Using Direct Methods Aid Exploration Productivity

Locating and defining an ore body with minerals or metals that can be recovered at a profit is the objective of minerals exploration. Direct exploration involves examining and sampling rocks either in outcrop, underground exposure, drill core, or cuttings. Indirect exploration infers the measurement of some physical, chemical, or biological factor that reflects the possible presence of the metal or mineral of interest, or a structure that may act to collect, concentrate, or otherwise favor the presence of the desired commodity. Included here are all forms of geophysical, geochemical, or geotech-nical prospecting. In recent years, indirect exploration has given rise to an impressive number of specialists and a variety of techniques. Less impressive is the success rate or productivity of the modern explorationist. Exploration Productivity Losing Ground Judging from the low number of mine openings or mine discoveries in recent years, the exploration industry is not as productive as it once was. Many will take umbrage at this judgment, but a review of the literature will support this statement. In Canada, from 1951 through 1960, there was an average of 5.6 discoveries a year. From 1961 through 1976 there were only four a year. This nearly 30% reduction occurred despite a massive increase in exploration funding. From 1950 to 1955, the Canadian mining industry spent $5 million (1975 dollars) for each minable deposit found. During the period 1970 to 1975, the cost was $25 million for each one found. The industry was spending five times as much and finding 30% less than a generation earlier. This is not indicative of a productive endeavor. The loss in productivity is even more apparent to explorationists who wander the western US, and are awed by the thoroughness and discovery rate of those early prospectors who explored from 1850-1920. The "old-timers" missed very little. They used pans and crude chemical tests in place of plasma or X-ray fluorescent assay techniques. But, they found ore bodies that led to mines. Today, the best prospecting areas are pockmarked by the hand dug pits, trenches, and shafts left by our predecessors. The success or productivity of the old-timers may be attributed to any or all of several factors. Granted, they were looking at virgin ground and at deposits that in many places were exposed. The factor most critical is, however, that they employed direct exploration methods. They walked over areas of interest, traversed swamps and mountains, and followed "colors" in stream gravels to their source. They also chipped rocks, dug pits, trenched along structures, and followed the "leads." Many of today's explorationists, on the other hand, adopt a more sophisticated approach. A geologic model is conjured up so the exploration team "knows" models, but the model should be applied at a later stage in the exploration effort. J. D. Ridge has written an excellent article on the role and timing of models. Geologists should collect and assemble data, facts, and observations and fit these into a model and not conceive a model and seek data to prove their vision. Further, many exploration managers are adept and talented at devising exploration programs. They can program and use modern exploration techniques and tools. They can apply these and their modeling capacity to assemble a glittering array of targets. It would appear that in all too many instances, creating targets has been equated with and is considered being productive. As noted, finding ore bodies is being productive in exploration. Creating targets may or may not lead to ore bodies. As an end result, locating targets is not productive exploration. How then does one foster productivity in exploration? Some suggestions are to increase the use of direct methods, follow the methods and philosophies of old-timers, look at more rocks, do more field work, use foot traverses, and do more drilling. It may be argued that this is what the old-timers have done and we would then be hoping to find