PhD in geology (mining) ?

[JrCaspian]

Hello everyone,

It's been a while since I have been graduated in geology. I was unsuccessful for many jobs I applied for (mining or oil & gas indistries) for more than 1 year now. Even in the academic field, it's not easy to get a position considering I got many interviews also. However, it seems I've really good chances to be accepted for a PhD in mining (geomodeling/statistics).

Considering the market is not really good today for geologists in the mining industry, do you think it is worth making a PhD and loose 3 years without any conviction to get a job after being graduated ?

Thank you in advance for replying.

Jcasp.

[trulytriaxial]

I'm doing my masters in mining geomechanics from a mining school right now. Here's my take on this issue. I'm EXTREMELY disillusioned by the quality of PhDs being churned out by even the top mining schools in geology/geomechanics. The 'best' quality of research comes from Aus/US/Canada and even that isn't anywhere close to the research being carried out by geologists in the petroleum/geosciences sectors. Most research in mining geology is qualitative and empirical (extremely site specific). Currently, there's a bad case of replacing apples with oranges for PhD dissertations to show 'new' work ("Oh look, XYZ software/model worked for sandstone. Why don't we hire a PhD student and do the exact same thing using ABC software instead and have a student graduate? They will have enough work to do because they'll have to run 300 simulations beofre they can graduate."). If your end objective is a job, you are better off with a masters and maybe an EIT/PE. You can easily land one in a consulting company or a mining company. Quite a few PhDs (recent graduates) that I know of are struggling to find jobs since they are being kicked out of interviews for being overqualified in technical areas and not sufficiently in 'leadership'. Mining companies/consultants want someone they can mould to suit their needs and a candidate with a BS/MS is best suited for that.

 

That said, if geostatistics is what you're interested in (which isn't what the conventional qualitative/observational geology is all about), most high quality research in geostatistics is being carried out in the petroleum and geoscience groups rather than mining research groups. A PhD should take anywhere from 4-6 years and you are more likely to land a $130k+ job with an oil or consulting company.

 

As far as the research itself is concerned, quantitative = good, qualitative = bad from the POV of landing a job.

Edited June 20, 2015 by trulytriaxial

[JrCaspian]

Thank you for this overview, I agree with you in most parts. Let's say I'm interested in making a PhD in the mining field to learn new technologies/software that would complete my current geological and geophysical background. Ending up in a consulting company is currently my objective since I'm established in Europe and companies here seem to look for high profiles with several experiences in geomodeling. Even in the O&G field, a geologist from a well-known company told me they are looking specifically people with a PhD specifically suited to their job requirements (which means specialization with ABC software). On the other hand, geostatistics is probably useless since I don't really know whether there is a need of people who can take sharp decisions and bring guidance on risk-assessment for exploration activities.

[GeoDUDE!]

Learning new software is not a good reason to do a PhD in Earth Sciences. The requirement for a PhD is much greater than learning new software: you are better served just learning it on your own (even if you have to pay out of hand). 

 

 

 If the job you want requires you to get a PhD, then get the PhD. 

Edited June 20, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[trulytriaxial]

I agree with GeoDUDE. If the job requires a PhD (which is a little surprising for mining), get the PhD as quickly as possible. Learning a software is different from getting a PhD. Anyone can be trained to do that. If you want to learn a new technology, you are better off working in the industry because you'll be exposed to new technologies. Working inside a research group is probably going to only expose you to the technology being used by that group, which may not be representative of the industry.

 

Good luck!