In response to the cancellation (in May 2004) of the PACROFI meeting in Kansas (in June 2004) (due to low attendance and lack of submissions) the following email exchange took place on the future of specialized "inclusion" meetings. (I have taken minor liberties with formatting and spelling.- phil)

Ron Bakker
Bob Bodnar
Rene Perez
Oded Navon
Terry Mernagh
Andreas Schmidt Mumm
Subash Jaireth
Maria Luce Frezzotti
Roberto Xavier
Vratislav Hurai
Fons van den Kerkhof
Sergey Smirnov
Bob Bodnar-2
Francesca Tecce
Bob Bodnar-3
Andy Wilde
Khin Zaw
Hartmut Beurlen

Dear friends,
I would like to start a public discussion on the future of PACROFI and ECROFI.
Apparently, it has become difficult to attract people to these conferences and to organize it. In other words, we need a more professional approach to keep the thing running. The unofficial and friendly atmosphere of our fluid inclusion club is apparently not enough to keep it alive.
1. Change the name. There are many studies related to inclusion research, which are however never presented in the P- or E-CROFI. Maybe the word "Fluid" is misleading in the conference name. Many scientists prefer to go to more "important" meetings (the big ones), so we have to make ours more attractive.
2. Organize it less frequently, include an Asian version.
3. Install an official organization, like the AGU, to which people can subscribe, and which helps ECROFI and PACROFI with the organization (at least with the announcement) of the next meeting. It has to be more than what Phil Brown is already presenting in his website.
4. Ask more "stupid" questions in this email discussion group.
Ao. Prof. Dr. Ronald J. Bakker
Mineralogy & Petrology
Institute of Geosciences
Peter-Tunner-Str. 5
University of Leoben
tel. +43 (0)3842 - 402-6211
fax +43 (0)3842 - 47016

Good suggestions - here are some comments from my perspective

1. Change the name. There are many studies related to inclusion research, which are however never presented in the P- or E-CROFI. Maybe the word "Fluid" is misleading in the conference name. Many scientists prefer to go to more "important" meetings (the big ones), so we have to make ours more attractive.

This was suggested at least once in the past, and there was significant opposition, mostly from the European fluid inclusion community, who did not want to give up the name ECROFI. I would suggest that a name such as "International Conference on Fluid and Melt Inclusion Research" might be more appropriate. Then, the conference could be held anywhere in the world and we might attract more of the community working on melt inclusions to attend. As it is now, the European and North American communities feel that they have "ownership" of a meeting every other year. You will recall what happened when Terry Mernagh and Steffen Hagemann proposed a meeting in Australia - neither ECROFI or PACROFI was willing to give up a slot.

2. Organize it less frequently, include an Asian version.

If the meeting moves around the world, having it annually is probably not a problem. If the meeting is in Asia there might be fewer Americans and Europeans who would attend, but many more Asians would attend. We saw this happen when Goldschmidt was held in Japan last year, and the meeting was very successful.

3. Install an official organization, like the AGU, to which people can subscribe, and which helps ECROFI and PACROFI with the organization (at least with the announcement) of the next meeting. It has to be more than what Phil Brown is already presenting in his website.

This might work, but I think that the loose, informal organization that we now have can also work - we just have to be more careful in choosing people to organize the meetings.

4. Ask more "stupid" questions in this email discussion group.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers!

Bob Bodnar

Dear F. Inclusionists:

I've been a silent member of this group for years and have observed that many times questions are posted and nobody cares for replying or answering. (Ed: At least publicly)
Perhaps because the questions are of low technical level, or perhaps because they come from a "not-a-guru" member.
I think this really discourages people from asking questions and attending meetings, because it is easy to feel that their research is of little value or no interest.

Second (a suggestion):
I think that perhaps if the scope of the discussion group is expanded a bit, more people would be interested in getting in the online discussions and attending meetings. When I say expand I mean including in meetings or on-line discussions diverse topics of phase-equilibria like development of equations of state, derivation of mixing rules, regular solution theory aspects, bubblelology, or anything in fluid or molecular thermodynamics that could appeal to those of us who work on this stuff, or chemical or petroleum engineers, or those who work on gas processing for instance. I think we have a lot to learn from these people and them from us, and having them in joint meetings could be great interest in terms of knowledge transfer.

The same deal with material and metallurgic engineers who work and worry a lot about inclusions, as I am sure you all know.

Is just a matter of getting together with these people, planning joint meetings, and advertising our stuff.

The 54th Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference, is being held in Calgary this year, next year will be in Toronto.
Chemical Engineering conferences usually have sessions on Natural Gas Processing and Applied Thermodynamics that I know could be of great interest to fluid inclusionists. Perhaps we can joint them in the future.

Rene J. Perez, Ph. D.
Applied Geochemistry Group
Geology and Geophysics, University of Calgary
2500 University drive, Northwest
Calgary Alberta, T2N 1N4 Canada
"Thermodynamics.... is the only general science that will never be overturned" A. Einstein

Dear Fluid-inclusionists,
I have been a silent subscriber to the fluid-inclusion network for many years and although I do not use the common methods, I have worked on fluid inclusions in diamonds for some time. Thus, reading the last discussion, I thought I am entitled to make an offer. Before going to presenting my offer, I must say that of all the nets I know, the fluid inclusion network is the one that operate best. There could be more questions, but many people do get help and some discussion is going on. This is much more than the bulletin board of the Volcano list-serve.

I serve now as the president of IAVCEI - the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the earth Interior and I would like to invite the fluid inclusion community to hold their conference under the umbrella of IAVCEI.

I propose to form a commission within IAVCEI. IAVCEI has many commissions in it. Some have specific tasks, e.g. the Volcanic Eruption Database (CEV) or the World Organization of Volcano Observatories. But many are basically daughter organizations that hold their own meetings and internal discussions, e.g., Large Igneous Provinces, Subduction Zone Magmatism, Granites, Volcano Seismology, etc. More information about IAVCEI can be found at:
There are many advantages in joining IAVCEI (and I believe that many of you are already members). Most important, you do not lose your independence, but if you wish you can rely on the IAVCEI framework. With regard to meetings - you can organize meetings of your own as you do. You can also organize your meeting as a session within the IAVCEI general assembly, or other meetings that are related to your field. For example, you may decide to convene independently and hold your own meeting in 2005, and for 2006 join the IAVCEI meeting in China and hold a session there. For 2007 you can choose between independent meeting or a session in the IUGG meeting in Perugia and in 2008 join the IAVCEI general assembly.

Unlike AGU, IAVCEI is a small organization. We have about 700 members. The meetings are also relatively small and are held in nice places. The general assembly is held every four years and there are many meetings held by the various commissions.

During my presidency, I would like to strengthen the Chemistry of the Earth Interior part of IAVCEI. If you choose to join in, it will be an important step towards this goal. I have made a similar suggestion to the kimberlitic community and we now work on creating the commission within IAVCEI. I know that there is much more in fluid inclusion than is not related to Volcanology, but I believe that most activities do come under Chemistry of the Earth Interior.

1. Change the name. There are many studies related to inclusion research, which are however never presented in the P- or E-CROFI. Maybe the word "Fluid" is misleading in the conference name. Many scientists prefer to go to more "important" meetings (the big ones), so we have to make ours more attractive.

I suggest forming a sub commission on fluid inclusions.

2. Organize it less frequently, include an Asian version.

Hold both independent meetings and session within IAVCEI.

3. Install an official organization, like the AGU, to which people can subscribe, and which helps ECROFI and PACROFI with the organization (at least with the announcement) of the next meeting. It has to be more than what Phil Brown is already presenting in his website.

In years that you do not hold your own meeting you are invited to join the IAVCEI meetings.

4. Ask more "stupid" questions in this email discussion group.



I am in general agreement with the comments of Ron, Bob and Rene.

I agree that we should expand the subject area to encompass fluid and melt inclusions as the two fields have a lot in common. I think the meetings would also be more successful if they were held back-to-back with some other major conference. That way, those that have to travel would get more value for their buck. However, I don't think we should try to expand to far as we could lose our identity. Subjects of a more chemical or thermodynamic nature tend to be presented at other conferences such as the Goldschmidt Conference and a merger with a larger organization could see the focus on fluid inclusions dwindle even further.

As some of you already know, I would be in favor of having an Asia-Pacific version of the conference added to the circuit. I think at one stage there was also talk of having one in Brazil, so perhaps there could be a South American or African version and then we could have yearly meetings with each region only having to organize one every four years (like the Olympics!).

Finally, I think we should try to keep the meetings running on an "informal" basis. I personally prefer to attend smaller meetings where you can attend all the presentations and get to know all the attendees. I think this has some advantages, especially when working in a specialized field such as fluid inclusion research.
Terry Mernagh
Terry Mernagh
Minerals Division Ph: +61 (0)2 6249 9640
Geoscience Australia Fax: +61 (0)2 6249 9925
Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave & Hindmarsh Dr
GPO Box 378
Canberra A.C.T. 2601 Australia
ABN: 80 091 799 039
Try to learn something about everything and everything about something. THOMAS HUXLEY

Coming in a bit late on this discussion and I don't know what the replies have been so far. But another way of keeping the Fluid Inclusion research alive could also be to merge it with the GEOLFUIDS conference. Maybe as a special session. I know ECROFI and PACROFI are traditional and well-established venues, but I think a joint venture with GEOFLUIDS would be attractive to quite a lot of us.

Is it just me or are there more and more conferences and meetings etc to attend? It sometimes seems like I could spend the better part of the year doing nothing else but hopping from one conference to the other.

OK, that's my 2 cents.


It might be a bit out of place for me to comment on the future of ECROFI and PACROFI, as I have not done any studies of my own far the last five or so years but did learn the 'trade' from none other than Professor Yermakov (who!) at the Moscow State University.
I think the major problem we all face is that there are too many conferences/workshops which we want to attend but can only attend just a few.

I have two suggestions:

Merge ECROFI and PACROFI and other similar things into one International Organization;

Organize special session/workshop of this body in conjunction with other major conferences, such as IAGOD, IGC, AGC (Australian Geological Convention) etcI think in this day and age of the web, a good website and an associated web based peer-reviewed (not as rigorous as Economic Geology) journal will help speedy and effective dissemination of information.

Good Luck

I just read this morning the discussion going on, back from the excursion with the students. For those that were not at last ECROFI in Budapest, we had quite a lively discussion there on the future of ECROFI at the end of a nice meeting. There was a general consensus that, although attendance was still quite high (more than 100 people if I am correct) we should have changed the organization of the meetings in the future. The structure of the Meeting was set up when we were a young discipline, and it could not stay the same now - the risk: extinction. I remember this very well, since I was nominated for the organization of next ECROFI XVIII in Siena in 2005.

I DO believe that we should keep our identity and have our Meeting. Being a part of some other large Conferences should represent a complimentary (already existing) issue - not the alternative. I also believe that we should keep meetings in an informal way. This, however, does not mean that also the organization should be "informal". The goals for ECROFI Siena 2005 will be the followings:

- A clear identity to melt inclusion studies. Much more emphasis than before. Specific meetings have been organized for m.i. research: this is a very-fast-expanding field. This should be fully acknowledged within our group, of which they are an integral part.

- Attract young people. Ph.D. and Post doc should join and present their research. That was the case when I was a Ph. D. Very low fees for them, and advertising in the right "places".

- Give emphasis to new f.i. applications and neighboring techniques. The idea is to be more open. As an example: Stable isotope people do work on inclusions. Let's discuss together on several aspects.

- Higher visibility to non-academic world. We are organizing pre-meeting short courses for non-specialists on those applications of f.i. which expand to the industry (eg. oil prospecting, gemstones...)

- More time dedicated to keynote talks and open discussions on selected subjects.

- Low cost.

We will be honored to host ALL the fluid and melt inclusion community in Siena in 2005. Next ECROFI could be the right place where to discuss the future of our Meetings and eventually welcome a new "International Conference on Fluid and Melt Inclusion Research".

Maria Luce
Maria Luce Frezzotti
Dipartimento Scienze della Terra
Università di Siena
Mail: Via Laterina 8, 53100 Siena (Italy)
Phone: (+39) 0577 233 929
Mobile: (+39) 335 625 55 38

Dear Colleagues,

Considering all the opinions so far, it becomes clear that the fluid inclusion community is willing to discuss possible changes in the organization of our meetings, (PACROFI and ECROFI), as raised by Ron. If this is really the case, I want to contribute to this discussion by passing on the Brazilian experience.
Here in Brazil, we also have our biannual Fluid Inclusion Symposium (since 1994, I guess), as part of the program of the Brazilian Geological Congress. It has been a very modest symposium, compared to others in the congress, such as the Petroleum or the Mineral Deposit Sections, but it has kept alive our small tropical fluid inclusion group. However, we have realized that this symposium has been gradually losing its appeal and visibility, with the number of attendants decreasing considerably. Last Brazilian Congress in northeast Brazil, the room was nearly empty.

One possible reason is that, being a very specific/specialized field (although permitting a very wide range of applications), the presentations are generally given taking into account that the attendants are experts on fluid inclusions. This is like talking to ourselves! I think this has somehow frightened the ´outsider´ attendants, in our case, whom are normally there wanting to know the sort of answers fluid inclusion studies may provide to solve geological problems. It is important to say here that most of the contributions in our fluid inclusion meeting are ore deposit oriented and most of the attendants are from academia, rarely from mineral exploration companies.

Our next meeting will be in October, during the XLII Brazilian Geological Congress in Araxá (Minas Gerais State), and I suspect that many contributions that could be in the fluid inclusion symposium will be directed to other symposiums: more people attending, more visibility, better to show the importance of fluid inclusion studies. It is still early to say something, but this is what I think is going to happen.

In this context, sooner or later, our meetings will also have to be subjected to major changes, in the same line discussed in this list. In the case of the international fluid inclusion meetings my views are:

1. Much could be gained if ECROFI and PACROFI merge into one single meeting. A more general configuration of this joined meeting could, in principle, give more international visibility that, in turn, may stimulate the participation and interaction of geoscientists from other fields and from different parts of the world. A more multidisciplinary approach to this meeting, but keeping the word fluid as a keyword, may turn out to be very interesting.

3. There is no need to attach this meeting to a huge conference, as stated by Volker. Perhaps combining it with conferences that are very much related, such as Geofluids, as observed by Andreas, could also be an alternative to be evaluated.

2. In my case (and should also be the case of several other Brazilians working on fluid inclusions), for example, I have to choose PACROFI or ECROFI, because attending both is very difficult for several financial and logistic reasons. So, one single, more broad-ranged meeting would give to geoscientists, who are off the North America-Europe axis, more reasons to participate and submit their travel grants.

Sorry for the long email!
Cheers to all,
Roberto Perez Xavier

Hi all,
There are two major problems: scope and continuation.

1. The scope of the ECROFI and PACROFI should be widened simply by deleting the word ...inclusion...from the name of the conferences. This is because lots of people study fluids indirectly, e.g. by means of stable isotopes, thermodynamics etc. These people will only rarely, if ever, attend a conference that is specialized on fluid inclusions. Similarly, melt inclusions are only marginally used as a tool for studying magmatic systems.

2. The old abbreviation should be preserved. e.g. 15th ECROFI- European Current Research on Fluids and Melts, or to stress a new scope: 15th ECROFI-ECROFLUM - European Current Research on Fluids and Melts.

3. At any rate, the conferences should be organized on a low cost and informal basis.

That's all for today.
Vratislav Hurai


Dear Fluid inclusionists,

In the discussion about the future of E/PA-CROFI we have to keep in mind that only the participants make what the meeting is. Whatever the name or conference location, not much will change if mainly the same group of people meets. Most of us will agree with that.

I also agree with Volker Lüders that a very late announcement may explain low responses, like for last PACROFI (besides a general less financial support for traveling at the time and interference with other meetings). Another problem may be that by announcing E/PA-CROFI only through a web page not all who are interested in the meeting are reached. Even by sending additional emails from the "standard" email list we may not contact all potential participants. In order to attract new people I suggest setting up a committee of conveners for the following E/PA-CROFIs, apart from the organizing committees. The conveners have the task to invite colleagues within their scientific circle. By this type of a more personal contact those can be reached /convinced who may have never thought of attending E/PA-CROFI. By choosing the conveners particular fields (e.g. melt inclusions) can be stressed. The conveners may be (must be) selected in part out of the traditional disciplines within fluid inclusion research.

Merging ECROFI and PACROFI is a must (ICROFI ? = International....). Joining E/PA-CROFI with other fluid meetings may be good if it can be realized. On the other hand I think that in extending the subject to "geofluids" (including "free" fluids) we may lose the identity that made the many meetings in the past successful. I think that we have to keep "fluid inclusions" as a central theme; about other geofluids there are already (too) many meetings every year. If the interest in fluid inclusions is not sufficient for organizing a meeting anymore we can meet elsewhere (e.g. at the expensive! Goldschmidt-Conference), but I am confident that the next ECROFI in Siena will be successful.

Best regards,
Dr. Alfons van den Kerkhof
Geoscience Centre Göttingen (GZG)
Goldschmidtstr. 3
37077 Göttingen /Germany


Dear colleagues,

I would like to contribute a bit to the discussion on a fate of Fluid inclusion meetings. All of us would agree that something must be changed in our meeting tradition.

Actually many things have already changed in our field of science.

First of all fluid inclusion research have already grown from the science, oriented to itself (development of the method, the study of inclusion properties, application of precise state-of-art techniques, etc) to a conventional method of mineralogical and petrological investigation. As a consequence, many large Earth and Planetary science meetings become more attractive for Inclusionists than smaller and strictly oriented Fluid Inclusion meetings.

Second, formal organizations of Inclusions become less active than in the past. Not many people in Fluid inclusion community (especially younger ones) know that there were two organizations of Fluid Inclusionists: COFFI (a part of IAGOD) and Working group on Inclusions in Minerals (WGIM at IMA). I don't know exactly what is a fate of COFFI right now. But WGIM is still alive and Mineral inclusion section at 32 IGC in Florence will be held under its aegis. I hope that some of us can meet in Florence on August and will have an opportunity to discuss this subject informally. However, we have informal organization of Fluid inclusion researchers that is maintained by Phil Brown and is more active and effective than the formal ones.

And the third. Fluid inclusion activity now is worldwide. There are a lot of well equipped and highly active research groups not only in Europe and North America, but also in Asian part of the world and in Australia. These groups are far from Europe and America and their people have fewer opportunities to attend ECROFI and PACROFI. I like the proposition of Bob Bodnar to convert ECROFI and PACROFI to the International Conference, which travels around the world. This way has a lot of pros. I don't believe that it would be good to widen the scope of the meeting by removing 'Inclusions' from the name, as Vratislav proposed to do. In that case it will lose its identity and won't differ from special symposia of larger meetings. It should not be as large as Goldschmidt and it should be strictly dedicated to Inclusion study and Applications. On my mind there are two types of Inclusionists: those who working on inclusions and those who simply use them. Actually many of us are two-in-one. The meeting would attract preferentially those of the first type and two-in-ones. The larger conferences attract mainly the users of inclusions and the problems discussed there are related mainly to mineralogical and petrological problems rather than methodology of the Inclusion study.
I don't think that it is easy to change from well-developed ECROFI and PACROFI brands to a completely new one. I would suggest doing this step by step. The establishment of Asian or Asian-Pacific version would be a good first step. However it will require longer periods between the meetings. Recently we have one meeting per year. What would you say about one meeting per two years? Say last year ECROFI, in two years - PACROFI, or ACROFI (APCROFI) if it is organized, in two years the next conference and so on. In this case the Inclusionists in one region would have their meeting in four years (as Olympics!!). So they would have a chance to participate in other conferences or select which one is better in any particular case.

Sorry for the wordy message and best regards to all,

Sergey Smirnov
Working group on Inclusions in Minerals of IMA,


Dear Vratislav,
I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "melt inclusions are only marginally used as a tool for studying magmatic systems". If you do a search of the literature today, you will find that there are more papers being published that use melt inclusions than there are that use fluid inclusions.
Your friend, Bob


Dear inclusionists,

As a silent subscriber of the listserver, I would like to participate with my modest opinion. It seems to me that the problem of advertising and organizing meetings concerns lately only the pan american community. ECROFI meetings have always been held and successfully attended. I'm not sure that converging the two meetings in an international conference will be a good idea. Big conferences are not as useful as more restricted ones in terms of discussion, and not all the European and Asian people interested to 'fluid inclusions' always have the opportunity to go overseas. I also agree on having an Asia-Pacific version of the conference added to the circuit; it will make a broader audience to attend and longer the time for each region to organize meetings.



Francesca Tecce
c/o Dip. Scienze della Terra
Univ. La Sapienza
Roma - Italia
+39 0649914506

To all fellow inclusionists:

I have enjoyed reading all of the contributions to this discussion of the future of ECROFI and PACROFI. Some have expressed concern and have predicted the demise of these meetings. But, let's look at the facts. There have been 8 PACROFI meetings and 17 ECROFI meetings, and all but two of these meetings have been very successful, as noted by Francesca Tecce.

If the organizers of PACROFI and ECROFI announce the dates for the meetings and present a tentative program and keynote speakers AT LEAST one year before the meeting (as Maria Luce Frezzotti has done for ECROFI XVIII), then there will be no problem in having a large attendance.
Some have also argued that we should join with other meetings and broaden the scope of the research that is presented at our meetings. I oppose this move. What makes the ECROFI and PACROFI meetings so special is that they are small, all of the talks relate to fluid inclusions, and it helps us to develop a strong sense of community. Most of us who consider ourselves to be inclusionists attend the ECROFI and PACROFI meetings because of the emphasis on inclusions, but we also attend other, larger meetings where fluid inclusions are simply one of many tools used to solve a broad range of geosciences problems.

My recommendation is that we continue to hold annual meetings devoted exclusively to studies of fluid and melt inclusions. However, I suggest that we change the name to something along the lines of "International Conference on Fluid and Melt Inclusions (ICFMI)", and that the meetings take place around the world. At each meeting, those in attendance would select the site to host the meeting in two years. Organizers should announce dates and a tentative program at least one year before the scheduled meeting to assure adequate attendance.

Bob Bodnar
Robert J. Bodnar
Department of Geosciences
4044 Derring Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0420

Tel: (540) 231-7455 (O)
(540) 953-2448 (H)
(540) 353-2448 (Cellular)
Fax: (540) 231-3386


For those of us in the antipodes using fluid inclusions to study crustal processes I suggest convening an appropriate session at the 18th AGC to be held in Melbourne in mid 2006. Most of us don't have the resources to travel to several conferences annually or the desire to be crushed into airline seats designed for dwarves for periods of 16 hours or more. (How about teleconferencing?)

I would be interested to gauge the interest from the Australian and international communities in attending the AGC (and incidentally the Goldschmidt conference will be held in Melbourne within months of the AGC.

Suggestions for fluid-inclusion related sessions would be welcome.



Andy Wilde
School of Geosciences
Monash University
PH: +613-9905-1140


Dear Fluid inclusionists,
I would like to come in the discussion of future of PACROFI and ECROFI. What we need is a "Committee" and "Questionnaire". We have already discussed enough on the list server and it will never end as people will support or argue each other. I would like to say from my personal view that I am reluctant to accept to merge into other conferences (e.g, IAVCEI). I am still reluctant to accept to include "Melt" inclusions. We have done very successful meetings. These meetings are source of current advances in FI research as name implied (Current Research on Fluid Inclusions) and informal interaction among us at the Conference (although I don't go all the conferences). We have our own identity and no doubt we have to maintain it. I am aware that melt inclusion studies are on the rise but only focused on the magmatic melts/fluids and the magmatic environment. One reason of my argument is that we might lose the interest of people working for other fluids such as basinal brine or seawater, and sedimentary and metamorphic environments. This is one of the suggestions by Andreas Schmidt-Mumm that he wants to merge with GEOFLUIDS. Melt inclusions are not new. As we know, you can find a lot about melt inclusions in Ed Roedder's book (our bible). Ed goes for geological environments. Melt inclusions are the theme coming up and we can include it in the Conference.

We should set up a steering committee spreading out continents and incorporating influential people like Bob Bodnar and/or Phil Brown from North America, Ronald, Alfons or Maria or Volker etc from Europe and Terry Mernagh or Steffen Hagemann or Andreas Schmidt-Mumm from Australia and similar from Asia region, Africa and Latin America. They should take care of their regions. They should set up the "Questionnaire".

For example, the "Questionnaire" should be:

(1) Combine both PACROFI and ECROFI, box Strongly Desirable box Desirable box Not Desirable
(2) Integrate with IAVCEI, box Strongly Desirable box Desirable box Not Desirable
(3) Integrate with GEOFLUIDS, box Strongly Desirable box Desirable box Not Desirable
(4) Attach to other major Conferences, box Strongly Desirable box Desirable box Not Desirable
(5) Include 'melt' inclusions in the title, box Strongly Desirable box Desirable box Not Desirable
(6) If formed International Conference, the Conference should be held box annually or box biennially or box four yearly etc.

Also include comments & suggestion in the Questionnaire.

The committee will get the majority opinion across the FI research community and direction to make their decision and programs for our future. We should also get the opinion from students and staff and even from industry. Although I am reluctant to include melt inclusions, I will take the decision of the Committee. It will be best to represent us.


Khin Zaw
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Ore Deposit Research
University of Tasmania
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia


Dear friends,

I agree with the opinions of Bodnar, to realize ICMFI around the world every two years in the same informal way as before, but with the divulgation (call for papers) beginning one year before the meeting, and avoiding even years, with occurrence of the IGC. Both aborted PACROFIs coincided with 31 and 32 IGC, respectively whose call for papers started 1.5 years before.

Best wishes,

Hartmut Beurlen