Some Recent Trends in Prospecting: Chemical, Biogeochemical, and Geobotanical Methods

UNTIL a few years ago, geological mapping, the study of ore boulders, and different geophysical methods were the principal means used in the systematic search for mineral deposits covered by a layer of disintegration products or soil. These methods have been developed to a high stage of perfection as far as the geometrical definition of the conductor is considered. Use of geophysical methods in prospecting is based on the fact that an ore body differs from the country rock not only geologically but also in its physical properties. The general drawbacks and complications included in the use of geophysical methods are well known to everyone who has been using them, so need not be entered into here in detail. One of the more important ones is the fact that geophysical methods are unable to furnish information concerning the chemical composition of the ore bodies responsible for the indications. Further, the ores of many metals, such as silver, gold, beryllium, zinc, mercury, tin, lead, vanadium, antimony, chromium. molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, cobalt, nickel, and the platinum metals cannot be directly located by known geophysical methods, owing to lack of physical characteristics suitable for distinguishing them from the country rock. Thus it is quite natural that efforts have been made to develop direct methods for prospecting and locating ore bodies of the elements named. Known as chemical, biogeo-chemical, and geobotanical methods of prospecting, these have been much improved during recent years. A brief review of these methods and of some results obtained with them will be presented in the following, on the basis of available information and my own experience.