The Economic Aspect of Geology

by C. K. Leith

Use of Geology in Relation To Ownership Laws

The contacts between geology and laws relating to mineral ownership are many and varied; a few illustrative examples are offered.

Many difficulties arise from the loose use of mineral names in these laws. The laws governing location of mineral deposits in Cuba are so framed that iron ores may be located and claimed from the government either as "iron ores" or as "bog ores and yellow ochers." Some of the important ores of eastern Cuba, now being extensively used in the United States, came into litigation because rival claimants had overlapping claims under the two classifications. The wording of the law is of course ambiguous, and suggests that geologists did not have a hand in its framing. To establish title to these claims it was necessary to show whether these ores had been rightfully located as iron ores, or whether they should have been located as bog ores and yellow ochers. This involved an analysis of the geological conditions, to show that the ores are the result of normal weathering and concentration in place of the underlying rocks—an origin common to many iron ore deposits,—and that they do not have the characteristic origin of bog ores. In short, the question was settled on the scientific principles of origin of ores and of metamorphic geology.

The efforts of our federal government to frame and apply mining laws to public lands have involved extensive geological and mining surveys by the United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines. The land classification work for this purpose by the Geological Survey has been of wide scope. The recently enacted leasing law, which opens up government lands for exploration of coal, oil, potash, and phosphate, requires carefully prepared geologic data for its proper administration.

State governments also have initiated surveys of an exploring nature for taxing and other public purposes (see pp. 306, 311).

In the United States there is a wide use of geologists as witnesses in litigation affecting "extralateral rights." The federal mining law gives the owner of the claim containing the "apex" or top of a mineral vein or lode the right to follow the vein down the dip, with certain limitations, even though this takes him on to adjacent properties under other ownership. Where two branches of a vein are followed down from separate claims, the owner of the oldest claim is entitled to the vein below the point of junction. The law was framed to validate a procedure more or less established by mining custom. It was obviously framed with a very simple and precise conception in mind—namely, a simple vein definitely and easily followed, without much interruption or contortion.

In nature, however, veins or lodes have a most astonishing variety of form and occurrence, making it difficult to frame a definition that is comprehensive and at the same time sufficiently precise for all cases. A commonly used definition of a vein or lode is a mineralized mass of rock which is followed for purposes of finding ore. The mineral matter may be continuous or discontinuous. There may be one definite wall, or two walls, or none at all. There may be associated gouges and altered or mineralized rock. The vein may consist of almost any combination of the elements of mineral matter, walls, gouges, and mineralized rock. Instead of being a simple tabular sheet, a vein may have almost any conceivable shape; it may consist of multiple strands of most complex relations; it may have branches and cross-over connections. It may be a more or less mineralized sedimentary formation with limits determined by original deposition. It is very often bent or folded, and even more often faulted; the faulting may be of great complexity, making it extremely difficult to follow the vein. The vein may be cut by other veins of different ages, which in places may be hard to distinguish one from another. Erosion working down on a complex vein displaced by faulting and folding may bring several parts of the same vein to the surface, developing what seem to be separate vein apices. Where there are many veins close together, it may be difficult to determine whether the entire mass should be considered a unit vein or lode (a "broad lode"), or whether each vein should be considered independently under the law.

The geologic aspects of these problems are obvious. There are few mining districts where the vein conditions are so simple that no geological problems are left to be solved with relation to extralateral rights. In the early stages of the mining, separate operations may be carried on for a considerable time in a district without mutual interference; but as mining is carried down the dip, what seemed to be separate veins may be found to be parts of the same vein or parts of a complex vein system, and separate mining organizations are thus brought into conflict. It then becomes necessary either to consolidate the ownerships or to go to the courts to see which claim has the extralateral rights. In either case, the geologist is called on to play a large part,—in the valuation of rights for the purpose of combination, or in litigation to settle apex rights. A geologic survey of the conditions is a prerequisite. In order to get the needed information for the courtroom, it may be necessary to go further, and to conduct extensive underground exploration under geologic direction. Some of the most intensive and complete geological surveys of mineral resources in existence have been done for litigation purposes. The study in these cases is not empirical, but goes into every conceivable scientific aspect of the situation which may throw any light on the underground conditions—the source of the ores, the nature and source of the solutions which deposited them, their paths of travel, the structural and metamorphic conditions, the mineralogical and chemical character of the ores and rocks, and even broader questions of geologic age. The many volumes of testimony which have accumulated during famous apex trials cover almost every phase of geology, and are important primary sources for the student of economic geology.

It is often argued that strictly scientific, impartial geologic work is impossible in connection with one of these trials, because the viewpoint is warped by the desire to win. The sharp contrast in the views of experts on the two sides is cited in evidence.

There is no denying the fact that the conditions of a trial tend toward a certain warp in scientific perspective. On the other hand, the very existence of competitive and opposing interests leads to the most intensive detailed study, and to complete disclosure of the facts. In most cases there are no substantial differences in the statements of scientific fact by reputable experts on the two sides, although there may be wide differences in the inferences drawn from these facts. The failure to note a fact, or any distortion or misstatement of a fact, is followed so quickly by correction or criticism from the other side, that the professional witness usually takes the utmost pains to make his statement of fact scientific and precise as far as his ability goes. Few scientific treatises in geology contain any more accurate accounts of mineral deposits than testimony in cases of this sort. If every student of geology, early in his career, could have a day on the witness stand on a geologic problem, under both direct and cross examination, he would learn once and for all the necessity for close and accurate thinking, the difference between a fact and an inference, and the difference between inductive study of facts and the subjective approach to a problem.