Reflections Of A Treasure Hunter On Ore Science And Ore Search

Reviewing events in the minerals industry, in economic geology, and in my own exploration work, I find that the most compelling subject for comment is the increasing ferment in ore deposits theory. New discoveries and continued investigations of bedded deposits of lead and zinc, copper, iron, uranium, etc., coupled with the availability of much new and significant data from sedimentary and metamorphic petrology, geochemistry, and oceanography, has led many economic geologists like myself to become disenchanted with former simplistic notions. Now disenchantment among serious people should presuppose both valid objections to the old, and valid new substitutes. I can sum up my own position and, I believe, what most of the recent writers on ore deposits theory are trying to tell us, by saying that a physico-chemical (bench science) approach to a natural science is neither correct nor useful, and that the obvious cure is a return to the study of the geology of ore deposits. More specifically, ore should be viewed merely as an unusual concentration produced, in stages, by the natural processes inherent in the geochemical cycle. In criticizing the conceptual basis of a science, one is involved simultaneously in the inherent character of the science, its subject matter, and the old and new concepts. I have found it impossible to make a clean separation along those lines. As a result, and as the title suggests, these are not-quite-random reflections on genesis, a matter near and dear to all true treasure hunters since Agricola.