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.
Principal Geophysicist, Mineral Exploration Australasia, BHP
Principal Consultant, Terra Resources
Senior Geophysicist, Fortescue Metals Group
Research Scientist, CSIRO
Senior Geophysicist, Seequent
<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.
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.
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 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
<v ->Yeah so that’s one of the biggest challenges that we face.</v>
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.