Search Documents

By T. S. Lovering

GEOCHEMICAL prospecting extends the age-old method of searching out lodes with a gold pan and rationalizes the prospector's hunch that certain plants are associated with ore. It uses sensitive but cheap and rapid analytical methods to find the diagnostic chemical variations related to hidden mineral deposits. Exploration geologists can gain tremendous assistance from this new tool, although its optimum use is not simple. To bring out the geochemical pattern that reveals the presence of a hidden ore deposit with a minimum number of samples requires a combination of shrewdness, chemical knowledge, and exploration geology. The use of sensitive analytical methods for prospecting had its start in the 1930's in northern Europe, where Scandinavian and Russian geologists had some success in these early efforts. Very little geochemical prospecting was carried on in the United States at this time, and no sustained interest was manifest until the close of World War 11, when geochemical investigations were started by the Mineral Deposits Branch of the U. S. Geological Survey. The purpose of these investigations was to apply geochemical principles and techniques to surface exploration for mineral deposits. Both the research on analytical methods and the routine trace analyses for field investigations were at first conducted by a single group, but it later became apparent that the trace analyses could be done by men of less experience than that required for successful research on methods. For the past several years there have been two groups of chemists, and although their functions overlap, three of the chemists are chiefly concerned with research, while four to six other men make the trace analyses for field projects. The chemical investigations, as well as the field projects of the Geochemical Exploration Section, concern only those phases of the subject that are appropriate to a government organization; every effort is made to help private industry, but not to compete with it, in finding orebodies. The chief aim of the Section, therefore, is to develop new analytical techniques and publish the results promptly, to carry out field investigations of the fundamental principles of geochemical dispersion, and to field test promising- techniques under controlled conditions. Some routine geochemical exploration work is carried on in connection with DMEA loans, and in district studies where the project chief wishes geochemical information on certain areas for his report. It should be emphasized, however, that geologists of the Geochemical Exploration Section are primarily concerned with fundamental principles underlying the distribution, migration, and concentration of elements in the earth's crust. To facilitate the use of geochemical methods the USGS has published much information on its methods of analysis and has provided opportunities from time to time for qualified professional personnel to study these methods, to work in the USGS laboratory, or to attend demonstrations of the analytical techniques at the Denver Federal Center. Typical of the research carried on are the problems now being investigated: 1) Development of rapid and sensitive analytical methods suitable to the determination of traces of metals and other minor elements in various materials, such as rock, soils, plants, and water. At the present time attention is being concentrated on U, Bi, Cr, and Hg, and satisfactory rapid trace analytical methods are virtually perfected for U and Bi. Good methods are also available for: Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Co, As, Sb, W, Mo, Ag, Nb, Ge, V, Ti, Fe, Mn, S, and P. 2) The relation of geochemical anomalies in plant materials to the geochemical distribution of elements in soils surrounding the plant. 3) A study of the dispersion halos in transported sedimentary cover such as glacial drift and alluvium over known orebodies. 4) A study of the behavior of ore metals in the weathering cycle. 5) A study of the behavior of the ore metals during magmatic differentiation. This requires a study of the distribution of minor metals in fresh igneous rocks and their component minerals in a well established differentiation series and in adjacent country rock. 6) A study of the dispersion of metals in primary halos in the wall rock surrounding orebodies. 7) Regional and local studies of the metal content of surface and groundwater in mineralized and barren areas. Many field projects of the Mineral Deposits Branch also require the services of USGS chemists during their investigation of the geochemical environment of ore deposits. From the work that has been done certain general principles have emerged. Concentrations of an element that are above the general or background value of barren material are called positive geochemical anomalies or simply an anomaly, whereas values less than background are called negative anomalies. The anomalies most commonly investigated in geochemical prospecting are those formed at the earth's surface by agents of weathering, erosion, or surficial transportation, but more and more attention is being given to primary anomalies found

Jan 1, 1956

By C. A. Heiland

IN the third year of war, geophysical oil exploration broke all records to keep pace with the demand for increased reserves. Geophysical prospecting for strategic and other minerals also grew in scope. The trend of geophysical oil exploration throughout the war is indicated in Fig. 1. This figure resembles the one presented in the last annual review issue of M&M (February 1944, p. 62), corrected for data on-operations in the last months of 1943 and extended into 1944. The average number of geophysical oil prospecting crews in the field in 1944 was 451, whereas the total in 1943 was 340. An upward trend in the use of all geophysical methods is clearly evident throughout the year. Seismic operations were 67 per cent, gravimeter surveys 28 per cent, and other methods 5 per cent of the total. Seismic reflection and refraction crews increased 181/2 per cent over the 1943 average, gravimeter operations increased 73 per cent, and other methods gained 92 per cent. The increase in seismic and gravimeter operations, particularly the latter, is probably due to an increased production of equipment and the organization of new service companies. Miscellaneous methods gained largely through a revival of magnetometer work, and an increase in the use of torsion balances and electrical equipment. In comparison with the prewar average of 1941, it is noteworthy that seismic operations increased 58 per cent, gravimeter operations 88 per cent, and miscellaneous other methods gained as much as 283 per cent. Unfortunately the expansion in the number of geophysical crews does not indicate a proportionate increase in efficiency or in areal coverage, as will be brought out later.

Jan 1, 1945

By A. T. Miesch, L. B. Riley

Distribution of minor elements in sandstone-type uranium deposits of the Colorado Plateau is being studied by the USGS on behalf of the A EC. A primary objective has been to provide basic data which could be useful in geo-chemical exploration for new deposits. The basic statistical measures — similar to those used in sedimentary petrology—are described. The underlying principle is that the frequency distributions fit or approach the log-normal form. Since 1952 the U. S. Geological Survey on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission has conducted a study of the distribution of minor elements in sands tone-type uranium deposits of the Colorado Plateau. A primary objective in this study has been to provide basic data which could be useful in geo-chemical exploration for new deposits. Among the basic data considered important are estimates of the abundance and habit of each element in the ore and in the host rocks. It has been found that a few basic statistical techniques, and variations of these techniques, are useful in this type of study. Some of the basic techniques have been used to advantage by researchers in geochemistry and in other fields of geology, especially sedimentary petrology; others have been used to only a limited extent. Among the latter is the linear correlation coefficient, which has proved useful in assessing the element associations in a particular rock type without analysing individual mineral separates. In computing the basic statistical measures a scale has been used which is, in some ways, similar to the phi ($) scale used by sedimentary petrol-ogists in grain-size studies.' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS It has been recognized for some time that the results of analyses for a given minor element in a suite of samples of rocks or ores yield frequency distribution curves which are approximately normal when the curves are plotted on logarithmic or geometric scales. In other words, the analytical results give an approximate lognormal frequency distribution. A classical example is given by D. G. Krige2 in the study of the distribution of gold values from a mine on the Witwatersrand. Another example is shown in Fig. 1, the distribution of barium concentrations in samples of uranium ore from the Chinle formation. The geochemical data are analogous to grain-size data gathered by the sedimentary petrologist. Both types of data, after simple logarithmic transformations, may be treated by conventional statistical methods based on the normal distribution. This is not to say that other types of transformations may not serve equally well or better for particular element distributions.3 Spectrographers and other analysts are quite aware of the dependence of their precision on the concentration of the element present.4 For example, in the part per million range the variation may

Jan 1, 1961

By Z. F. Danes

Combination of gravity data and density logs makes it possible to determine the structural relief. Under a wide class of geologic conditions, the solution is unique, or limited to a single parametric system of solutions. As a useful byproduct, the method yields a new way to construct derivative maps, continue the field up or down, subtract regional anomalies, and perform smoothing. In the past, the problem of interpreting gravity anomalies in terms of structural geology was solved along two main lines: 1) A body of a certain shape and density contrast was assumed and the corresponding gravity anomaly calculated, analytically for simple bodies, graphically and/or numerically for more complex ones; then the computed anomaly was compared with the observed one, and the assumed shape corrected according to the differences between the two. 2) The anomaly is assumed to come from a warped interface between two media of different density; the relief of the warping is assumed small compared to the depth of burial, so that the structure can be approximated by a flat horizontal surface of variable density distribution. The first method is a standard technique, described in every text book on applied geophysics, and is well applicable, for bodies with predominant vertical dimension. The second one, probably first used by Tsuboi and Fuchida,' is mathematically more elegant. It applies to the fashionable field of integral transforms (Bullard and Cooper, 2 Tomoda and Aki, 3 Dean 4) and is useful mainly in cases when the vertical relief of the structures is comparatively small. 30th methods, tacitly or openly, assume a density discontinuity across the boundary of the two media, while within each medium the density is constant. However, the recent invention of the gamma-gamma

Jan 1, 1962

By John B. Gustavson

The mineral deposits found in carbonate facies rocks of sedimentary basins include deposits comprised of the country rock itself such as limestone for chemical uses, dolomite for road aggregate, and a variety of other industrial uses of the sedimentary rock. Exploration for new reserves is generally conducted on basis of outcrop investigation, subsurface drilling, and facies change studies while geophysics and geochemistry are not applied. In contrast, rapid development has taken place in the application of both geophysical and geochemical techniques in exploration for stratiform deposits of zinc, lead, barite, and fluorite deposits. This paper will present case histories and show illustrations from such work in the Mid-Continent region. The Metals Division of International Oil & Gas, Inc. has gathered this experience through work over the last three years along the southern margin of the Eastern Interior platform focusing on the states of Arkansas and Tennessee. The exploration work was conducted partially for the Company's own account, partially in joint exploration ventures with mining companies including International Mogul Mines, Ltd., a Canadian company; Bear Creek Mining Company, a subsidiary of Kennecott Copper Corporation; the Mining Division of W. R. Grace and Company, and Boliden-Preussag Exploration, a Swedish-German partnership. We wish to take this opportunity to thank our venture partners for allowing presentation of the various sections of this paper.

Jan 1, 1976

By Jr. Matthews

The Candelaria copper-gold deposit is located in Region m of Chile, 805 kilometers north of the capital, Santiago. Candelaria was discovered in 1987, following a six month exploration program. In late 1986, induced polarization (IP) surveys outlined an anomalously high response within the area of interest. The first test hole bad three intersections totaling 49 meters, with an average grade of 1.97% copper. Drilling eventually outlined approximately 390 million tonnes, grading 1.09010 copper and 0.26 grams/tonne gold. Production began in early 1995 and is estimated at 120,000 tonnes copper and 80,000 ounces gold annually.

Jan 1, 1996

By Allen Rogers

IT has always seemed to me that there is a certain similarity between the work of the mining engineer and that of the doctor of medicine-each has very often to be governed in his actions by conditions which he cannot. see. It is not necessary to detail the unseen conditions with which the mining engineer or geologist has to deal-the further extension of orebodies; the existence of new ones, the throw of a fault, the probable change in grade or character of the ore with advance of the workings, are a few of the conditions which the mining engineer has to determine as well as he can from the deductions he is able to make from what he can observe. Just so the physician is often confronted with conditions that he can not observe. Probably less than half of human ills make a manifestation at the surface of the body from which definite and certain conclusions can be drawn. The diagnostician must observe various things and, from these observations in combination, conclude what 'his course should be to bring about the cure of the trouble. Both professions would be assisted immensely by any agency that would permit them to look below the surface, something that would make more certain the diagnosis which each is called upon to make. The physician has had such an agency since 1895, when Röntgen discovered the X-ray; which, by making possible shadowgraphs of the osseous portion of the human body, advanced immensely the diagnosis of bone lesions. Later, with improvement in the technique and more understanding in the interpretation of what the photographic plate shows, other portions of the human anatomy could be examined and at the present time there is hardly an instance of internal disorder to which the aid of the X-ray is not called. Some organs are made opaque by administering mineral substances; in, other cases, conclusions are drawn from barely perceptible shadows on the photographic plate. Generally the surgeon's knife is directed with exactitude to the seat of the trouble and so not only is the difficulty revealed but the necessity for an exploratory' operation is averted.

Jan 1, 1928

The evaluation of Abandoned Mined Lands can involve the investigation of very large areas of land. Often, the locations of critical areas or impending problems are unknown, and are not easily identified from the surface. Microseismic monitoring has been demonstrated to be effective in identifying potential instabilities and active movement in mines from distances of several kilometers. By placing sensors in proximity to, or in contact with, a high acoustic conductance layer close to the mined zone, large areas can be monitored for potential problems with a minimum of sensors and drillholes. As part of a U.S. Bureau of Mines contract, a prototype system was developed to identify and locate potential instability problems over wide areas of land. Once a problem area has been located, the system can be used to analyze the type of the problem, its size, relative degree of instability, and potential for damage. Continued monitoring after application of remedial measures can effectively determine the efficacy of those measures.

Jan 1, 1993

By David K. Fountain

"The growth of the mining industry in British Columbia in the last ten years has been largely the result of the development of large low-grade copper and molybdenum deposits. There are two problems which must be solved in the search for mineral deposits of this type. It is necessary to detect large volumes of rock containing a low percentage of total sulphide mineralization1 and, secondly, to get some idea of the economic significance of this mineralization. The standard geophysical exploration techniques available have a varying degree of application in the search for disseminated sulphide de-posits. The electrical methods, and the induced polarization method in particular, are the most successful direct methods, and magnetic methods have indirect application in most situations. This is illustrated by geo-physical survey results from several properties in British Columbia."

Jan 1, 1968

By W M. Cameron

Geophysical studies have extended seaward in recent years, and the important discoveries which have been made have led to a better understanding of geological processes. A present source of certain minerals, the sea will eventually serve as an important source of desalinated water. The continental helves, in particular, represent a potential mineral resource. The expansion of Canadian oceanographic effort that is now underway will eventually lead to the exploitation of the wealth beneath the sea. THE subject of this symposium, which emphasizes the word "geophysics," the specialties of the speakers who are contributing and the nature of the audience at first made me believe that I, a a physical oceanographer, would be out of place. However, I shall undertake to classify myself as a geophysicist, and shall arrange my remarks on my specialty o that they might be of interest to those of you who are predominantly geologists, metallurgists or mining engineers.

Jan 1, 1963

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

and would also contribute to the post-war employment. -As far as the future is concerned, I doubt whether any of the present geophysical methods will ever be developed to directly indicate ore. However, the geochemical methods and certain combinations between chemical and geological methods now used might be the answer to our prayers for direct and more definite methods of determining the quality of the ore or its relative metal content. Geochemical and spectrochemical analysis of minute content in ground waters, in soil or in plants and trees, living or dead, will be extremely important and I would venture to predict that in the very near future each mining or exploration company and each assay oflice will have its own spectroscope equipped for accurate chemical analysis, not only to guide the daily work in the mine, but also for identifying ores as well as for guiding exploration, geological mapping and the evaluation of geophysical indications. These methods, although they are still in their infancy, promise very much for the future. Radioactivity methods could also be helpful when sufficient facilities for radioactivity determination can be made available. They have already been used to a great extent in oil exploration and experiments have shomn great promise for ore exploration also. As for future surveys of large areas, the exploration for physical contrasts will be made from the air, using aeroplanes, helicopters, etc. Already electrical and magnetic methods have been designed whereby the instruments are carried in the aircraft and by automatic recording the location of anomalies is made in a simple enough manner. It should be possible in this way to cover, say, a square mile in an hour. Later Discussion Replies to Dr Lundberg. J. B. Macelwane.*—Someone has said that if a person knows his subject well enough he can explain it in words of one syllable. The point is well taken and I think the converse is also true. If a person cannot explain a subject clearly in simple words, it is either because he has not sufficient command of the language, or he is not master of his subject. Now it is obvious, it seems to me, that the remedy for both of these unfortunate conditions lies not in less education, but in more. If Dr. Lundberg has met geophysicists who confused and discouraged prospective clients by their inability to talk the language of the mine owner or of the mining engineer or geologist, the fault most probably lay in the geophysicist's lack of sufficient training; but it may also have been the want of ordinary common sense, which no amount of education can supply. It is hard to understand the position taken by Dr. Lundberg. Does he regret his own extensive training? noes he wish to say that he would have had greater success in geophysics if he had been only a mine hand with an instrument and a rule of thumb? As a matter of fact, I find it rather difficult to account for his presentation before this Committee on Geophysics of an emotionally distorted picture of the Report of the Committee on Geophysical Education, after the lapse of an entire year since the Report was read and discussed in its proper place, unless he honestly thinks he is handicapped by his knowledge and training and wishes to warn the whole profession against a similar fate. I regret that I am obliged to disagree so emphatically with Dr. Lundberg's thesis— but I believe it would be dangerous if left unchallenged, both because of the inaccurate statements it contains concerning the recommendations made in the Report and because of the ultimate discredit that would be bound to fall upon genuine geophysics if Dr. Lundberg's recommendations were extensively followed out. S. F. Kelly.*-—The argument that a science and its practitioners can be improved by debasing the standard of educational preparation is indeed a strange argument to come from the pen of a man with the education of Dr. Hans Lundberg. In criticising the Committee report, moreover, he has to a certain extent set up a straw man to belabor. The statement that the Committee report recommends that

Jan 1, 1946

and would also contribute to the post-war employment. -As far as the future is concerned, I doubt whether any of the present geophysical methods will ever be developed to directly indicate ore. However, the geochemical methods and certain combinations between chemical and geological methods now used might be the answer to our prayers for direct and more definite methods of determining the quality of the ore or its relative metal content. Geochemical and spectrochemical analysis of minute content in ground waters, in soil or in plants and trees, living or dead, will be extremely important and I would venture to predict that in the very near future each mining or exploration company and each assay oflice will have its own spectroscope equipped for accurate chemical analysis, not only to guide the daily work in the mine, but also for identifying ores as well as for guiding exploration, geological mapping and the evaluation of geophysical indications. These methods, although they are still in their infancy, promise very much for the future. Radioactivity methods could also be helpful when sufficient facilities for radioactivity determination can be made available. They have already been used to a great extent in oil exploration and experiments have shomn great promise for ore exploration also. As for future surveys of large areas, the exploration for physical contrasts will be made from the air, using aeroplanes, helicopters, etc. Already electrical and magnetic methods have been designed whereby the instruments are carried in the aircraft and by automatic recording the location of anomalies is made in a simple enough manner. It should be possible in this way to cover, say, a square mile in an hour. Later Discussion Replies to Dr Lundberg. J. B. Macelwane.*—Someone has said that if a person knows his subject well enough he can explain it in words of one syllable. The point is well taken and I think the converse is also true. If a person cannot explain a subject clearly in simple words, it is either because he has not sufficient command of the language, or he is not master of his subject. Now it is obvious, it seems to me, that the remedy for both of these unfortunate conditions lies not in less education, but in more. If Dr. Lundberg has met geophysicists who confused and discouraged prospective clients by their inability to talk the language of the mine owner or of the mining engineer or geologist, the fault most probably lay in the geophysicist's lack of sufficient training; but it may also have been the want of ordinary common sense, which no amount of education can supply. It is hard to understand the position taken by Dr. Lundberg. Does he regret his own extensive training? noes he wish to say that he would have had greater success in geophysics if he had been only a mine hand with an instrument and a rule of thumb? As a matter of fact, I find it rather difficult to account for his presentation before this Committee on Geophysics of an emotionally distorted picture of the Report of the Committee on Geophysical Education, after the lapse of an entire year since the Report was read and discussed in its proper place, unless he honestly thinks he is handicapped by his knowledge and training and wishes to warn the whole profession against a similar fate. I regret that I am obliged to disagree so emphatically with Dr. Lundberg's thesis— but I believe it would be dangerous if left unchallenged, both because of the inaccurate statements it contains concerning the recommendations made in the Report and because of the ultimate discredit that would be bound to fall upon genuine geophysics if Dr. Lundberg's recommendations were extensively followed out. S. F. Kelly.*-—The argument that a science and its practitioners can be improved by debasing the standard of educational preparation is indeed a strange argument to come from the pen of a man with the education of Dr. Hans Lundberg. In criticising the Committee report, moreover, he has to a certain extent set up a straw man to belabor. The statement that the Committee report recommends that

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946