Well done team!

A bit more about ePLOD:

The ePlod is the start of a new generation of products for the mining exploration driller yielding unprecedented benefits to drilling contractors and their customers (mining companies). It promotes smarter drilling and improves the efficiencies of exploration programs.

The ePlod handheld is a tool that allows the drillers to accurately record the progressive log of drilling as it happens including consumables, chargeables, activities, tasks and comments on rod by rod basis. It performs all the necessary calculations with driller prompts to avoid entry of erroneous data and reminds the driller to enter certain data as events occur whilst keeping the driller informed of the hole status on run by run basis down to drilled, rods, depth & rod string. The ePlod retains the hole history for following shifts.

The ePlod is a process & menu driven and it learns and simplifies its own operation with use. A driller can be fully trained in 2 hours and can become competent operator within few shifts.

At the end of the shift the shift data is transferred into PC where ePlod Shift files are loaded into Plodware® (Includes Plodview™) which instantly generates the Plod reports & Run Sheet reports.

The supervisor can then edit the data to complete the Plod or fix any errors and then the Plod report can be printed or converted to a PDF file for emailing. The file can also be emailed as an ePlod file (editable version) to the Geo or Admin office where it can be further viewed/edited or processed using Plodview. Plodview generates the Plod report in the user’s own format, layout & logo. It also can allocate user’s codes to activities and consumables thus minimizing subjective interpretations.

Plodware® is a database and a wide array management & operational reports can be generated from data logged from all shifts and all rigs as per the user requirements. Standard reports include operators hours, bit & reamer reports, hole surveys, meters per rig, machine hours, consumables, driller performance, meters per hole size per depth, costs, budget monitoring, statistics and more.

The ePod shift data can also be produced in multiple formats to meet the driller & miner requirements and can be exported into the user’s 3rd party accounting or database systems.

The ePlod handheld has many fail-proof features. It is robust and designed to be operated in the harsh drilling environment. Its shift files cannot be deleted unless they have been transferred to an external memory.

The ePlod brings an end to an era of ambiguity and manual triple and in some cases quadruple entry of data minimizing errors and increasing the efficiencies of management particularly in growing drilling operations whilst reporting to both the drilling companies and their clients in their own individual preferred formats from a single version of truth that was acquired checked & verified when events first occurred.

Benefits of ePLOD^® to the Driller

• Improved PLOD information collecting efficiency.
• Reduced errors (for example, rod strings are calculated automatically by ePLOD®)
• Multi-rig, multi-site management reports generated in seconds
• Improved invoicing turnaround times means better cashflow.
• Less time spent on disputes with clients

Benefits of ePLOD^® to the Miner

• Multi-contract drilling performance monitoring
• Less time spent creating cost reports and estimations
• Improved drilling efficiency

ePLOD^® Handheld Features

• Water Resistant Housing
• Back Lit Display
• Shock Resistant
• Shortcuts to enter Task, Hole, Run Sheet and Comments
• Help function
• Predictive text with Mining Vocabulary
• USB port to transfer data
• Automatic calculation of meters drilled and rod string.
• Hole history stored on the device for easy onsite recall

ePLOD^® Software (Plodware^® and Plodview^™)

• Generate PLOD and Run sheet tailored to your specifications
• Users can modify and correct errors easily
• All PLOD shift data stored on an electronic database
• All shift data can be filtered and sorted
• Export to Excel feature to allow accounts to generate invoices

Management and Operational reports:

• Total Meters Drilled
• Bit, Hammer and Reamer Condition
• Driller Performance
• Per Meter Per Hole Size (Per Depth) Cost Reports
• Consumable, Operator, Materials Left In Hole costs
• Task Breakdown Analysis
• Maintenance Reports
• Core Recovery reports
• Costs Summary

Plodview™ Plod Reports

Printed PLOD sheet using Plodview™

Printed Run sheet using Plodview™

Plodware^® Reports

Total Drilled	Driller Performance
Per Meter Per Hole Size (Per Depth) Cost	Task Breakdown Analysis
Core Recovery	Operator Report

(Click chart to see a larger version)

Key Points:

• Drilling meters are at the highest rates in 13 years.
• Expenditure per meter drilled (inflation adjusted) is current running at approximately $300 per meter. This is due to (in my personal view dealing with drilling contractors) a) high demand and lack of quality labour; b) exploratory holes are getting deeper and thus more expensive.

Whereas it took 25 years to reduce poverty by half a billion people up to 2005, the same feat was likely achieved in the six years between then and now. Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history; never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time.

The greatest reduction happened in Asia “home to some of the largest and most dynamic emerging economies” and surprisingly, Africa. I attribute this to the embrace of free(er) markets and increased global trade among nations. Let’s hope this trend continues.

The Mises Seminar will bring together Australians interested in libertarianism and the Austrian school of economics. The event comprises a dinner on Friday, November 25, and an all day seminar on Saturday, November 26. The events can be purchased separately, or together as a package deal at a discount.

The seminar will field a line-up of prominent anti-state, anti-war and pro-market thinkers from around Australia, with special guest Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Our speakers understand that free-markets generate prosperity, and that government intervention is both economically and socially destructive.

The Mises Seminar venue is the Union, Universities and Schools Club (UUSC), located at 25 Bent Street Sydney. This is Sydney’s most prestigious and exclusive venue, and the compulsory dress code reflects that. Ties and blazers for men, and the equivalent for women.

The organising committee for the seminar consists of Samuel Marks (Macquarie University Libertarian League), Sukrit Sabhlok (Liberty Australia), Michael Conaghan (Liberty Australia), Dr Bulukani Mlalazi, Dr Washington Sanchez (Aussienomics), and Benjamin Marks (Economics.org.au).

A lot has been said to defend this tax, one of the reasons I’ve heard is because the youth of Australia want this tax. The people against this tax have been portrayed as a bunch of old people who are only worried about their power bills and don’t care about the future of the planet. We have been told that we should support this tax because it will leave the earth in a better place for future generations. Well I am here today to say I am a young person I am against this tax. This tax will not save the planet and it will hurt the youth of this country the most. Already young people face an uphill battle to make a living for themselves, home ownership is slowly becoming a distant dream, food, fuel, electricity and water are constantly rising and this is all before the carbon tax. This is tax will result in cost of living becoming even more expensive, pushing many Australians to the poverty line and threatens our economic prosperity and therefore our standard of living that we have worked so hard for.

One thing that needs to be said is that the taxes must stop. This government’s taxing is out of control, it’s time we stood up and said we are not going to bear the burden of all this taxing. So far we have seen the government introduce the flood tax, the mining tax, the luxury car tax, and the increases in tobacco and alcohol tax. Worst of all the Australian people have not benefited from any of these taxes, all we have seen is the government spend our taxes on wasteful projects like the school halls, the pink bats and the ever growing list of failed green schemes. So far all these taxes have done is increased the cost of various goods and services without achieving any of the supposed changes in behaviour that these taxes are designed for.

This brings me on to my next point; his tax is also being sold as the almighty solution to global warming, that if we don’t have this tax the planet will be doomed. This mindset ignores the very nature of how this tax will operate, it will not change people’s energy’s uses and will hurt those who least can afford it. The end result of this tax will the carbon tax will be passed on by electricity companies and business to consumers who will pay the tax through already expensive electricity and everyday goods and services. The alleged clean energy alternatives that people are meant to switch to when electricity gets too expensive are in no way ready to be rolled out in mass supply to consumers, wind and solar have not yet proven themselves as affordable alternatives. So what choices are households left with? If we do need to switch our energy sources then it should be left to private industry to make it affordable to the market place, if climate change is such a grave threat to us then we should wait for the free market forces to provide a solution. We should not proceed with an ill-though out destructive tax which will only hurt society.

It is important for us to keep up the fight against this tax and stay united as a movement. Whether you are against this tax because it won’t work, because you don’t believe in climate change, or because of the deceptive way it’s being introduced our strength is our unity. No matter who you are or where you come from we need to keep on fighting this tax until we defeat it. It will be hard to defeat this tax but we can, so far we have been smeared by the mainstream media as a bunch of right wing nutters who want to bring about a dramatic overthrow of the government. But what is so nutty about exercising our democratic right to protest our disagreement against an action a government has taken. The anti war protesters were allowed to express this right, so were the anti work choices protesters, and so are we. We were not given a right to vote on this tax, and we will continue our opposition until a chance to vote on this tax is given and we will defeat it. This only the beginning and with the strength of democracy behind us we can win this fight.

The only group which is comprehensively and philosophically liberal is the Liberal Democratic Party, which has a platform of major tax reform and embraces the free movement of people and capital as well as acceptance of recreational drug taking, extreme sports and sex work, taking the policy position “if we prohibited everything we disapproved of, nobody would be free”. The LDP has failed to elect a single candidate and at the recent election in NSW ran as the Outdoor Recreation Party which probably indicates there are more votes in four-wheel-driving than the free exchange of labour and capital.

Key points from the video:

• 50% Power Reduction at Constant Performance
• 37% Performance Increase at Low Voltage
• This is not a new technology (first invented in 2002) but has taken a decade to get into production.

Here is a better representation of the tri-gate transistor together with a close up of a tri-gate SRAM cells (See this link for a more detailed explanation) :

Firstly, where does the funding come from? It comes from peoples’ taxes. Why not give the taxes back and let people voluntarily donate to medical research? Surely, if everyone is in agreement that the sorts of projects currently funded are so vital they would voluntarily hand over their hard earned cash. If we accept the arguments of vocal researchers, it is a lay down misère that people will continue to support medical research; so surely there’s no worries there? What if for some reason people don’t want to donate their money voluntarily?  Well that should tell us something about how important people really think this expenditure is. How should capital be most effectively distributed? Do we have to re-invent the economic wheel about resource allocation? What is the benefit to an individual of investing in research that has a far off benefit that might not ever be utilized by that person. For example donating to a project that might contribute a drop in the ocean to finding a cure for cancer has to be weighed against other expenditure the person might make; such as updating their home IT infrastructure which might bring the more immediate benefit of increased work efficiency. Or even, dare I say it, a trip to the football with the family.

There is no ultimate answer as to what is the best way to allocate resources; the question is answered by the billions of interactions and decisions that individuals collectively make in their lives. Maybe people value short term gratification more than the long term benefits that research may  bring. We don’t forcible make someone undertake a course of action in order to further someone else’s health. That would immediately be recognized as contravening basic medical ethics. But can we trust “ordinary” people to understand how important  research is. They might be too “stoopid” to effectively allocate their resources. The “elite” need to make those decisions for the ordinary folk. Unfortunately that is what is at the very core of arguments that the Government must fund research.

The second reason that it would potentially be a good thing to slash Government funding is that many of the projects that are funded are complete rubbish. But how do we decide which projects are worthy and which are not. What is needed is some market discipline. People will tend to donate to projects that are seen to be more relevant. How will people know which are more relevant when they don’t have expertise in the area? It will happen the way resources are always allocated. People will develop confidence and trust in certain institutions and will be likely to follow their recommendations.

The current system is probably the worst way to effectively allocate scarce resources. That is, having “experts” undertake the sometimes farcical exercise of determining what is a “better” project. This bureaucratic “Yes Minister” approach flaunts everything we know about the human conditions and decision making. We accept that judges, economists and politicians make decisions on information presented to them based on their pre-conceived ideas. Committee members deciding on which grants to fund are no different. Researchers and clinicians can spend decades debating the effect of a single drug. Yet there are impossible combinations of indices to consider when judging the worthiness of research grants.

While invoking the concept of Yes-Ministeresque, strangulating bureaucracy, it would be naïve to think that which grants were funded was not a function of who the committee was stacked with. Like every industry, there is certainly an in-crowd. With peoples’ careers, reputations and livelihoods on the line depending on funding decisions, it would be somewhat unbelievable to think that the right connections are not important. This may play out at either a conscious or subconscious level, but we know that this is an inevitable part of such a system. Ideology plays an important part too. Should we, for example, be funding more or less indigenous health projects. I study (amongst other things) the effects of illicit drug use. I accept however, that many people think less money should be spent on that and more on cancer. The question entails fundamental value judgments about where peoples’ individual responsibility should be in respect of things that they can and can’t change. Let people vote with their hard earned. Otherwise we merely have an entrenched, narrow, ideologically based system which is immune from community expectations. If you drew a distribution of the ideology and political persuasion of health academics and that of the general population it would probably not be the same.

The current, insulated in-crowd-oriented system of medical research funding has incredibly inefficient practices entrenched within it. Every other field of human endeavor has realized that such bureaucratic systems actually cause a decrease in productivity. Maybe it’s time for a clean out of the system.

(This is a guest post from Michael Keane, libertarian and health care professional)