Cambridge Consultant Slated For Breach Of Ethics
Sydney Morning Herald
Wednesday December 28, 1994
The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy has come down hard on the consulting geologist who included a $1 billion-plus profit projection in a report on marine diamond hopeful Cambridge Gulf Exploration NL.
The AusIMM's ethics committee said the December 1993 report on the diamond explorer's activities by Mr Malcolm Macleod - from the Perth seaside suburb of Swanbourne - was considered to be a serious breach of clause 6 of its code of ethics.
Clause 6 reads that members of the AusIMM shall give evidence, express opinions or make statements in an objective and truthful manner on the basis of adequate knowledge.
The ethics committee said the report also breached the AusIMM's Code for Consultants, clause 1.10(b). This deals with members stating "explicitly the evidence" on which a report is based, and to what extent it is based on personal observation.
The ethics committee's report is included in the latest edition of the AusIMM Bulletin, the official journal of the Institute. The report said that at a meeting of the ethics committee on July 18 this year, it was concluded that Mr Macleod should be suspended from corporate membership of the AusIMM for a period of six months.
"Mr Macleod appealed against this decision and opted for the appeal to be heard by the full Council of the Institute on 28 September," it said.
"By facsimile received on 26 September, Mr Macleod abandoned his appeal.
"The council reviewed the case and upheld the decision of the ethics committee," the report said. It also said Mr Macleod's resignation from the AusIMM was accepted by the executive committee on October 26.
The ethics committee found Mr Macleod's report was "deficient" in that:
* when writing public documents, it cannot be assumed the public has read all previous related documents;
* there are no grounds for projecting a billion dollar-plus profit on the basis of one patently unrepresentative "uncontaminated" sample when other samples taken in the program were rejected;
* the acceptance of other people's limited data, together with only publicising the best-case scenario, is grossly misleading and gives credence to inadequate data;
* the wording and calculations in the report do not clearly reflect the speculative nature of the enterprise;
* the calculations in the report are unreasonable projections from inadequate data; and
* it was inappropriate to quote any numbers, and there is no evidence of duty of care.
© 1994 Sydney Morning Herald
Share This