Professional Geologists, No Licensure Required in Colorado Options

[ASTROBLEME]

While 29 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico require professional geologists to have a Professional Geologist (P.G.) license, Colorado does not. The state certainly has an interest in protecting citizens, government entities and companies from unethical and/or incompetent practice.

Here's a link to what Colorado requires;

PG Definition

Our state should impose a licensure process in order to assure accountability and responsibility of P.G. practitioners.

ASTROBLEME

[GeoMatt]

I agree with a lot of what is above, and disagree with a lot of what is stated above - by several posters. I'm not going to worry too much about opinions though. As the saying goes, get two geologists in a room and you'll have at least three opinions. ...or maybe its opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Not sure which is most appropriate here, but lets assume the former and not the latter for the time being.

Few comments though....

A PG license in the U.S does not matter when it comes to mining geology/resource estimation. No U.S. State Board of Geology in the is recognized by NI 43-101 or JORC, and the SEC's Guide 7 does not address this issue formally (that may change). The State Boards of Geology are not seen as regulating agencies that track the accountability of its licensees, and fail that test with respect to NI 43-101 and JORC. The only reason to have a P.G. is if you work in the public safety realm - environmental, hydrogeology, geotechnical, etc... that has a direct impact on the well being of the public, or if you just want to add some fancy initials after your name and show a little credibility (like I did). Creating a P.G. license in Colorado will not change anything required for mineral resource disclosure. And I believe this fact has been missed by Mr,. Tonko is his belief that the creation of a P.G. license in Colorado will create some level of accountability as it pertains to the issues regularly discussed on this board.

Mr. Tonko is a little off on the roles of responsibilities that should be limited solely to degreed/licensed Mining Engineers. Mine Supervision? Mine Construction? Really? Most of those things that you list do not require a P.E. stamp to perform at the highest level. In fact, most major mine design issues fall in the geotechnical realm (ie. ground control and slope stability), which a mining engineer is not usually qualified to stamp on - it would have to go through a P.E. geotechnical engineer. And design work like pit/layback sequencing only require experience, there is nothing really that technical about it.

Also, overall interest in geology and mining engineering is down because young people do not want to be outside and get dirty. The want long term stability in their careers, not the cyclic nature of mining or O&G. It also, as Clay noted, requires a strong foundation in several areas (math, chemistry, physics, etc.), as all are applied. Geology requires good observation skills, application of numerous other fields of scientific study, and an ability to visualize what cannot be seen, or experienced during one's lifetime. This is why so many geologists can branch readily into other fields and disciplines, in general they are scientists with creative freedom not allowed within the more rigid frameworks of other hard sciences.

I want to apologize to Mr Tonko, whom I sure feels as though I single him out frequently. I do. But sometimes outlandish comments, claims, and beliefs need to be called out, and no one should assume that anyone's comments (mine included) are above this kind of review. (especially on the internet!).

Oh, and Clay, plate tectonics is real and proven through demonstrable evidence. I can point you to some reading if you need to brush up on the geological sciences, sounds like you could use a refresher.

[Clay Diggins]

Excellent considered reply GeoMatt. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective. You are an asset to this forum.

I'm still going to disagree with you on the Plate Tectonics. It's not that I don't believe in Plate Tectonics, I just avoid the discussion of religion on public forums particularly when discussing science. The problem I have is the statement that Plate Tectonics is a proven theory. If that were so it would be classed as a natural law - not a theory.

Interestingly scientific method is really more defined by philosophy (belief) than hard reality. Every respected philosophical school's definition of scientific method has a few aspects in common. The one aspect of the common method that plate tectonics always fails is the need for a control to validate the results of any experiment. Admittedly that control is an impossibility so geologists have taken to the inductive method. While the inductive method has some validity when applied to human perception or the humanities in general I find it intellectually dishonest that inductive method has been elevated to having the potential to prove theories.

I am not of the mind that inductivism can produce proof of a natural law. I have an example that might help you understand my reluctance in that regard.

We all know about Newton and how gloriously he managed to explain and "prove" the laws of motion back in 1666. He did that by the inductive method or "Baconism". He was hiding out from the plague and had a lot of time on his hands. To this day Newton's "Laws of Motion" are taught in public schools and are generally assumed by the public to be natural laws - established fact. They are credited with being the basis for many other theories and proofs.

Well those laws of motion were demonstratively wrong. Einstein used logic (not induction) and the proof gathered from the 1919 solar eclipse to put Newton's Laws of Motion on its ear. The laws of motion that were accepted for 250 years were displaced by Einstein's gravitational THEORY. How can a theory displace a natural law? It can't happen unless the natural law was accepted as a natural law without sound proof. Intellectual democracy is regularly the source of scientific belief (knowledge?). Inductivism has been accepted into geology, along with Uniformitarianism, as providing a form of proof where there can be no final absolute knowledge.

With my current knowledge and experience I am happy to acknowledge that Plate Tectonics is the most likely candidate for a planetary surface geology... Well except for those pesky noncomformities that don't fit into the Plate Tectonics model.

Claiming Plate Tectonics as the unifying theory of geology is arrogant and ultimately foolish in my opinion. Claiming it's a proven theory goes a step to far. Then again it's just my opinion. Maybe that's why I'm just visiting. Gotta go along to get along.

So we have one point of dispute. It might just be semantics but the use of language is always going to be the driver for useful productive discourse.

Thanks again for sticking around and sharing your thoughts.