US dataswitch to UK
Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers
preparing technical reports, devising solutions to problems of land reclamation and water and air pollution and preparing schedules. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: preparing technical reports. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Conduct subsurface surveys to identify the characteristics of potential land or mining development sites. May specify the ground support systems, processes, and equipment for safe, economical, and environmentally sound extraction or underground construction activities. May inspect areas for unsafe geological conditions, equipment, and working conditions. May design, implement, and coordinate mine safety programs. The job title says “mining”, “geological engineers” or “including mining safety engineers”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But mining and geological engineers, including mining safety engineers is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 27%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 73%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 36 out of 100 (30–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 18 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for mining and geological engineers, including mining safety engineers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
4 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing technical reports
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare technical reports for use by mining, engineering, and management personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing technical reports from mine data and findings is document work software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing schedules, reports and estimates of the costs involved in developing and operating mines
This is reading one thing and writing another: schedules, reports and estimates of the costs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare schedules, reports, and estimates of the costs involved in developing and operating mines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Cost estimates and schedules for mine development are structured number work software produces well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring mine production rates to assess operational effectiveness
This is reading one thing and writing another: mine production rates in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor mine production rates to assess operational effectiveness.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tracking production rates against targets is standard data analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing, developing and implementing computer applications for use in mining operations, mine design, modeling or mapping or for monitoring mine conditions
This is reading one thing and writing another: computer applications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Design, develop, and implement computer applications for use in mining operations such as mine design, modeling, or mapping or for monitoring mine conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building mine design, modeling and mapping software is programming work that current tools do well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
0 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Staying human
14 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures
This work happens in the physical world: areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect mining areas for unsafe structures, equipment, and working conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether ground support, equipment and conditions are safe means walking the mine itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Selecting locations and planning underground or surface mining operations
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for locations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select locations and plan underground or surface mining operations, specifying processes, labor usage, and equipment that will result in safe, economical, and environmentally sound extraction of minerals and ores.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Mine planning uses documented methods and software, though decisions rest on the specific deposit and carry engineering responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing, implementing and monitoring the development of mines, facilities, systems or equipment
This work happens in the physical world: the development of mines, facilities, systems or equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design, implement, and monitor the development of mines, facilities, systems, or equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Designing mine systems can be done at a computer, but implementing and monitoring their development happens on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining maps, deposits, drilling locations or mines to determine the location, size, accessibility, contents, value and potential profitability of mineral, oil and gas deposits
The ratings behind this row put maps, deposits well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine maps, deposits, drilling locations, or mines to determine the location, size, accessibility, contents, value, and potential profitability of mineral, oil, and gas deposits.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Interpreting maps and drill data to size and value a deposit is modeling work software supports, with expert review.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting or developing mineral location
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for mineral location, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select or develop mineral location, extraction, and production methods, based on factors such as safety, cost, and deposit characteristics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can compare extraction methods against cost and safety data, but the choice carries professional responsibility and site-specific judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising, training and evaluating technicians, technologists, survey personnel, engineers, scientists or other mine personnel
This work happens in the physical world: technicians, technologists, survey personnel, engineers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise, train, and evaluate technicians, technologists, survey personnel, engineers, scientists or other mine personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising and evaluating technical staff depends on working with people over time on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 8 tasks
Selecting or devising materials-handling methods and equipment to transport ore
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put methods well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Select or devise materials-handling methods and equipment to transport ore, waste materials, and mineral products efficiently and economically.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Choosing haulage and materials-handling methods uses documented engineering comparisons software can work through.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating data to develop new mining products
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put data well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Evaluate data to develop new mining products, equipment, or processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Evaluating data to develop new mining equipment or processes is analysis software supports, with engineers judging the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Devising solutions to problems of land reclamation and water and air pollution
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for solutions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Devise solutions to problems of land reclamation and water and air pollution, such as methods of storing excavated soil and returning exhausted mine sites to natural states.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reclamation and pollution control solutions draw on well-documented engineering practice, shaped by site specifics and professional responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing and coordinating mine safety programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: mine safety programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Implement and coordinate mine safety programs, including the design and maintenance of protective and rescue equipment and safety devices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Safety program design is document work, but making it real in a working mine needs engineers on the ground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing mining and mineral treatment equipment and machinery in collaboration with other engineering specialists
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for mineral treatment equipment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design mining and mineral treatment equipment and machinery in collaboration with other engineering specialists.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Original machinery design still needs experienced engineers; software only gives starting points.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting or directing mining experiments to test or prove research findings
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct or direct mining experiments to test or prove research findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Experiments need physical trials with real materials, although designing them and analysing results is desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing air to detect toxic gases and recommend measures to remove them
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: air, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Test air to detect toxic gases and recommend measures to remove them, such as installation of ventilation shafts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Air testing for toxic gases is done underground with instruments, though the recommended fixes follow documented engineering.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Laying out, direct and supervising mine construction operations, such as the construction of shafts and tunnels
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: out, direct and supervising mine construction operations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Lay out, direct, and supervise mine construction operations, such as the construction of shafts and tunnels.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Laying out and supervising shaft and tunnel construction happens underground as the work proceeds.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $106,220a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 6,080in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing technical reports and preparing schedules, reports and estimates of the costs involved in developing and operating mines. What it cannot do is be answerable: areas need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing technical reports is going; inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures is not.
So, given all that: 27% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 73% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles inspecting mining areas for unsafe structures, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to mining and geological engineers, including mining safety engineers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was petroleum engineers: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 36/100 here, with only 27% of the task list in the top band, and “inspect mining areas for unsafe structures, equipment, and working conditions” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Petroleum Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare technical reports for use by mining, engineering, and management personnel, and their equivalent is to confer with scientific, engineering, and technical personnel to resolve design, research, and testing…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Materials Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise, train, and evaluate technicians, technologists, survey personnel, engineers, scientists or other mine…, and their equivalent is to supervise the work of technologists, technicians, and other engineers and scientists. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect mining areas for unsafe structures, equipment, and working conditions, and their equivalent is to inspect and monitor work areas, examine tools and equipment, and provide employee safety…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $79,860 against your $106,220, 24.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 27% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Civil engineers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Civil engineers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for mining / geological engineers / including mining safety engineers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 27% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for mining / geological engineers / including mining safety engineers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for mining / geological engineers / including mining safety engineers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers (United States, SOC 17-2151), 27% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor mine production rates to assess operational effectiveness” (75/100, high); “Design, develop, and implement computer applications for use in mining operations such as mine design, modeling, or mapping or for monitoring mine conditions” (75/100, high); “Prepare schedules, reports, and estimates of the costs involved in developing and operating mines” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers” stay human?
- About 73% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Lay out, direct, and supervise mine construction operations, such as the construction of shafts and tunnels” (6/100, minimal); “Inspect mining areas for unsafe structures, equipment, and working conditions” (6/100, minimal); “Test air to detect toxic gases and recommend measures to remove them, such as installation of ventilation shafts” (11/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 27% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 73% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 18 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.