Loading…
23
I think office-based geology work gets a bad rap from field crews
In my experience, there's a big split in geology jobs where field teams often dismiss office work as less real. At my old firm, the field guys would come back with stories and act like we lab folks just pushed paper. But I've found that sitting with core samples and thin sections can show details field eyes might skip. For example, on a project last year, field reports called a limestone layer consistent, but my lab work found tiny fossil shifts that hinted at a past sea level change. This info helped redirect the drilling plan and saved money. Sure, being out there is key, but thinking office geology is second-rate is short-sighted. It takes both sides to get the full picture, and downplaying one can lead to missed chances.
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
umaf207mo ago
On the Copper Ridge project, the field team spotted weathering patterns that changed the whole model. Lab tests on samples later showed it, but without being there, you'd never know the full story. Office geology uses bits and pieces brought back, but field crews see how everything fits together live. I've seen lab reports get so focused on tiny details that they miss obvious field signs. The truth is, if you weren't on site, you're working with old data. That's why field work will always be the real core of geology.
2
casey_palmer7mo ago
Yeah, that line about working with old data really rings true. You just can't replace being out there.
5