of several universities were apprised of the fact that geostatistics
is an invalid variant of mathematical statistics simply because
it violates the requirement of functional independence and
ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. These interrelated
claims demand a modicum of mathematical statistics to grasp
that the validity of geostatistics is indeed suspect. So
I am quite surprised that my allegations have yet to arouse
any concern. The more so because Journel, Stanford's outstanding
geostatistical scholar, postulated, "The very reason
for geostatistics or spatial statistics in general is the
acceptance (a decision rather) that spatially distributed
data should be considered a priori as dependent one to another,
unless proven otherwise". What Journel did not reveal whose decision it was! Paradoxically, Fisher's
F-test proved that gold grades of an ordered set of rounds
in a drift displayed a significant degree of spatial dependence
whereas Journel perused the same set and suggested that
one's reading may be "too encumbered with classical
'Fischerian' [sic] statistics".
Journel accepts spatial dependence a priori, Stanford's
President is no expert on interpolation without justification,
and JMG's Editor wrote, "Your feeling that geostatistics
is invalid might be correct". Abysmal ignorance and
gigantic egos are formidable forces in this universe. The
information posted on this page proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
Tolstoy Syndrome is not only endemic among
geostatistical scholars and those who entrust them with educating
future generations but also among professionals who are
bound by Codes of Ethics such as those compiled by the
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and by the Canadian
Council of Professional Geoscientists, whose members are
deemed to protect the public at large.
Institute of Professional Geologists
Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia
Society for Testing and Materials
Columbia Securities Commission
Council of Professional Engineers
Council of Professional Geoscientists
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
of Mining and Metallurgy
of Mathematical Geology cum Geosciences
and Exchange Commission
of British Columbia
All correspondence is posted in Adobe format and requires
the free Adobe reader software for viewing. Click
here to get the software.
I ask Dr R G Font, President, American Institute of Professional
Geologists, to respond to my earlier request to investigate
the validity of geostatistics but I have yet to receive
Mr H McBride,
PEng, Director, Professional Ethics,
was informed that my services may involve the practice of
geoscience and he asked to submit a written response
to his concerns about my work within two weeks.
I describe what I have been doing for many years, and
advise Mr McBride, PEng, that my crusade against geostatistics
is of particular interest to those entrusted with professional
ethics and duties to the public.
APEGBC's Deputy Director, Professional Ethics, acknowledges
my letter with attachments and confirms my correspondence
is under review.
I urge Mr McBride, PEng, to investigate my case against
geostatistics and its statistically challenged practitioners,
and to review his own Code of Ethics before his review of
my work becomes an embarrassment.
Mr H McBride, PEng, Deputy Director, Professional Ethics,
advises that my work appears not to contravene the Engineers
and Geoscientists Act, and that "our file
in this matter is closed with no further action".
I urge Mr H McBride, Deputy Director, Professional Ethics,
to investigate whether or not the geostatistical practice
of interpolation without justification contravenes the
Engineers and Geoscientists Act, and I offer to assist
Mr H McBride, PEng, responds
by explaining how to file a complaint against specific members,
and why he deems APEGBC's Geoscience Committee a better
forum for addressing my concerns about geostatistics.
I explain to Mr H McBride, PEng,
why the geostatistical practice of interpolation without
justification, as taught by Dr Alastair J Sinclair, PEng,
PGeo, and a UBC Professor Emeritus, is at variance with
I present the essence of my case against geostatistics to
Ms J Hardy, PGeo, Chair, Geoscience Committee.
Mr H McBride, PEng,
Professional Ethics, will review my concerns about
geostatistics and confirmed that my information has been
forewarded to Ms J Hardy, PGeo, Chair, Geoscience Committee.
Mr H McBride, PEng, Deputy Director,
Professional Ethics, concludes that there is no evidence
to indicate that Dr A J Sinclair, PEng, PGeo, was "unprofessional
or unethical in his conduct or in his provision of professional
engineering and/or geoscience services".
Ms J Hardy, PGeo, Chair, Geoscience Committee, advises that
her Committee is not intended to be a technical body, does
not have the mandate to deal with technical issues, and
is unable to offer an opinion on the issues I raised.
I report to Mr J A Thomas, President,
American Society for Testing and Materials, my concern
about the application of geostatistics in ASTM Standard
Methods for Soil and Rock, and suggest ASTM Committee E-11
should its validity.
Mr J A Thomas advised that his Director of Technical Committee
Operations will bring my concern to the attention of the
appropriate technical committee, and that Committee E-11
can play a role in technically accurate documents.
I urge ASTM's President to peruse the terms "kriging"
and "kriging variance" in ASTM D5549-Standard
Guide for Geostatistical Site Investigation, and to
have a statistician of E-11 examine the validity of geostatistical
Mr R J Morgan, ASTM's Director of Technical
Committee Operations, invites my to make my concerns
an item of business for the next meeting of D18.01.07.
I advise ASTM's Director of Technical
Committee Operations that I am pleased with his course of
action but unable to attend this meeting of D18.01.07.
I ask Dr I A Johnson, Chairman, D18.01, to have a geostatistician
respond to my questions about the validity of kriging variances
Mr P S Unger, Vice Chairman, ASTM Committee E-11, has asked
Dr R Stone, 1st Vice Chair, to review the documents in question.
Dr R Stone, 1st Vice Chair, ASTM Committee
E-11, reviewed the documents and wonders what is expected
of him except to get in contact with me.
I explain to Dr R Stone that I question the validity
of the variance of a set of distance-weighted averages simply
because computing kriging variances of set of kriged estimates
is the most popular geostaticall pastime.
Mr D Hyndman, BCSC's Chair, to investigate the validity
of geostatistics by finding the answer to the question of
whether or not each distance-weighted average aka
kriged estimate has its own variance.
BCSC's Chair points out, "The qualified person must comply with professional standards of competence and ethics established by the professional association to which they must belong", but does not explain why such professional associations permit the scientific fraud of interpolation without justification.
My very first letter to a CIM President (William E Stanley, PEng) about some Professional Development Program.
This is the second of many letters to a president of the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum.
CIM Bulletin's Editor and Associate Editor emphasize points that would make "Abuse of Statistics" fit for publication under the heading "Forum".
In my final letter to a CIM President (Dr Y Harvey), I explain
once more why geostatistics is an invalid variant of mathematical
Dr Y Harvey, CIM's President, responds that the proper forum
to discuss my concens are Mr J T Postle, CIM Ad Hoc
Committee on Reserves, Mr M Vallee, President, CIM Geological
Society, and Mr K N Spence, President, CIM Mineral Economics
In a facsimile memo to Mr M Vallee, PEng, President, CIM
Geological Society, I pose just three (3) simple but fundamental
Mr M Vallee, PEng, President, CIM Geological Society, could
not address functional dependence because his daughter had
borrowed David's book, and reports he is as critical from
his practical perpective as I am from my theoretical standpoint.
I explain to Ms M Lemay, PEng, Chief Executive Officer,
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, why geostatistics
is an invalid variant of mathematical statistics, and urge
her to investigate the validity of the geostatistical practice
of interpolation without justification.
Mr J Kizas, Manager, Strategic Development, responds to
my letter to his Chief Executive Officer, and suggests I
contact one of the Canadian licencing bodies and complain
one of its members engages in misconduct.
I complain to Ms M Lemay, PEng, Chief
Executive Officer, about the suggestions of her Manager,
Strategic Development, point out once more that interpolation
without justification is a scientific fraud, and wait for
a professional response.
I explain to Mr M Boivin, geo, President, Canadian Council
of Professional Geoscientists, why geostatistics is
an invalid variant of mathematical statistics, and urge
him to investigate the validity of the geostatistical practice
of interpolation without justification.
Dr S Dunton, Assistant Editor, Mining Magazine, The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, reports that he does
not wish to lend IMM's support to my attack on kriging by
publishing my paper, and that his reviewers are of the opinion
that my work reveals a basic misunderstanding of geostatistics.
Attached to my first letter to Professor Dr R Ehrlich, Editor, Journal for Mathematical Geology, was "Precision Estimates
for Ore Reserves" and a few others that explain who I was, and what else I had written.
Professor Dr R Ehrlich, Editor, Journal for Mathematical Geology, informed me that Dr G Koch approved "Precision Estimates
for Ore Reserves" but that Dr R Froideveaux did not approve our paper.
Professor Dr R Ehrlich, MG's Editor, requested Dr M Armstrong,
his Associate Editor, to referee"Precision Estimates
for Ore Reserves" when Dr G Koch, Jr and Dr R
Froideveaux disagreed on its merits. Armstrong's rant puts
into perpective what MG's geostatistical peer review was
all about in the early 1990s.
When MG's Editor wrote "Your
feeling that geostatistics is invalid might be correct",
he attached a copy of Journel's
letter, in which Stanford's prominent geostatistician
pronounced that spatial dependence may be assumed.
Dr D F Merriam became JMG's Editor in January 1995. He rejected The Properties of Variances on April 14, 1995. One of his reviewers pointed out that degrees of freedom are no longer relevant. Both reviews are posted.
This letter to Dr W E Sharp, MG's Editor, gives a synopsis
of my case against geostatistics in general, and against
MG's blatantly biased, shamelessly self- serving peer review
My email to Professor D G Krige, MG's Assistant Editor,
gives the most relevant principles of mathematical statistics,
and inquires why the distance-weighted average lost its
variance before it turned into a kriged estimate. On September
21, 2004, Krige responded, "I am not searching
for any lost variances..."
My email to Professor Dr A G Journal,
MG's Assistant Editor, inquires why spatial dependence may
be assumed and need not be routinely verified by applying
Fisher's F-test. The coauthor of "Mining Geostatistics",
the second textbook on the theory and practice of geostatistics,
has yet to respond.
In my email to Dr M Armstrong, MG's Assistant Editor, I
ask the scholar who cautioned against against oversmoothing
why geostatisticians may violate the fundamental requirement
of functional independenc a little but not a lot. The seminal
ex-Editor of De Geostatisticis has yet to respond
My email to Dr R Dimitrakopoulos, MG's
Assistant Editor, reminds him that each distance-weighted
average-cum-kriged estimate has its own variance,
and that he rejected in 1993 an abstract of a paper in which
this variance is derived.
Professor Dr W E Sharp, MG's Editor-in-Chief, could
not count degrees of freedom for ordered sets in 1998, still
cannot count degrees of freedom in 2006 but wanted his degrees
of freedom in my paper, which I wrote at his request.
I point out to Mr J Drury, PEng, Chief Mining Consultant,
Ontario Securities Commission, and Chairman, CIM Ad Hoc
Reserve Definitions Committee, that kriging variances are
I suggest to Mr J Drury, PEng, Chairman, CIM Ad Hoc Reserve
Definitions Committee, that his committee ought to address
confidence limits for metal contents and grades of reserves
Mr J Drury, PEng, responds that CIM's Ad Hoc Reserve Definition
Committee is grateful for my contribution and "will
work toward an international system which is compatible
with Canadian requirements". Bre-X's salters are
I point out to Mr D Brown, Chair, Ontario Securities Commission,
that it is fitting for the OSC to continue "to
persue Bre-X" but that I cautioned OSC's chief
mining consultant about the validity of geostatistics long
before the Bre-X fraud.
Ms D McCombe, PGeo, OSC's Chief Mining Consultant, advises
that the OSC relies on the mining industry to set standards,
and that the qualified person must be a member of a professional
association with professional standards and a professional code of ethics,
in addition to proper education, practical experience, and
I report to Ms S Wolburgh Jenah, OCS's
Acting-Chair, that it was waste of her time and mine to
have her Chief Mining Consultant praise National Instrument
43-110 and recite, "the qualified person must
be a member of a professional association with professional
standards and a code of ethics".
I remind Ms D McCombe, PGeo, Chief
Mining Consultant, that Dr A J Sinclair, PEng, PGeo,
a UBC Professor Emeritus, CIM's most dedicated enforcer
of geostatistics and a qualified person, approved National
Instrument 43-110, and that Alice in Wonderland
displays more sound science than this document.
I bring to the attention of Mr D Wilson, Chair, that Canada's
most dedicated enforcer of geostatistics approved
National Instrument 43-110, and that the geostatistical
practice of interpolation without justification does not
disturb the Canadian Councils of Professional Engineers
and of Professional Geoscientists.
I urge Mr D Wilson, OSC's Chair,
to investigate the validity of geostatistics by finding
the answer to my perennial question of whether or not each kriged estimate formerly know as a distance-weighted
average has its own variance.
OSC's Chair forwarded my letter to Ms D McCombe, Chief Mining Consultant, who appreciates my views in the context of best practices but does not explain why Journel's edict to assume spatial dependence between measured values is not a scientific fraud but became part of "best practices".
I report to Mr W H Donaldson, Chairman, US Securities and
Exchange Commission, that geostatistics, unlike mathematical
statistics, cannot possibly give unbiased confidence limits
for metal contents and grades of reserves.
I urge Mr W H Donaldson, Chairman, US Securities and Exchange
Commission, to have one of his mining experts attend the
Seventh International Geostatistics Congress in Banff,
Alberta, from September 26 to October 1, 2004.
I ask Dr B Cartwright, Chief Legal Offficer, to investigate
the veracity of my allegation that geostatistics is an invalid
variant of mathematical statistics.
Dr A G Journel, lead author of Mining Geostatistics,
a Professor at Stanford University and a first generation student
of Matheron's new science, makes a mockery of
peer review for the Journal for Mathematical Geology.
In my letter to Dr J L Hennessy, President, Stanford
University, I point out that geostatistics, a fundamental
flawed variant of mathematical statistics, is taught at
Stanford, and ask his opinion.
Stanford's President advises he has no comment on the matter
since he is no expert in the field.
I point out to Stanford's President that an academic with
impeccable credentials ought to recognize that the Journelian
presumption of spatial dependence without proof is purely
a game of chance.
I explain once more to Stanford's President what's wrong
with geostatistics, and why Stanford should care.
I suggest Dr J L Hennessy, President of Stanford University,
attend the Seventh Geostatistics Congress in Banff, Canada,
but to no avail.
I propose to Mr R Fleming, President & Chief Executive
Officer, The Toronto Stock Exchange, that an ISO Technical
Committee for ore reserves and resources be set up.
In a facsimile memo to the TSE's CEO, I request a response
to my letter
Mr R Fleming, President & Chief Executive Officer, The
Toronto Stock Exchange, has "duly noted my comments".
My letter to the TSE/OSC Mining Standards Task Force explains
why the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
cannot be entrusted with the development of scientifically
sound standards for ore reserve and resource estimation.
My course on sampling and statistics was so well received
that a 5-day course on Geostatistics for the Mining
Industry, New Concepts, New Tools, was necessary to
repair all the damage.
Professor Dr R M Ellis., Head of UBC's Department of Earth
and Ocean Sciences, muses that controversial issues provide"a
remarkable effective teaching environment".
I advise Professor Dr R M Ellis that I would prefer a public
debate rather than another discussion with Professor Dr
A J Sinclair, PEng, PGeo, in the privacy of his UBC Office.
Professor Dr R M Ellis, who does believe that controversial
issues provide "a remarkably effective teaching
environment", is not interested in a public debate.
My letter to Dr M C Piper, UBC's President, explains why
geostatistical thinking is at variance with UBC's role in
teaching critical thinking and searching for answers.
Dr M C Piper, UBC's President, reports that my letter and
materials on "very technical scientific inquiry"
were made available to relevant faculties and departments.
I thank Dr M C Piper for her response, and emailed her a
copy of my letter to Professor Dr W E Sharp, Editor, Journal
of Mathematical Geology.
I advise Dr M C Piper that Dr A J Sinclair, PEng, PGeo,
a UBC Professor Emeritus, continues to teach interpolation
without justification, a practice that makes no scientific
sense in any discipline but geostatistics. UBC's President
does not return any of my calls.