtually impossible to deal with under the current regulatory framework. The most difficult ethical cases occur when business related contractual agreements, restricted scope of work, tight timelines and budgets conflict with the geoscientist’s ability to diligently complete a review of the basic data that form the foundation of a reasonable mineral resource estimate and appropriately address any shortcomings. Given that a mining company’s principle assets are its mineral resources and reserves, due diligence, care and attention to the basic geological data ultimately form the underpinnings of good business decisions that protect the well being of the public. The Qualified Person concept must empower geoscientists to draw the line in the sand with respect to what constitutes a reasonable amount of due diligence regarding the basic geological data. Hopefully, the following case is somewhat useful by starting to draw attention to some of these issues that are becoming more prevalent with higher commodity prices and the ongoing number of property ownership agreements linked to the completion of feasibility studies within extremely tight timelines. Although the case is geared towards mining, we hope those from other sectors of geoscience will also extract some value from the following case. We appreciate any feedback or comments - anonymous or not. Statement of the Situation A consulting company based in the United Kingdom signs a contract with a Canadian-listed junior mining company to complete a resource estimate. The resource estimate is to be followed by a bankable feasibility study that will be disclosed to the public as a material change disclosure in the form of a Technical Report as required by National Instrument NI 43-101. The project is located in Asia. A Canadian geologist is assigned to the project and is given an allotted period of time to complete his work based on similar assignments completed by the consulting company. The client provides a plan sketch of a geological interpretation based on linking assay grades and an electronic drill hole database that includes a simplified geological code. Upon receiving the drill hole database, the geologist realizes that the sketch map, the density of drilling, the understanding of the deposit genesis and the electronic database are insufficient on which to prepare an estimate of mineral resources present to an appropriate degree of confidence for a feasibility study. The client’s schedule is being driven by an agreement with a foreign government to provide a NI 43-101 compliant feasibility study by a specific deadline in order to keep the mining concession in good standing. Question Which of the following routes should the professional geoscientist follow to be ethical? A. Refuse to do the work. B. Request to be reassigned to another project. C. Complete the work as laid out in the contract, but reduce the mineral resource classification level to inferred reflecting the level of confidence in the estimate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What happened? Actual outcome will appear in Field Notes-February, 2006 issue. Wanted: Ethical cases regarding incomplete disclosure, problems with conflicting test data results, insufficient information with which to draw stated conclusions, pressure to rewrite conclusions or any others that you can think of that affect geoscientists. Authors will remain anonymous. Articles to be published in future issues of Field Notes. |
For
more information on APGO, please contact info@apgo.net
|