Current attitudes by exploration companies towards working on
another party's exploration permit or equivalent vary widely.
That this is so is due to the virtual absence, on the one hand, of
anything in the mining legislation in any jurisdiction that
establishes what are the exclusive rights to explore, as opposed to
apply for a mining tenement, that the grant of such an authority
conveys on the holder, and on the other hand, of any code of
ethics or set of guidelines to proper practise. By contrast, in most states and territories, if not all, it is an
offence to enter onto a mining tenement, other than to cross it,
without the consent of the holder, although until recently most
field personnel would have been unaware of this and most
explorers would have transgressed at one time or another. A similar vacuum exists where aerial surveys are concerned.
There are in fact no guidelines. It has always been assumed that
a party wishing to carry out such a survey was free to do so,
without even an obligation to notify the holders of any tenements
or permits in the area to be surveyed, let alone make available to
them any data from the survey. Concepts of 'geophysical
trespass' now being tested in the US also raise the possibility that
data won from adjoining ground using geophysical techniques
may be privileged. Attitudes now appear to be changing. In the absence of
legislation or any code of practise, what does the industry regard
as ethical behaviour? Do we need to define the rights and
obligations of various parties more clearly, and if so, what should
they be and to what extent will it be necessary to confirm them
by legislation as opposed to adopting a code of practise? Will
the existence of such a code in fact improve corporate practise?