The Economic Aspect of Geology

by C. K. Leith

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.

Partly Explored Versus Virgin Territories

In selecting an area to work, the geologic explorer will naturally consider various factors mentioned in succeeding paragraphs; but the natural first impulse is to start for some place where no one else has been, and to keep away from the older principal mining camps,—on the assumption that such grounds have been thoroughly explored and that their geological conditions bearing on exploration are fully understood. It is safe to say that very few mineral districts are thoroughly understood and explored. Numerous important discoveries of recent years have been in the extensions of old mines and old districts; and when one considers the scale of even the most extensive mine openings in comparison with the vast body of rock available for exploration, it is clear that this will continue to be the situation far into the future. It is the writer's belief that the economic geologist stands at least as good a chance of success in exploration in the older districts as he does in new fields. Nature is exceedingly erratic and economical in providing places favorable for mineral production; in a producing district the geologic conditions have been proved to be right, and the explorer starts here with this general pragmatic advantage. The explorer here has another great advantage, that much essential information has been gathered which can be built into his plan of operations. He can start, scientifically and practically, where the other man left off. One of the best-known economic geologists has maintained that the more previous work done, the better, because it furnished him more tools to work with. There is no such thing as "skimming the cream" from a geologic problem; there is no end in sight in the search for more knowledge.

This attitude toward the problem of exploration has also proved advantageous on the business or financial side. A successful backer of mineral enterprises once remarked that his best prospecting was done from the rear platform of a private car,—meaning that this mode of transportation had carried him to the center of important mining activities, where the chances for large financial success showed a better percentage than in more general and miscellaneous exploration.