Skip to main content

Lyceum 2021 | Together Towards Tomorrow

This panel brings together industry experts to discuss using geology to better refine geophysical models (and vice versa) to build more informed subsurface interpretations.

We will discuss the challenges of communicating with distributed teams, contractors and consultants and share thoughts on future industry workflows, bridging divides in technology, and what this might look like for tomorrow’s geoscientists.



Katherine McKenna
Principal Geophysicist, Mineral Exploration Australasia, BHP

Barry Bourne
Principal Consultant, Terra Resources

Steve Kuhn
Senior Geophysicist, Fortescue Metals Group

Teagan Blaikie
Research Scientist, CSIRO

Mark Lowe
Senior Geophysicist, Seequent


46 min

See more Lyceum content

Lyceum 2021

Find out more about Seequent's mining solution

Learn more

Video transcript

(techno music)

<v ->All right, welcome everybody.</v>

Today we’re going to be having a panel discussion

on how exploration geoscientists

are informing geological models

with iterative geophysical modeling.

Today’s speakers are going to be Katherine McKenna

who is a principle geophysicist

with Minerals Exploration Australasia at BHP.

Katherine is a principle geophysicist

at BHP in Perth where she is responsible

for the use of geophysics for the mineral exploration

and generative groups for Australasia.

With over 30 years experience in mineral exploration,

oil and gas exploration, and applied geophysics,

airborne and ground geophysical acquisition

and processing and interpretation.

She has worked throughout Asia, Africa,

Europe, and the Middle East

and holds an MBA from Curtin University,

a Bachelor of Science in geology and geophysics

from Macquarie University, and a BA in classical languages,

Latin and ancient Greek, and ancient history

from University of New England.

Welcome Katherine.

Also we have Dr. Teagan Blaikie

who is a research scientist at CSIRO.

Teagan Blaikie is a research scientist

in geology and geophysics at CSIRO.

Her research focuses on qualitative interpretation

of geophysical data to generate structural

and geological maps of covered terrains.

And applying geologically constrained forward

and inverse modeling of potential field data

to model crustal architecture.

Her recent work has focused extensively

on Proterozoic basin systems in Northern Australia,

where she has worked on a range

of regional scale interpretation

and modeling projects in collaboration

with the State geological surveys.

Welcome Dr. Teagan.

We also have Dr. Steve Kuhn,

a senior geophysicist at Fortescue Metals Group.

Steve Kuhn is a senior geophysicist

at Fortescue Metals Group where he is responsible

for gold and copper exploration

in Western Australia and New South Wales.

He has worked in geophysics and geology for 15 years

throughout Australia, Central and Southeast Asia,

and North and South America.

Steve holds a PhD, Grad Cert and Bachelor of Science Honors

from CODES or UTAS with a focus

on potential field acquisition and modeling,

machine assisted lithological mapping

and mineral exploration,

and quantifying and communicating the error

and uncertainty associated with

geological modeling and prediction.

Welcome Steve.

And also we have Barry Bourne,

the principal consultant at Terra Resources.

Barry is a principal and founder

of Terra Resources and Terra Petrophysics.

Up until 2013, he was chief geophysicist

for Barrick Gold and is now a mineral exploration consultant

to private and public international exploration groups.

Barry graduated in geology and geophysics

from the University of Western Australia.

He currently sits on the technical advisory committee

for UWA Center for Exploration Targeting.

He was shortlisted for the Australia Innovation Awards

in 2012 and with Advanced Global Australian

of the Year, Mining and Resources in 2013.

Welcome Barry.

Welcome to all of our panelists today.

I’m sure it’s going to be a great discussion

and I’m really looking forward

to hearing about those insights

into how we can inform our geological models

more effectively, using geo-physical modeling.

So firstly today, I’m going to pose

a question to Katherine McKenna.

So Katherine, would you like to answer this question?

And it’s a question around how

would geoscience modeling teams

connecting within organizations

and sharing valuable insights to govern development

of more robust geological models?

<v ->Thanks Mark.</v>

We’re a relatively small team.

We’re made up of a generative geologist, geochemist,

structural geologist, geophysicist,

and exploration geologist.

And we have,

kind of like

a range of exploration sites

from early genitive stage to a quite detailed discovery,

like discovery type

point of view.

And so with this, we actually use our modeling

in all different ways and if we take it from

the beginning of the genitive stage

or very early stage, a lot of our work is undercover.

So the use of geophysics is quite important

and we’re using it

to give indications to the geologist of what is possible.

What is possible based on their ideas,

their geological ideas, and we’re going back and forth

between what their models are

and what the geophysics is showing.

One of the vital aspects that’s become apparent

to the geologists now, is the importance

of the petrophysics that we’re using

to enhance these models but also

to understand the geology better.

And then we go to extremes of where,

you know we’ve done a lot of drilling

and we’ve done a lot of work on it

and understanding of the geology.

And we’re back modeling again

and giving more confidence to the geologists

as to their geological models and vice versa

from our geophysical models into a geological.

So it’s really bringing that conversation together

and the petrophysics is really like,

the binding force associated with it.

It’s giving a better understanding

of the geology that we’re dealing with

and a better understanding and confidence in de-risking,

say in the earlier stages of how we put these drills,

be it stratigraphic drilling or be it target drilling.

That there’s a better confidence associated

with it because that conversation

between the geologist and the geophysicist

is around the models is a unified conversation.

<v ->All right, thank you Katherine.</v>

Follow up question I’m going to ask Steve,

is something that Katherine raised which was around

that communication within those groups and

obviously talking about early exploration.

How has that communication in early exploration

at and with your team, Steve?

<v ->Yeah, quite similar to what Katherine said</v>

but in the sense that we do obviously model

like everyone else on the panel at various scales

and various amounts of detail will go into those models

as necessitated by the problem we’re trying to solve.

We are more and more so,

moving a lot of the work that we produce

towards the front end of modeling.

So, because it’s become quite easy

to make simple potential field models

or things of that nature and get them looking quite slick

in software, like for quite quickly.

We are actually doing that at the front end

and using things like Central

or just more conventional means

to push those models around.

But even in the fairly early stages of exploration,

we can build some good looking things

and communicate those to the team

and we just have to again,

make sure that those error bars

that come with those early stage models

moves in lockstep with how slick and easy it is

to make some pretty early preliminary models.

<v ->Yeah and it’s great to hear about you know,</v>

that communication and the information around that

is so important to retain as it goes

from those early exploration stages

to those later stages of the exploration workflow.

I think something that you mentioned Steve as well,

is around those errors that could potentially come in

and that, that information could potentially be lost.

And that there is some tools and technology around those?

And we’ll get to that question in just a moment.

I think another question I’d like to just maybe place

with Barry is, what do you see as

key challenges that could come if that information

potentially wasn’t kept through

that workflow?

<v ->Yeah so that’s one of the biggest challenges that we face.</v>

Is to,

you know, relay the integrity of those models,

both geological and geophysical model

to the end user.

And when making the exploration decisions on where to drill

and how to interpret that information

and knowing the limitations of that.

I think, there’s a lot of effort that needs to go

to communicate in that and and also documenting that

in a way which is easily understood,

be it graphically and or in simple terms

given that

the end-users are often in different geographical locations.

<v ->Excellent, so Katherine I might pose</v>

this question back to you.

Is there something that you have to do

in your workflow maybe before you finish a project,

before you hand that over to the exploration manager?

What do you do to make sure that information isn’t lost?

<v ->It’s really around</v>

the documentation at the end of it and it’s probably

one of the most vital aspects

of the work process or the workflow,

is that documentation of your learning experiences.

Sorry, your results obviously

but also your learning experiences,

positive and negative from it.

And then you know, you documented it so that it’s accessible

to other groups within the company

but also communicating that.

You know, having a regular face-to-face as best we can,

in the situation we’re in, to describe it.

So there’s questions around the results you’ve got

or questions around the technique you used

or how it’s come through, is communicated

through the group as well.

<v ->Excellent and obviously those teams sizes change</v>

and those people that are in charge of those projects change

and as it’s already been mentioned

by a few there on that question

It’s so important to retain that information

as it passes through between those different groups.

At the start, I’m sure it’s quite a lot easier

as those groups are smaller and then as those projects

go through to those later stages,

those projects get larger as well.


Thanks for that answer, Katherine.

Steve, I’m going to pose a question on to you now

and it’s around, with diverse teams spread around the world

at Fortescue Metals Group in particular.

What new technologies are bringing professionals

closer together to inform exploration projects

more effectively and how has this changed over time?

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark.</v>

I guess, it dovetails on very well from the last question

and I think that in terms of genuinely

new cutting edge technologies.

It’s probably less of the focus as technologies

that have just been creeping in

and improving over the last three to five years, even.

And that is things like Teams,

it’s things like cloud-based resources,

be it for actual compute power or for communicating results

and I think that’s been the big step forward there.

So where certainly in a previous life

and even to some extent at Fortescue,

we’ve moved from physically having to send things

around the place to transferring via

certain web-based services or FTP servers

to legitimate real-time cloud-computing

where the only bottleneck is your upload/download speed.

Well, that’s made things very easy

to share resources and models with teams

and groups sort of scattered all over the world

and Fortescue is quite large company

to say the least.

But as an international explorer

we’re growing into that footprint as well

and being able to share in real-time information,

data models and whatnot with our colleagues

is a huge step forward, I think.

Platforms like Central are obviously going to be part of that,

but also just general cloud services,

whether it’s Azure or Amazon or some other group.

Now, I think I’m coming back to the point

we made in the last question.

The big challenge that I see in this whole world is

of data-sharing is now that we can make

really good looking models very easily and very rapidly.

And now that we can get those things

shared around the group very, very rapidly.

The challenge for us as scientists whether

it’s just our own communication skills

or whether it’s the software or things

coming with us on the journey,

is to make sure that our ability

to communicate the strengths and weaknesses,

errors and uncertainty around those models.

That, that can still keep up with our ability

to just fling, you know, really good looking 3D models

and whatnot around the place

and that’s where I see the big challenge there.

<v ->Great, thanks Steve.</v>

And as you mentioned there, we’re talking

or you’re talking around these cloud-based technologies

that have obviously come around in over time,

over the last 10 or so years.

For example, like Seequent Central.

There has been obviously a move in the industry

to take those cloud-based technologies and,

the data size and the data security aspects

have definitely accelerated really quickly.

Something which you brought up was

that the information side there may still be room

to improve how that information is shared as well

and there’s a challenge there as well.

Dr. Teagen Blaikie, I’d like to get your insights

from a research side, around what would be the value

of sharing these data and making it more accessible

and also sharing the scientific insights?

<v ->I find this data incredibly valuable, so.</v>

Anything that’s acquired by industry on top of,

you know some of the already regional scale datasets

that we have acquired by government

when we’re working on research problems

these high resolution datasets just provide

a huge amount of added information

to our research problems.

So being able to access this data

more readily is incredibly valuable

and I think what we’re seeing in the last several years is

a huge improvement to various data portals where you

can actually access this information.

So you’re able to get it a lot more easily and rapidly.

You can have it within a few minutes

of typically requesting it rather than waiting days

or weeks for hard-drives to arrive in the post.

<v ->Great, thanks Teagan.</v>

Barry, would you like to provide any input?

Is there any potential disadvantages from having all

of this data accessible, or is there any challenges

that you see in that data access as well?

<v ->The way things have changed from you know,</v>

how we distribute data has been from

some sort of processed form into

platforms now where we can distribute the actual data.

So the actual information that’s required

to do the processing is out there live

to all the different exploration groups.

It’s a positive for the technical experts

that can integrate that data correctly

but it also poses a problem that we need to have training

and more

educated understanding of those data

and how we might process those data

and integrate them with other geological datasets.

<v ->Excellent, so thanks for that, Barry.</v>


do you see that these data sets

that possibly research and government groups are sharing

and making accessible through cloud-based technology,

is that valuable for you and your teams?

<v ->Absolutely, I mean.</v>

And in all stages too,

not just the early stage of genitive side

right through the exploration workflow.

Anything that the governments and the research groups

are putting together, we absorb into

what we’re dealing with.

I can’t sort of describe the degree

of value that these data sets have

because I mean, some of these areas we’re going into

that have had very little exploration

and these data sets are adding such,

giving us a headstart as to what we can expect

or giving something to start our process

of determining what we’re going to use

and how we’re going to use it.

And from the research side that, you know,

the work that they do in the interpretation side

pulls in, just gives us just another view

of what’s going on as well,

or ideas of how to do things better as well.

<v ->Barry, do you see how</v>

the sharing of this data

is becoming very advantageous

for smaller exploration groups in terms of

sharing geophysical information and how is that happening?

<v ->I think it’s extremely advantageous</v>

because it speeds up

the process, the accessibility

to resources and data,

to the mid-tiers and the junior exploration companies

via either consultants or via their internal teams.

You know.

The speed and what’s required,

and the decision-making process is proportional

to your spend.

And having those data,

certainly improves your explorations

and efficiencies and decreases the risk.

<v ->Great, Steve, I’m going to ask you a question</v>

now that you’re back again.

I had the same question that I posed to Katherine.

Do you see that

open-access available geophysical data

and interpretation products, are they valuable

for you and your team?

<v ->Yes, they are phenomenally valuable.</v>

In fact, capturing open file data and processing it

in the manner that we think

are most relevant to our projects

is something that we spend a lot of time on.

I think that there’s certainly place in the world for both

in the context that sometimes

our geologists or ourselves

love to have something that’s provided

that an expert has already made a decision on

and said, this is what we think is going to

be best for you, or to help you.

But also to have the ability just

to pull out the raw data and just say you know what,

we are going to do something different with it entirely.

And I think, like Barry sort of said a bit earlier,

I think the point though of training and education

and knowing what to do with the data

and also if I may go on a quick tangent and say also

how to actually process model and then use the data

is just going to be so important in this.

Because as I said before, the technologies

are growing very rapidly and our ability

to make really good and pretty models

is so rapid

that we can sort of, if we’re not careful,

cover our eyes and just sort of push a button

and get an answer in a way that would have

just crashed the software or the system, 10 years ago.

So just because we can do it,

we do need to know how we’re doing it because

it won’t pull us up and crash if we stuff it up.

So we just need to make sure that we are using it

in the right way but having it and having the ability

to dig our teeth in, fantastic.

<v ->Excellent.</v>

Thanks Steve.

I’ll pass over to Dr. Teagan Blaikie with a question.

What exciting novel developments

are happening in geophysical exploration

and how are research organizations enabling industry

to take advantage of these enhancements?

<v ->Thanks Mark, I’m seeing lots of exciting developments</v>

happening in this space.

I guess what we’re seeing is really increased collaboration

between government and research organizations

which is leading to really a new generation

of geophysical datasets and interpretive products

that are really aimed at helping industry make

more informed decisions about their exploration programs.

So in the last couple of years,

we’ve seen a lot of large acquisition programs

for pre-competitive geophysical data completed

by Geoscience Australia and the State geological surveys.

So there’ve been a number of large gravity

and magnetic surveys acquired and we’re also seeing

acquisition of AEM passive, seismic, and MT data

being gradually rolled out across the whole continent.

So these DAD datasets were initially acquired

in Greenfield areas felt to be highly respected

but they’re gradually being rolled out

across the entire country.

So government’s working on this data themselves

or they’re also collaborating with research organizations

such as CSIRO to provide interpretive products

for this data.

And these include products such as solar geology,

and structural interpretations of the data,

outputs from inversions.

And all this information is then fed into

these like prospectivity maps and trying to understand

mineral systems at a regional scale

and producing these maps and mineral prospectivity

across the entire continent.

And all this data is being made freely available

to industry to help them make informed decisions

about their exploration programs.

I think other exciting areas of research that we’re seeing,

we’re seeing increased focused on the linkage

between geology and geophysics

which is leading to increased connection

between researchers from different disciplines.

For example in understanding sediment-hosted resources,

we’re getting researchers in geophysics to come together

with sedimentologists, structural geologists and geochemists

to try and link observations

and interpretations from geophysical models

with what they’re seeing in changing facies distributions

or geochemical conditions across the basin

which is leading to improved understanding

of mineral systems within these sedimentary systems.

<v ->Great, thanks Dr. Teagan.</v>

I have a question, follow on question for Katherine

around those outputs and data that you’ve described.

Katherine, how are you and how is your team

using that data that industry and research groups

is providing and,

how does it add or change the story of

an exploration project?

<v ->The research work.</v>

The research work and the government data

that’s being published

is used in different ways

depending on where we are,

what stage of exploration we’re at.

So, say for an initial new area stage,

obviously from the interpretation point of view,

understanding the physical properties

from the data of

what systems could be used to target from,

or to understand this.

You know, it’s used from a structural point of view,

a particular research is used

to look at it from a different point of view.

Possibly, the research that’s done

come from a different angle,

looked at different aspects

of the data but also using a different method

to look at the data.

And then we sometimes take those methods

and it may be in one particular area and try

and apply what they’ve done elsewhere,

as a new idea.

So it’s used in all sorts of ways,

we could sit here and discuss it for ages,

it gives you an overall picture.

Sometimes, you know, you’ve got such a large span of data,

it gives you an understanding of

the tectonic environment that we’re in.

You know, when we possibly got an area that’s,

you know postage size stamp area, our camp scale area,

and we want to understand the regional tectonics,

so we use that data

to deal with that.

It’s not often used as a targeting tool

because of the sparsity of the data

or the resolution of the data that’s there,

but it’s certainly given us an indication.

We’ve even used the data in Infield

and got a more deep and more

higher resolution data set

for what we’re dealing with it.

The use of the data is endless

not just from a mineral exploration point of view

but we’ve also used it for water resources.

Like we keep saying, it’s just so valuable.

<v ->Great, thanks Katherine and just a quick one back,</v>

to Teagan, how are the different ways

that you present and share that data?

Cause you did mention quite a few different

interpretation products, can you just give a brief overview

of how that information is shared with industry?

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark.</v>

We share the data through many different ways.

So there’s you know, traditional reports

that accompany any project that we complete,

that will get published.

If we’re working with the State geological surveys,

they’ll publish the data on some of their portals.

And if not, they’ll be say published on a CSIRO data portal.

The information is also distributed

through open-access publications where we can

and we’re very active in engaging in conferences

and industry events, and actually presenting

and communicating the results of our research

at these events.

<v ->Great, thanks Teagan.</v>

Barry, I’m going to pass it over to you now.

As a consultant, how are you finding,

how are you connecting with your mining customers

to provide informed insights?

And what formerly disparate data are now

being integrated to add value to projects?

Also, are there challenges still to be overcome?

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark.</v>

So firstly on that, you know, we as a consultant

to the majority of you know,

mid-tier to small-tier companies,

we have a slightly different role to play because

we’re the technical experts that help them link

all this information that’s available

to companies that don’t have internal technical expertise.

There’s certainly a knowledge base there

but they don’t actually have

the experience and the personnel to do that.

So first of all, we provide that link

to those companies

and also they rely on our knowledge base

in order to provide that information.

More and more companies are trying to

understand the link between geology and geophysics.

With the increasingly fewer graduates

and experienced people in the industry,

there’s a larger reliance

on consultants and technical experts

out there in industry to fill that gap.

So moving on from that you know, how,

do we provide those missing pieces?

And first of all, you know,

it’s via petrophysical analysis.

You know that really links the gap between

what the explorationists are doing out there,

the a priori in knowledge of the ore systems

they’re looking for, the results they’ve got to date.

You know, we’re engaged at a certain time period

within that process and it’s not often that we get to sit

with the explorationists through the whole process,

so we’re only engaged at critical times.

So, you know,

trying to understand their problems,

collecting a little bit of additional information

via petrophysics and/or our ore body knowledge base.

Providing that information in a timely and effective way

to minimize budget and risk in that exploration processes

is how we engage with those people.

And when we integrate that information into a 3D approach,

when we’ve got, you know when everyone’s engaged,

even by a few constraints, be it geological constraints,

foal constraints, fuel constraints,

and physical constraints.

We can improve our outcomes and our decision-making ability

tremendously, determining you know solarized geometry

whether it’s worth pursuing or not,

making those critical exploration decisions

to move a project and exploration forward.

<v ->Excellent, thanks Barry.</v>

And just on that, those points around adding

all this information, continuing that story

and making that more valuable to

the explorationists and exploration geology teams.

Is there any gaps

that you see in terms of challenges

and things that

research and software providers

such as Seequent and others,

could do to make that

connection better and to

help get those projects going?

<v ->I think we’ve come a long way in our ability</v>

to integrate data and, you know, with products like,

you know Seequent for example

and other integration packages,

the mining package has come a long way

and their ability to integrate

all that data is tremendous.

You know, what we are lacking now is fundamental research

in some of the big data that we’re collecting.

Things like electromagnetics

in the MT space, you know we’re really,

I think we’re struggling, we’ve hit a bit of a plateau

on research into inversion codes.

We’ve really struggled with

true EM inversion codes in terms of airborne EM.

The existing research has been done in consortiums

and I think the way forward

is less of a collaborative approach and more in a

open-source style of codes

where everyone is going to be contributing

from industry and research

to a common set of goals

in an environment which is conducive

to collaborative import.

<v ->Great, thanks Barry.</v>

Dr. Steve, would you like to comment on some

of those points that Barry brought in

around sort of the challenges associated with

still integrating those various data sets together.

What has been your experience in

sort of connecting those dots and really informing

those decisions there at FMG?

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark.</v>

Look I guess, from my own perspective

and I’m quite passionate about this,

is as we build the capacity to actually integrate

those data sets and I think, you know,

in a model space, we have a pretty strong ability

to do so from the point of view

of just the pure mechanics

of the software to actually sort of make it happen.

And I think that that’s a blessing and a curse.

So something like Leapfrog is fantastic

and I just remember when it first came out,

it sort of opened up the world of 3D modeling

to pretty much every geologist out there.

Whereas before, you had to be quite specialized

with you know, I think OCAD, or Vulcan, or Micromine

or something and it just,

the barrier it went through was much higher.

But on the flip side,

again it means that we can integrate things

that, how they should be integrated,

should they really be integrated and all those sorts

of questions still remain to be answered.

So for example the idea of a geophysical model

and a geophysical reality versus

a geological model and a geological reality.

And what data is actually coming in from the geochemistry?

What data was a structural piece of information,

the surface, or a drill hole or something?

Or what is just purely a rendition

of something that’s expressed itself

in the geophysical data that wasn’t obvious

in the drill holes and vice versa?

And how we actually pull that together

and communicate what came from what?

And take something like a Leapfrog model

that has a huge variety and scope of data

that have gone into making it

but also understand where that information

came from and how it got in there.

Is still going to be, I think, the key problem there.

So I think I agree with everything that Barry said

and yeah, just adding to that, that the once we try

to get all these things into that workspace.

How do we make sure that the end user can either

make sense of it, if they’re not technical expert?

Or have the information that they need

to not misunderstand or misuse

what we’ve put together for them?

I don’t have a good solution to it but,

I think there’s a number of things that could be done

but that’s what I think the challenge is really going to be.

<v ->Excellent, so I have a bit</v>

of a closing question for the group.

As we enter a post-COVID work environment,

which new geophysics workflows that have come in

have benefited our geoscience teams

and which will fall aside as organizations

reconsider their exploration workflows?

So a bit of a broad question and I’d like it

to sort of lead into a closing remark

as well, about this as well.

Katherine, I’ll pose the question first to you.

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark.</v>

I don’t think during this COVID period

our workflow has necessarily changed dramatically

but I think one thing we’ve realized or appreciated more

is the importance of the communication.

The face-to-face communication

and a team discussion between say

different geologists, geophysicists,

you know, the structural geologist.

The importance of that communication

has been the realization of how valuable it is

when it’s taken away from you for a little while.

We have the Teams and we have the WebEx’s

and the different platforms that we can work with

but that sit down discussion face-to-face

is getting better developed within that digital space.

But we still, I think we lost the value of it

there for a while and now it’s just,

it’s standing out as being invaluable, obviously.

<v ->Yeah there’s so much to be said isn’t there</v>

for just the verbal communication,

just being able to

have a cup of coffee together

or have that nonverbal communication I guess, as well.

Maybe Dr. Teagan, would, you know,

how is this different for you?

Did you see a change in your workflow or

recently with the

new way we have to work?

<v ->Thanks Mark, I’d say most of our workloads</v>

have remained the same.

I guess what’s

benefited us is,

you know, we’ve rapidly had to adjust

to I guess, working on online

and to have come in and out of lockdown.

But sort of as we’re emerging from that,

we’ve really started to transition into more flexibility,

whether you work from home or the office and,

you know, the advance in being able to work with data stored

on the cloud, everything’s more accessible,

has really sort of flowed into

these sort of new working arrangements.

And ultimately just this flexibility

has really helped in productivity within the team,

as people are able to choose where and when

is more convenient to work for them.

Obviously coming together face-to-face

is invaluable but just that added flexibility

is really benefiting some of our teams.

<v ->Great, Steve have you seen a change</v>

in the way that you’ve been operating in

and doing your projects together

or is this pretty much the same?

Is it still the same workflows?

<v ->Thanks Mark.</v>

Yeah, look I think I’d echo

what the other two panelists before me just said.

And that’s that the workflows themselves

have not fundamentally changed

but our working environment has.

I think right at the early stages of COVID

and sort of less so now, there was a pretty rapid move

to make sure that we actually had

the hardware and software set up

to facilitate this transition

to more of a flexible working environment.

But as the others have said,

the big thing here is you know,

nothing’s changed in the human biology in the last two years

and communication is still fundamentally non-verbal.

Plus on top of that, there’s no substitute

for standing right next to someone

and wiggling your fingers at a model

or even just the idea of communicating

with people around the office when you’re not

in an actual meeting or structured time

but just that unstructured ability

to just chew the fat, communicate,

where so many of these ideas just hatch.

So I think that we need to take

all the best aspects of these developments.

Things like Teams, things like cloud-computing

and leverage those as much as we can,

especially as international explorers

but not forget the value and to fight tooth and nail

to just make sure that we are actually together,

physically in the same place as often as we can be.

<v ->Great and Barry, I’ll just pass over to you now</v>

just to finish this session off as well

with some closing remarks as well.

Have you seen a change in your workflows?

Do you want to raise some comments around that

or some questions you want to leave the audience with as well?

Around, you know, how that’s changed and what could,

you know, what should remain as well as we go forward?

<v ->Yeah.</v>

I think our workflows,

you know they might not be apparent that they’ve changed

but I think they’ve changed significantly.

You know, in my opinion, the effort

that research organizations, governments,

and even in different groups

that’s gone into accessing data in real-time

has been overwhelming.

You know, that in turn has led to

accelerated data access

and has enabled us to

de-risk a lot of our things that we’re doing,

you know, integration of data inversions.

We’re not cornered into just doing one inversion.

We can do several, or we can do multiple inversions.

We can do constraints.

It’s just giving us,

so much more flexibility and freedom

via that data accessibility and also,

you know, we’ve improved the way that

we’re processing those data in particular inversions.

I think it’s improved significantly.

<v ->All right, so thanks everyone for that,</v>

for your inputs today.

It would be great just to have a closing sentence

from each person just around, you know,

what you would like to leave the audience with.

Maybe a statement or something you’d like to see.

Just a closing statement for the discussion.

So I’ll start with Dr. Teagan,

just a very short, maybe a sentence or two.

<v ->Thanks Mark.</v>

Well, I’d just like to say thank you for the opportunity

to participate in this panel discussion.

I’ve found it incredibly valuable to hear

what the other panelists have to say

about some of the challenges they’re facing

and some of the workflows they’re implementing

within geophysical modeling.

<v ->Katherine, how do you,</v>

do you want to add some closing remarks around the

statement today, what should the audience take away?

<v ->Yeah Mark, that’s an interesting one.</v>

Thanks once again for the panel, I think it’s been great

and I think it’s great to share these ideas.

And it is also reflective of the environment we’re in

that we can have something like a panel discussion

and not be face-to-face per se, be it digital,

and I think that’s certainly something.

If I was going to have walk away with an idea is the,

value of data and the amount of data

that is out there and how we’re looking at it.

And I think the future

is kind of in our hands in a way

of trying to optimize the best way to do it.

How can we make it that, that is an advantage?

I mean, all this data is being collected

and all this research is being done.

And how can we use that

to our advantage for discovery?

<v ->Excellent, passing on to you, Dr. Steve.</v>

What should the audience take away?

<v ->Yeah, thanks Mark, look like everyone else,</v>

I thank my colleagues on the panel,

it’s great to hear some different opinions

and all very similar opinions around the place.

I’ll be a bit of a broken record here I think,

and just say the same thing which is that you know,

the pre-competitive and government data sets are amazing.

The improvements in technology processing power,

hardware, software, the whole lot has been fantastic

and let’s keep that coming.

And as we do it, let’s just make sure

that as scientists and as communicators,

we move in lockstep with that.

Make sure that the actual knowledge

and understanding of what we’re doing

doesn’t fall behind the amazing things

that we’re able to produce now and into the future.

<v ->Great Steve, and we’ll finish off with you, Barry.</v>

What’s your closing remarks for the session?

So thank you for attending as well,

to all of the panelists today.

<v ->Yeah and a big thanks to yourself</v>

as well Mark and Seequent as well.

You know, I think we’ve just got to keep striving

for complete data integration and

via whatever means we can and that’s going to

include and improve our exploration process

and our exploration success.

<v ->Thanks to everyone here on the panel today.</v>

I really appreciate you joining us today

and I’m sure it was very interesting.

And to hear those insights today, definitely was for me.

I appreciate all the panelists joining today,

as well as that you joined Lyceum 2021.

(futuristic music)