Geologic Features
Talc is hydrated magnesium silicate, as is also serpentine, a mineral with which talc is closely associated. Both are common alteration products of magnesian silicate minerals such as olivine, pyroxene, and amphibole. Talc is also derived from the recrystallization of magnesian carbonates.
Talc deposits consist of lenses and bands in metamorphic limestones, schists, and gneisses of ancient age. The talc itself is usually schistose like the wall rocks, and is largely a product of mechanical mashing. In some cases, also, talc results from the alteration of igneous rocks without mashing—as in the case of the large talc and soapstone deposits of Virginia, which are the result of rather complete alteration of basic igneous rocks such as peridotites and pyroxenites.
Talc is known to result from the weathering of magnesian silicates under surface conditions, but the common occurrence of the principal deposits, in highly crystalline rocks which have undergone extensive deep-seated metamorphism, is an indication that processes other than weathering have been effective. It has been suggested that hot ascending solutions have been responsible for the work, but without much proof. A more plausible explanation for many deposits is that the talc results from the dynamic metamorphism or shearing of impure magnesian carbonates (as in highly magnesian limestones), the process resulting in elimination of the carbon dioxide and recrystallization of the residue. Certain talc deposits, such as those of Ontario, show clearly traces of the original bedding planes of limestone crossing the cleavage of the talc, and the rock bears all the evidence of having formed in the same manner as a common slate. Talc and slate are almost the only mineral products which owe their value principally to dynamic metamorphism.
CHAPTER XIV
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The General Relations of the Geologist To Exploration And Development
The economic geologist is more vitally concerned with exploration and development than with any other phase of his work. This comes closest to being his special field. Here is a fascinating element of adventure and chance. Here is the opportunity to converge all his knowledge of geology and economics to a practical end. The outcome is likely to be definite one way or the other, thus giving a quantitative measure of the accuracy of scientific thinking which puts a keen edge on his efforts. It is not enough merely to present plausible generalizations; scientific conclusions are followed swiftly either by proof or disproof. With this check always in mind, the scientist feels the necessity for the most rigid verification of his data, methods, and principles.
The general success of the application of geology to exploration and development is indicated by the rapid increase in demand for such service in recent years, and by the large part it plays in nearly all systematic and large-scale operations. The argument is sometimes made that many mineral deposits have been found without geologic assistance, and that therefore the geologist is superfluous. The answer to this argument is that there are often hundreds of "practical" explorers in the field to one geologist, and that in proportion to numbers the story is quite a different one. The very fact that many large mining organizations, as a result of their experience, now leave these matters of exploration and development largely in the hands of geologists, is a tribute to the usefulness of the science. Also, it is to be remembered that not all applications of geology are made by geologists. It is hard to find a prospector or explorer who has not absorbed empirically some of the elements of geology, and locally this may be enough. Very often men who take pride in the title of "practical prospectors" are the ones with the largest stock of self-made geological theories.
During a prospecting boom it is not uncommon for speculators and promoters to attempt to discount geologic considerations where these run counter to their plans. The catching phrase "bet against the geologist" has a broad appeal to an instinctive preference for the practical as opposed to the theoretical. If the public would stop to note the character of the support behind the geologist, including as it does the larger and more successful operators, it would not be so ready to accept this implication.
Another aspect of this question might be mentioned. There is scarcely an oil field or mining camp in the world without a cherished tradition to the effect that, prior to discovery, the mineral possibilities had been reported on unfavorably by the geologists,—again implying that success has been due to the hard common sense of the horny-handed prospector. These traditions persist in the face of favorable geological reports published before discovery; they are natural expressions of the instinctive distrust of any knowledge which is beyond the field of empirical experience. In many cases the discoveries were made long before geologists appeared on the scene. In others, possibly one or two geologic reports were unfavorable, while many were favorable. In the aggregate, there can be no question that, in proportion to the scale of its use, geological advice has had more than its proportion of success.
Even under the most favorable conditions, the chances against the success of an individual drill hole or underground development are likely to be greater than the chances for it. The geologist may not change this major balance; but if he can reduce the adverse chances by only a few per cent, his employment is justified on purely commercial grounds.
The above comments refer to sound geological work by competent scientists. The geologic profession, like many others, is handicapped by numbers of ill-trained men and by many who have assumed the title of geologist without any real claim whatever,—who may do much to discredit the profession. The very newness of the field makes it difficult to draw a sharp line between qualified and unqualified men. With the further development of the profession this condition is likely to be improved (see pp. 427-428).
So new is the large-scale application of geology to exploration and development, and so diverse are the scientific methods of approach, that it is difficult to lay out a specific course for a student which will prepare him for all the opportunities he may have later. In the writer's experience, both in teaching and practice, the only safe course for the student is to prepare broadly on purely scientific lines. With this background he will be able later to adapt himself to most of the special conditions met in field practice.